5 ms·

Oh Mozilla, why couldn't you resist the money. Your recent so called "services" are not welcome. You know it. But well, money makes the world go around. How mu

Oh Mozilla, why couldn't you resist the money. Your recent so called "services" are not welcome. You know it. But well, money makes the world go around. How much did Telefonica pay you for the Hello integration? But sure, our surfing history will be secure ... https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2015/05/21/providing-a-valuable-platform-for-advertisers-content-publishers-and-users/ https://blog.mozilla.org/advancingcontent/2015/05/21/providi... Did you guys acutally read your PR-bullshit here? But soon a new small, fast, free, secure open-source browser will arrive and Mozilla will be history. But your pocket full. Well done.

lucian1900 11y ago
> a new small, fast, free, secure open-source browser will arrive Really? How exactly? Who will fund its development?
- nivla 11y ago
  One way would be to keep forking Firefox's codebase for bug fixes and new features while customizing it to fit the needs of the privacy conscious users. It may not be "ethical" but it will serve the main premises of open source and is also doable as a community. A new name would also be required as Firefox is trademarked by Mozilla (See Iceweasel Browser [1]). [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Iceweasel https://wiki.debian.org/Iceweasel
- brongondwana 11y ago
  Jon von Tetzchner. He's got a team of experienced browser devs and fuck-you money from selling his last browser company.
rntz 11y ago
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. Mozilla almost certainly isn't getting any money out of the Pocket integration deal. Mozilla has far more money than Pocket does.
reitanqild 11y ago
FWIW: Reading this on Pale Moon which is basically a rebranded fork of Firefox before Aurora. Can't say anything about PaleMoons security but I like the old design better, the team seems more responsive and they haven't yet (had the chance to) give in to hypocrites and fire "Brendan Eich".
callahad 11y ago
When we decided to add a reading list to Firefox, we had two options: build and maintain our own service and integrations, or partner with an established player who had sane privacy and data access policies. We chose the latter. Pocket began life as a Firefox add-on, and is now integrated into literally hundreds of applications. Embracing that is a reasonable choice in terms of sustainability and value for users. For what it's worth, I do not believe any money changed hands in the Pocket deal, but I don't know that authoritatively.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gcommer 11y ago
  I could care less about their being a third party--we already have that with the search bar (and it's been promised that Pocket integration was just a step towards a more general Reading list API, though I don't know how well that's been followed through with). What annoys me is that baking features like Hello and Pocket into the browser doesn't strike me as "promoting openness, innovation & opportunity on the Web," it just seems like a desperate attempt to regain market share. I believe the root of this change-in-mission is well expressed in a post by David Rajchenbach-Teller [1]: While I personally want a browser that is fast, small, reliable and trustworthy, we have market research that shows us that you and I are a minority. More precisely, we have market numbers that shows that users want a Pocket-like feature and are not going to bother checking if there are add-ons that implement it. I would be very surprised if the kind of users who won't check for addons are also the kinds of users who would go out of the way to change their browser (... or even know what a browser is). [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/RZXaIOG8YiwJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8te...
- pseudalopex 11y ago
  I use Firefox partly because I thought Mozilla's definition of "sane privacy and data access policies" involved client-side encryption. My parents understood that Mozilla couldn't see their bookmarks; now they understand that Mozilla can see some of their bookmarks but aren't sure which. Even if I didn't care about my personal privacy, I still couldn't use Pocket at work because of company policy.
Manishearth 11y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla_is_not_benefiting_from_the_pocket/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla... No money changed hands. Mozilla integrated Pocket because they wanted such a feature in their browser (apparently, so did users), and Pocket already existed (better than reimplementing it from scratch)
- dombili 11y ago
  That actually makes it worse. At least if there was a transaction between two companies, I would've undertood Mozilla's decision. Now it makes zero sense.
  - Manishearth 11y ago
    It makes sense to me. It was a feature they wanted to add to Sync, but they decided not to reinvent the wheel. As far as "third party services" in Firefox goes, this isn't different from the search bar. Both don't do anything until you use them, and both talk to proprietary services. It's just that search is used more than link-saving is.
    - dombili 11y ago
      That's true to an extent, but with the search bar you have a choice. I can use Google (or Yahoo Search, since that's been the default option for some time now) to get better results but less privacy, or I can use DDG to get slightly worse results but much more privacy. I can also opt-in or opt-out for autocomplete. With Pocket you have zero options. You can't even completely remove the so called feature from your browser. I don't think Firefox users were complaining about the lack of read-later feature in Firefox. "Reader View" is a pretty great feature without Pocket and as far as I know it's all done locally without the risk of leaking your data.
      - pseudalopex 11y ago
        Also, I think most people understand that the Google icon in the search bar and the Google result page mean that Google sees their search terms. The Pocket branding is less distinct, and everyone I've talked to outside of Mozilla expects the reading list to be like history or bookmarks, not searches. To be fair, though, I think a reading list is a very useful feature.

lucian1900 11y ago

> a new small, fast, free, secure open-source browser will arrive Really? How exactly? Who will fund its development?

nivla 11y ago
One way would be to keep forking Firefox's codebase for bug fixes and new features while customizing it to fit the needs of the privacy conscious users. It may not be "ethical" but it will serve the main premises of open source and is also doable as a community. A new name would also be required as Firefox is trademarked by Mozilla (See Iceweasel Browser [1]). [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Iceweasel https://wiki.debian.org/Iceweasel
brongondwana 11y ago
Jon von Tetzchner. He's got a team of experienced browser devs and fuck-you money from selling his last browser company.

rntz 11y ago

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. Mozilla almost certainly isn't getting any money out of the Pocket integration deal. Mozilla has far more money than Pocket does.

reitanqild 11y ago

FWIW: Reading this on Pale Moon which is basically a rebranded fork of Firefox before Aurora. Can't say anything about PaleMoons security but I like the old design better, the team seems more responsive and they haven't yet (had the chance to) give in to hypocrites and fire "Brendan Eich".

callahad 11y ago

When we decided to add a reading list to Firefox, we had two options: build and maintain our own service and integrations, or partner with an established player who had sane privacy and data access policies. We chose the latter. Pocket began life as a Firefox add-on, and is now integrated into literally hundreds of applications. Embracing that is a reasonable choice in terms of sustainability and value for users. For what it's worth, I do not believe any money changed hands in the Pocket deal, but I don't know that authoritatively.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gcommer 11y ago
I could care less about their being a third party--we already have that with the search bar (and it's been promised that Pocket integration was just a step towards a more general Reading list API, though I don't know how well that's been followed through with). What annoys me is that baking features like Hello and Pocket into the browser doesn't strike me as "promoting openness, innovation & opportunity on the Web," it just seems like a desperate attempt to regain market share. I believe the root of this change-in-mission is well expressed in a post by David Rajchenbach-Teller [1]: While I personally want a browser that is fast, small, reliable and trustworthy, we have market research that shows us that you and I are a minority. More precisely, we have market numbers that shows that users want a Pocket-like feature and are not going to bother checking if there are add-ons that implement it. I would be very surprised if the kind of users who won't check for addons are also the kinds of users who would go out of the way to change their browser (... or even know what a browser is). [1] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/RZXaIOG8YiwJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8te...
pseudalopex 11y ago
I use Firefox partly because I thought Mozilla's definition of "sane privacy and data access policies" involved client-side encryption. My parents understood that Mozilla couldn't see their bookmarks; now they understand that Mozilla can see some of their bookmarks but aren't sure which. Even if I didn't care about my personal privacy, I still couldn't use Pocket at work because of company policy.

Manishearth 11y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla_is_not_benefiting_from_the_pocket/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla... No money changed hands. Mozilla integrated Pocket because they wanted such a feature in their browser (apparently, so did users), and Pocket already existed (better than reimplementing it from scratch)

dombili 11y ago
That actually makes it worse. At least if there was a transaction between two companies, I would've undertood Mozilla's decision. Now it makes zero sense.
- Manishearth 11y ago
  It makes sense to me. It was a feature they wanted to add to Sync, but they decided not to reinvent the wheel. As far as "third party services" in Firefox goes, this isn't different from the search bar. Both don't do anything until you use them, and both talk to proprietary services. It's just that search is used more than link-saving is.
  - dombili 11y ago
    That's true to an extent, but with the search bar you have a choice. I can use Google (or Yahoo Search, since that's been the default option for some time now) to get better results but less privacy, or I can use DDG to get slightly worse results but much more privacy. I can also opt-in or opt-out for autocomplete. With Pocket you have zero options. You can't even completely remove the so called feature from your browser. I don't think Firefox users were complaining about the lack of read-later feature in Firefox. "Reader View" is a pretty great feature without Pocket and as far as I know it's all done locally without the risk of leaking your data.
    - pseudalopex 11y ago
      Also, I think most people understand that the Google icon in the search bar and the Google result page mean that Google sees their search terms. The Pocket branding is less distinct, and everyone I've talked to outside of Mozilla expects the reading list to be like history or bookmarks, not searches. To be fair, though, I think a reading list is a very useful feature.