12 ms·

A "more private browsing experience" that still features the Pocket bundleware and button in the toolbar thats still not un-installable like other extensions an

• skrowl 11y ago
  They have to make money somehow. They're not making it by selling all of your data (and giving it to the NSA for free) like Microsoft and Google. How do you suggest they continue to exist, if not partnering with Pocket / Yahoo / etc?
  • mordocai 11y ago
    Obviously this doesn't happen, but they -should- exist solely on donations from both personal and corporate sources that are no-strings-attached. Unfortunately, in the real world they end up doing things like pocket in order to survive.
    • wahsd 11y ago
      The huge problem with today's generation; they want everything and they want it now and they want it free. How dare they make money somehow because the same person complaining about the pocket and hello integration would also not pay anything for the browser.
      • joesmo 11y ago
        How do you possibly imagine a non-free browser competing with all the free browsers out there?
      • Karunamon 11y ago
        We live in an era where entire operating systems are free for end users. Not everything needs to be fucking monetized.
  • dagurp 11y ago
    They could at least have included Pocket and Hello as normal addons.
    • sp332 11y ago
      Parsing and loading an add-on would increase startup time. If you haven't put in your Pocket credentials, it's a single "if" statement that has to be evaluated. Having Pocket installed is the common case and the one that should be optimized for. Are you worried that data will go to Pocket even if you don't log in?
      • kuschku 11y ago
        No, I just want 0 code of it on my system. Even if it’s never executed.
        • pjc50 11y ago
          That's a fairly high level of outrage, why?
          • stonogo 11y ago
            How is "not installing unused software" considered to be "outrage"?
            • pjc50 11y ago
              It's a minor browser feature. Most people will never use e.g. the mozilla developer tools.
              • pdkl95 11y ago
                I find it hard to believe that someone with significant karma on HN doesn't understand surveillance-as-a-business-model. Just being a yet another Service As A Software Substitute[1] is bad enough, but in this case these rent-seekers are exploiting user ignorance (it's a "dark pattern"). Firefox has always been a local app, with remote features requiring the user to opt-in to an extension. The distinction between Mozilla "only providing a button" and the actual feature that loads from the remote SaaSS only exists for people that understand these technologies. Mozilla is being especially hypocritical with the integration of these features. During their previous projects (e.g. Australis) Mozilla pushed a lot of previously-integrated features into extensions. This caused problems for a LOT of people, but I reluctantly supported it because a minimal core with most features as plugins is generally a good design. For them to turn around an integrate a plugin that baits people into using spyware is outrageous - and somewhat suspicious. That button needs to be removed because it's an attractive nuisance[2]. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-se... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_doctrine
  • dlandis 11y ago
    But does making this stuff uninstallable and difficult to disable really make them that much additional money? Seems like a poorly negotiated deal if that was really part of it.
    • icebraining 11y ago
      Pocket is disabled by default (the code is only loaded when you click the button), and you can hide the button with right click → hide from toolbar.
      • pbhjpbhj 11y ago
        That's like saying that bookmarks are disabled by default because the bookmark code does nothing until you interact with the browser, eg click the star or type in the "awesomebar". If it's in the default UI it's not disabled, disabled means you have to take steps outside the expected workflow to enable it. Dramatisation follows ... "Oh, this rock I put in the middle of the floor, don't worry it's disabled; if you don't kick it or fall on it then it can't hurt you. Sure, putting it there makes you likely to trip on it; requires you to move it if you don't want to. What's that? The company name on the side, oh that's just the company that asked us to put the rock here. Yeah, we're totally honouring our roots and keeping with minimalism aren't we! No, no, it's not an advert - many of our users like having this rock here. Next week we're going to scatter marbles on the floor, each one says 'drink more Koke', aren't we just being awesome. Ha, do you remember when you had to choose for yourself which junk to clutter your office up with."
        • deleted 11y ago
          [deleted]
  • stonogo 11y ago
    How does the linux kernel continue to exist? How does busybox continue to exist? How does FreeBSD continue to exist? Hint: none of them have signed bundling deals.
    • fhd2 11y ago
      Those are all essentially infrastructure projects that (one way or another) add value to end user products that (not always, but quite often) are monetised somehow and in turn contribute or donate back, because they can. Firefox OTOH is an end user product itself, quite a different case. Note that I'm no fan of the Pocket integration at all - to my knowledge there isn't even any sort of bundling deal or other kind of monetisation involved. I don't understand why Mozilla does this.
      • stonogo 11y ago
        I don't agree with you. Firefox is an infrastructure product; it's how end users interact with actual products they care about (e.g., Facebook, Netflix, etc). Few people fire up a web browser without the intention of consuming third-party (non-Mozilla) content, just like few people boot a linux system just to watch the kernel run.
        • pcwalton 11y ago
          As a matter of fact, we have empirical data posted just yesterday about who is committing to the mainstream browser engines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503653 You are welcome to draw your own conclusions about the viability of constructing a modern browser engine on donated time from a handful of Facebook and Netflix engineers.
          • gsnedders 11y ago
            OTOH, there's the counter argument that if search engines and OS vendors are willing to pay for browsers, why should Facebook and/or Netflix spend any money? It seems to be the classic business case problem of, "well everyone else is paying for it already, and as a result we won't have much affect". I do, of course, realise that FB and Netflix very much have an interest in the web platform, and could undoubtedly influence it more if they were willing to contribute code. That said, it's probably worthwhile to point out to those who don't know that both FB and Netflix are W3C members, and have several people who contribute heavily to specs.
  • icebraining 11y ago
    According to Mozilla, the Pocket button doesn't make money.
    • whoopdedo 11y ago
      So Telefonica is just doing this because they're really nice guys and aren't trying to increase the visibility of their products? And the Mozilla Foundation took on the extra code debt only because they were 100% convinced users wanted these extensions and not because they received a sizable donation from their partner to have it installed and on the toolbar by default with no way to completely remove it unlike every other extension.
      • callahad 11y ago
        Pocket (Read It Later, Inc.) has nothing to do with Telefonica.
      • thristian 11y ago
        Telefonica has nothing to do with the Pocket extension, they just (as far as I know) run the rendezvous servers that support the Hello feature. Mozilla wanted to ship a WebRTC implementation, but it's not much use having webcam and microphone input unless you can send them to other people, and in this age of NAT and firewalls, that needs a rendezvous server. Mozilla had already had fruitful business interactions with Telefonica with FirefoxOS, and a telco seems like a reasonable choice for hosting a long-uptime network service... In exchange for donating server hosting, Telefonica gets to display their logo in the Hello UI. I don't know if they also shelled out money in addition to hosting a service, but 80% of Hello's code is Firefox platform stuff (VP8 encoding and decoding, etc.) not Telefonica stuff.
  • muraiki 11y ago
    Mozilla did not receive any monetary compensation for integrating Pocket. 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...
    • redml 11y ago
      If true, that makes it even stupider. If they're adding even more unnecessary bloat to the browser they should at least be compensated for it.
      • wlesieutre 11y ago
        Maybe, but all the people who had aneurysms about it would have been even louder.
      • Karunamon 11y ago
        In fairness, what amounts to a hyperlink is not "bloat". I wish it wasn't there because it's a thing nobody is ever going to use in the age of Hangouts and Skype, but it's not like impacts the rest of the browser in any way
        • scrollaway 11y ago
          It very, very negatively impacted mozilla's and firefox's PR. Case in point: This entire thread.
          • hackuser 11y ago
            It only takes a tiny number of people to make a lot of noise, but I don't think it represents public opinion. Consider the Tea Party: Whether you agree with them or not (please don't answer), based on the noise they generate they might seem to be a majority, but they are a small and shrinking minority.
            • scrollaway 11y ago
• Karunamon 11y ago
  And don't forget about the adware- I mean "promoted sites" on the new tab screen.
  • eli 11y ago
    I get that people don't like ads, but is that really a privacy concern?
    • huhtenberg 11y ago
      Of course it is. It compromises Mozilla's claims that they still put users' interests first. Furthermore, they insist that these promoted tiles is something that people want, whereby it absolutely bloody obvious that nobody, except for Mozilla, wants this junk. These tiles basically show that Mozilla can act against users' interests and in a blatantly disingenuous manner. This in turn makes you question the rest of their efforts that are branded as pro-user.
      • eli 11y ago
        I see what you're saying, but I still don't understand why it's a privacy concern.
        • forty 11y ago
          Ads on the web want to track that you saw it, clicked on it, on which website you saw it, when, with which browser, which OS, which was the previous page you visited, what site you are used to browsing, what you purchased, where you live, what is your sexual preference, ... and nowadays they can and they do :/ There are many sites that I like and would happily unblock their ads to support them, but I often don't because they use ad systems that want to spy on me. The main problem with ads on the web is not that they are annoying (like on TV for example), it is that they are spying on you.
          • lxt 11y ago
            The ads in Tiles specifically don't track you in the way that regular ads do. It's an experiment in ways to do advertising without being creepy. More info: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/about-tiles-new-tab?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=how-do-tiles-work-firefox#w_what-data-is-being-collected-and-why https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/about-tiles-new-tab?red...
• lgp171188 11y ago
  The "Hello" button automatically came back to the toolbar (I had removed it) after the Firefox 42 upgrade. Thought that it could be accidental and checked on a different machine, the same thing happened.
  • TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    I seem to recall some Mozillian saying this wasn't intentional and explaining why, but I don't have the link.
    • whoopdedo 11y ago
      Funny how decisions which financially benefit the developer have a way of "accidentally" being activated by default. The automatic downloading of the Windows 10 update. Or these bundled Telefonica extensions in Firefox.
      • TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
        Firefox is developed in the open. It's easy to check if there was a deliberate change.
        • Karunamon 11y ago
          Of course there was a change, but that does nothing to tell us if the way it was activated was accidental or intentional.
          • TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
            Well, the commit message would be a clue. If we assume they aren't being deceptive.
        • monochromatic 11y ago
          git discern intent
      • 11y ago
• mbrubeck 11y ago
  The Pocket code is being moved to a bundled add-on: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694
  • lgp171188 11y ago
    Awesome! This was the only way forward for a user-centric web browser like Firefox. Glad to see that they have listened to user feedback (and uproar) and backed down.
  • zobzu 11y ago
    wow that great news! sort of hoping other similar things like hello do that too. thats how id like firefox to be, as a user. would be even better if default off at install ;-) (albeit id probably enable hello, its just nice to not be forced-in for such features)
    • developer1 11y ago
      I was bouncing between firefox and chrome, using them both more-or-less equally. The day the "hello" thing appeared, I uninstalled firefox. Too many useless and annoying things being added to firefox as core components where they do not belong. The fact that anybody can pay Mozilla to have their crappy addon forced onto all users is a problem.
    • rfk 11y ago
      This thread suggests that Hello is indeed being considered for similar treatment: https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/gofaster/2015-November/000195.html https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/gofaster/2015-November/00...
• 21echoes 11y ago
  I don't see how that has anything to do with privacy... it's a button that is effectively an href. Without clicking it, no data is sent to Pocket.
• JohnTHaller 11y ago
  You mean the open source code that you can examine that's never even loaded let alone executed if you don't click on the button due to lazy loading.
  • drdaeman 11y ago
    In theory, you can examine it, sure. But I fear that in practice, it's so complicated and large, it's unlikely there are many humans who can really tell about themselves that they really know how the thing works. A certain part - sure, given enough time to read and learn. A whole thing - quite unlikely.
    • oberstein 11y ago
      You don't have to understand it in this case, you just have to make sure that code path isn't invoked by anything other than clicking the button. This can be pretty easily verified.
      • revelation 11y ago
        Brilliant, you have just solved the halting problem.
        • oberstein 11y ago
          Stick a printf/file write/breakpoint at the root of the code path if you want continuous verification that the code path never executes except by clicking the button. This isn't hard.
        • monochromatic 11y ago
          Static analysis is a thing, and it doesn't solve the halting problem.
          • skj 11y ago
            It also doesn't solve this problem.