6 ms·

Mozilla had already committed to decoupling Pocket following a developer summit this Summer, due in part (presumably) to the vocal minority of users that hated

by mburns 11y ago

Mozilla had already committed to decoupling Pocket following a developer summit this Summer, due in part (presumably) to the vocal minority of users that hated the very idea of it.

scrollaway 11y ago
I'm well aware. My point is that if the company knew its userbase, it would not have happened. I don't care about it by the way, I like Pocket and I use the functionality. But it was obvious that there would be drama. Edit: In reply to the dead comment below, no I do not think Pocket should be preinstalled, and I really hope that's not the message that's getting through in my posts.
- ossreality 11y ago
  I like Google Voice and I use the functionality. Should every single Firefox user have a Google Voice extension pre-installed? It's just painfully stupid in every way. If it was a built in extension that by-default talked to a Mozilla hosted open source Pocket clone, we might be having a different conversation.... but I'd still be annoyed. Just as annoyed as I am that Chromium (yes, Chromium, not Chrome) comes with a god damn Google Docs extension.
- rtpg 11y ago
  I think you underestimate the diversity of the userbase. Especially in places like Europe until Chrome ate their lunch, Firefox users were basically a random sample of the population.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    Right, but at least in the US, there is a significant contingent of firefox users and advocates that are very privacy sensitive. Call it the Jonathan Mayer wing. FF should have known these people would be very upset.
    - rtpg 11y ago
      I hope so but sometimes tradeoffs have to be made. Compromise is the name of the game, and if BSD development is any indicator, security/privacy focus users are not ones to jump in and help keep lights on in most circumstances That said I'm not sure FF could have done better things, but in their situation I would be trying to find some revenue streams that weren't Google
      - scrollaway 11y ago
        There was no compromise necessary. Pocket is possible as an extension, cf the work being done right now to integrate it as one. Why was it rushed out before? What was so pressing about it that it needed to be in "the next firefox version" and massively damage Mozilla's reputation, instead of waiting a few months and passing it without a fuss?
      - sangnoir 11y ago
        > Compromise is the name of the game In most cases, I'd agree.However, it's never a good idea to compromize on your mission statement. How does pre-bundled Pocket integration promote an open web? IMO, it goes against it. While they are losing market-share, Mozilla are not running out of cash any time soon and they are not in a death spiral. They can afford to, and should think long and hard about how they diversify their revenue streams, rather than trying random decisions that alienate part of their userbase trying to find anything that sticks - which is the impression I'm getting.
    - johnny22 11y ago
      how significant is it really? anybody ever put numbers to it?
      - e15ctr0n 11y ago
        The most significant number that anyone needs to know about Mozilla is that the global desktop browser market share of Firefox has fallen 50% over the last 5 years (from 31.64% in January 2010 to 14.7% in November 2015).[1][2] If the declining trend continues, desktop Firefox would approximate zero market share in less than 4 years from now. On mobile phones, the market share of Firefox is so small, it doesn't even show up on anyone's chart.[2] Users wouldn't be fleeing in droves if they liked what Firefox has turned into. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#StatCounter_.28July_2008_to_present.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#St... [2] http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-december-2015-fight-firefoxs-future/ http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-december-2015-fight-...
x1024 11y ago
Wow, the corporate speak is strong with this one. If they think it's what "the majority" wants - let them just ignore the hater devs and leave it. See how far that gets them. They are removing it because it's a poor idea that's poorly thought out. People won't bite the PR.
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  They arn't even removing it, they are turning it into an extension and then still bundling it.
ossreality 11y ago
Wow, what a horribly insulting way of putting that. As someone who initially thought Pocket reactions were over the top, I'm just a bit in shock. I don't think you meant it even, but I'd still consider re-wording that if you represent Mozilla in any capacity whatsoever. Install Firefox. Boot it. Laugh at the fucking toolbar because it reminds you of IE6 with a shitton of toolbars installed. It's atrocious.
pdkl95 11y ago
Given how strongly Mozilla has pushed extensions in the past (traditionally core features pushed into extensions several times), what they should have done is simply offer Pocket as an "officially bundled" extension for the normal download. They could then trivially offer alternative downloads without the extension, making everybody happy. This idea could even be pushed further: they could have several alternative downloads that are simply pre-bundled extensions. Alongside their normal version they could have "minimalist", "dev tools", "max privacy", "social/chat helpers", and the like. Most people would still download the normal version, but this might introduce more people to extensions, who would normally never even know about addons.mozilla.org.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  I agree, but i had heard that certain components wouldnt work as an extension. That being said, they should have extended their api to make it work as an extension
  - ecnahc515 11y ago
    That's exactly why it came bundled as a non extension. So they could figure out how exactly they needed to extend the extensions API after having in built in a for a while.
    - epoch1970 11y ago
      They could have done such experimentation in an unreleased fork of the browser. Or if they needed wider testing, they could have released this separate, experimental branch and clearly labeled it so that people would know what they were getting into if they installed it. Mozilla didn't need to force Pocket on so many Firefox users who wanted absolutely nothing to do with it.
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      Why the rush to distribute it first and figure it out later? Couldn't they figure out the API extensions required during development, but before shipping?
e15ctr0n 11y ago
> Although the company emphasizes that Pocket and Telefonica didn’t pay for placement in the Firefox browser, Mozilla Corp. chief legal and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told WIRED that Mozilla has revenue sharing arrangements with both companies. http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/ http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-we... Can you explain what the revenue sharing agreement is, especially after so many Mozilla employees have vehemently denied that Mozilla got money from Pocket for the tie-up?
- rffn 11y ago
  This would be outright stupid. While I do not want any default ties to external services like Pocket in the browser I for sure hope that such a data harvesting and customer acquisition effort at least yields money for Mozilla to further fund open source development.
- dao- 11y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10681622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10681622
cpeterso 11y ago
The work to move Pocket to an add-on is happening in Firefox bug 1215694: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694
volaski 11y ago
If you ran a survey to every firefox user asking "Would you prefer this Pocket bookmarklet show up by default or not", I'm sure this wouldn't have been a "vocal minority" group. Most people (in terms of ratio) hadn't heard of Pocket and to them it's just a spammy new bookmarklet. Most people are not "vocal" about it because they don't know where to complain. Just because you don't see vocal people doesn't mean it's all fine.

by mburns 11y ago

Mozilla had already committed to decoupling Pocket following a developer summit this Summer, due in part (presumably) to the vocal minority of users that hated the very idea of it.

scrollaway 11y ago

I'm well aware. My point is that if the company knew its userbase, it would not have happened. I don't care about it by the way, I like Pocket and I use the functionality. But it was obvious that there would be drama. Edit: In reply to the dead comment below, no I do not think Pocket should be preinstalled, and I really hope that's not the message that's getting through in my posts.

ossreality 11y ago
I like Google Voice and I use the functionality. Should every single Firefox user have a Google Voice extension pre-installed? It's just painfully stupid in every way. If it was a built in extension that by-default talked to a Mozilla hosted open source Pocket clone, we might be having a different conversation.... but I'd still be annoyed. Just as annoyed as I am that Chromium (yes, Chromium, not Chrome) comes with a god damn Google Docs extension.
rtpg 11y ago
I think you underestimate the diversity of the userbase. Especially in places like Europe until Chrome ate their lunch, Firefox users were basically a random sample of the population.
- x0x0 11y ago
  Right, but at least in the US, there is a significant contingent of firefox users and advocates that are very privacy sensitive. Call it the Jonathan Mayer wing. FF should have known these people would be very upset.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    I hope so but sometimes tradeoffs have to be made. Compromise is the name of the game, and if BSD development is any indicator, security/privacy focus users are not ones to jump in and help keep lights on in most circumstances That said I'm not sure FF could have done better things, but in their situation I would be trying to find some revenue streams that weren't Google
    - scrollaway 11y ago
      There was no compromise necessary. Pocket is possible as an extension, cf the work being done right now to integrate it as one. Why was it rushed out before? What was so pressing about it that it needed to be in "the next firefox version" and massively damage Mozilla's reputation, instead of waiting a few months and passing it without a fuss?
    - sangnoir 11y ago
      > Compromise is the name of the game In most cases, I'd agree.However, it's never a good idea to compromize on your mission statement. How does pre-bundled Pocket integration promote an open web? IMO, it goes against it. While they are losing market-share, Mozilla are not running out of cash any time soon and they are not in a death spiral. They can afford to, and should think long and hard about how they diversify their revenue streams, rather than trying random decisions that alienate part of their userbase trying to find anything that sticks - which is the impression I'm getting.
  - johnny22 11y ago
    how significant is it really? anybody ever put numbers to it?
    - e15ctr0n 11y ago
      The most significant number that anyone needs to know about Mozilla is that the global desktop browser market share of Firefox has fallen 50% over the last 5 years (from 31.64% in January 2010 to 14.7% in November 2015).[1][2] If the declining trend continues, desktop Firefox would approximate zero market share in less than 4 years from now. On mobile phones, the market share of Firefox is so small, it doesn't even show up on anyone's chart.[2] Users wouldn't be fleeing in droves if they liked what Firefox has turned into. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#StatCounter_.28July_2008_to_present.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#St... [2] http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-december-2015-fight-firefoxs-future/ http://www.sitepoint.com/browser-trends-december-2015-fight-...

x1024 11y ago

Wow, the corporate speak is strong with this one. If they think it's what "the majority" wants - let them just ignore the hater devs and leave it. See how far that gets them. They are removing it because it's a poor idea that's poorly thought out. People won't bite the PR.

throwaway2048 11y ago
They arn't even removing it, they are turning it into an extension and then still bundling it.

ossreality 11y ago

Wow, what a horribly insulting way of putting that. As someone who initially thought Pocket reactions were over the top, I'm just a bit in shock. I don't think you meant it even, but I'd still consider re-wording that if you represent Mozilla in any capacity whatsoever. Install Firefox. Boot it. Laugh at the fucking toolbar because it reminds you of IE6 with a shitton of toolbars installed. It's atrocious.

pdkl95 11y ago

Given how strongly Mozilla has pushed extensions in the past (traditionally core features pushed into extensions several times), what they should have done is simply offer Pocket as an "officially bundled" extension for the normal download. They could then trivially offer alternative downloads without the extension, making everybody happy. This idea could even be pushed further: they could have several alternative downloads that are simply pre-bundled extensions. Alongside their normal version they could have "minimalist", "dev tools", "max privacy", "social/chat helpers", and the like. Most people would still download the normal version, but this might introduce more people to extensions, who would normally never even know about addons.mozilla.org.

CaptSpify 11y ago
I agree, but i had heard that certain components wouldnt work as an extension. That being said, they should have extended their api to make it work as an extension
- ecnahc515 11y ago
  That's exactly why it came bundled as a non extension. So they could figure out how exactly they needed to extend the extensions API after having in built in a for a while.
  - epoch1970 11y ago
    They could have done such experimentation in an unreleased fork of the browser. Or if they needed wider testing, they could have released this separate, experimental branch and clearly labeled it so that people would know what they were getting into if they installed it. Mozilla didn't need to force Pocket on so many Firefox users who wanted absolutely nothing to do with it.
  - sangnoir 11y ago
    Why the rush to distribute it first and figure it out later? Couldn't they figure out the API extensions required during development, but before shipping?

e15ctr0n 11y ago

> Although the company emphasizes that Pocket and Telefonica didn’t pay for placement in the Firefox browser, Mozilla Corp. chief legal and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told WIRED that Mozilla has revenue sharing arrangements with both companies. http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/ http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-we... Can you explain what the revenue sharing agreement is, especially after so many Mozilla employees have vehemently denied that Mozilla got money from Pocket for the tie-up?

rffn 11y ago
This would be outright stupid. While I do not want any default ties to external services like Pocket in the browser I for sure hope that such a data harvesting and customer acquisition effort at least yields money for Mozilla to further fund open source development.
dao- 11y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10681622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10681622

cpeterso 11y ago

The work to move Pocket to an add-on is happening in Firefox bug 1215694: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694

volaski 11y ago

If you ran a survey to every firefox user asking "Would you prefer this Pocket bookmarklet show up by default or not", I'm sure this wouldn't have been a "vocal minority" group. Most people (in terms of ratio) hadn't heard of Pocket and to them it's just a spammy new bookmarklet. Most people are not "vocal" about it because they don't know where to complain. Just because you don't see vocal people doesn't mean it's all fine.