5 ms·

Oh, what a twist! In a story that began two years ago with Pocket's integration by Mozilla [1] in Firefox [2], large segments of the userbase spoke out with sc

by niftich 10y ago

Oh, what a twist! In a story that began two years ago with Pocket's integration by Mozilla [1] in Firefox [2], large segments of the userbase spoke out with scathing criticism. This, at first blush, appears unrelated: Mozilla previously announced its Context Graph initiative, which was a bold undertaking to be built partially upon a new and emerging set of W3C standards to take back some of the control over linkage, metadata, and the consumption and annotation of web content [3] from big incumbent providers who run content portals, content silos, or content aggregators (largely the usual suspects, including Google, Facebook [4], Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo [5]). To understand this play, temporarily forget about Mozilla the Foundation, and think about Mozilla as a strategic competitor to the above. In the case of Pocket, a hard-to-deny side effect is that Pocket's presence in Firefox, despite the exact nature of the integration, is likely here to stay. While this is bound to frustrate many, Mozilla's competitors routinely ship software or entire platforms with tight captive integrations, against which competition has proven difficult to mount solely on the merits of values and philosophical purity. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=firefox%20pocket https://hn.algolia.com/?query=firefox%20pocket [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=mozilla%20pocket https://hn.algolia.com/?query=mozilla%20pocket [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13729525#13740110 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13729525#13740110 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13375451#13375917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13375451#13375917 [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12863565#12867493 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12863565#12867493

omouse 10y ago
My only problem with Pocket was that it was proprietary and it was integrated with Firefox. If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated. Pocket makes Mozilla competitive on mobile because Firefox's market share on mobile is very low.
- nnethercote 10y ago
  Pocket will be open sourced.
  - hobarrera 10y ago
    Is there any official source for this?
    - randkyp 10y ago
      I don't think this counts as official, but a Mozilla employee replied to a Reddit comment stating that it'll be open source too. https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/5wio45/mozilla_acquires_pocket/deada0m/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/5wio45/mozilla_acq... [edit] also nnethercote is a Mozilla employee :)
      - bartvk 10y ago
        Wow, that will include a Linux client because Pocket also runs on the Kobo eReader. I'm curious if they open source that one. It should be doable to port to desktop Linux.
      - mtrycz 10y ago
        Does that mean I can run my own pocket server at home? That'd be neat and useful, I don't need any more profiling as is.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Esau 10y ago
  "If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated." Not me. I don't want a bloated Firefox; even if the bloat is well intentioned and fully open sourced.
  - bastawhiz 10y ago
    I'm so confused with the HN comments that bemoan the death of XUL, alongside comments that complain about bloat in the browser. It's interesting to see how different people use different parts of Firefox differently.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I know! I often see comments that imply HN is homogenous (with the exception of the poster). There's a lot of different people that make up the HN community, which is one of its strengths, and one of the reasons I value it.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - rhelmer 10y ago
    One person's bloat is another person's critical feature. Are you thinking of install size, runtime cost, all of the above? Firefox is open-source and (fairly) easy to build - if you really want the utmost control then I'd suggest this is the best way to do it. You can easily do a build that has no Pocket integration. There's a cost to the level of configuration that I assume you're advocating here. Not saying we can't get better here, but there's definitely an impact on code complexity, QA test combinations, and stability.
    - Esau 10y ago
      I don't like bloat in web browsers because, often, if just adds features best left as an add-on. Also, in something as important as a web browser, I feel a smaller codebase is wise from a security point-of-view.
- rhelmer 10y ago
  The client-side portion of Pocket has always been open-source. If you mean the server-side then fair enough, maybe this acquisition will help with that.
  - mcintyre1994 10y ago
    It looks like their Firefox addon has (https://github.com/Pocket/pocket-ff-addon https://github.com/Pocket/pocket-ff-addon), and I guess by definition you can get the source of their Chrome addon and getpocket.com, but I don't think they meet the definition of open source unless they're somewhere other than Github. Also their mobile apps seem to be closed source too.
    - rhelmer 10y ago
      The built-in Pocket feature is an addon that is pre-installed into Firefox: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/extensions/pocket https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/exten...
      - Sylos 10y ago
        Yeah, but there's for example also a Pocket Android app and iOS app. Those should get open-sourced now, too, and I heavily doubt that they were before.
        rhelmer 10y ago
        I agree!
  - JustARandomGuy 10y ago
    Submitting links to Pocket is open source and has always been well documented, but other client-side portions of Pocket have always been closed, such as the Article View API. [1] It would be great to have access to article view to build other clients, such as a Linux client. 1: https://getpocket.com/developer/docs/v3/article-view https://getpocket.com/developer/docs/v3/article-view
st3fan 10y ago
"large segments of the userbase spoke out with scathing criticism" Actually .. no. It was a very vocal minority.
- niftich 10y ago
  You're right, I misspoke; I meant to say several audiences out of a larger pie of distinct cohorts; instead of using wording that implied a large absolute amount of people. In the past, I've written about [1][2] my views of Mozilla's audiences, and soon after, Mozilla's own internal audiences [3] were brought to my attention. Several of their 'user types' are either noted as averse to change or loss of control. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13425956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13425956 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12192509#12194161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12192509#12194161 [3] https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2013/08/firefox-user-types-in-north-america/ https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2013/08/firefox-user-types-in-no...

by niftich 10y ago

omouse 10y ago

My only problem with Pocket was that it was proprietary and it was integrated with Firefox. If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated. Pocket makes Mozilla competitive on mobile because Firefox's market share on mobile is very low.

nnethercote 10y ago
Pocket will be open sourced.
- hobarrera 10y ago
  Is there any official source for this?
  - randkyp 10y ago
    I don't think this counts as official, but a Mozilla employee replied to a Reddit comment stating that it'll be open source too. https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/5wio45/mozilla_acquires_pocket/deada0m/ https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/5wio45/mozilla_acq... [edit] also nnethercote is a Mozilla employee :)
    - bartvk 10y ago
      Wow, that will include a Linux client because Pocket also runs on the Kobo eReader. I'm curious if they open source that one. It should be doable to port to desktop Linux.
    - mtrycz 10y ago
      Does that mean I can run my own pocket server at home? That'd be neat and useful, I don't need any more profiling as is.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Esau 10y ago
"If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated." Not me. I don't want a bloated Firefox; even if the bloat is well intentioned and fully open sourced.
- bastawhiz 10y ago
  I'm so confused with the HN comments that bemoan the death of XUL, alongside comments that complain about bloat in the browser. It's interesting to see how different people use different parts of Firefox differently.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I know! I often see comments that imply HN is homogenous (with the exception of the poster). There's a lot of different people that make up the HN community, which is one of its strengths, and one of the reasons I value it.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- rhelmer 10y ago
  One person's bloat is another person's critical feature. Are you thinking of install size, runtime cost, all of the above? Firefox is open-source and (fairly) easy to build - if you really want the utmost control then I'd suggest this is the best way to do it. You can easily do a build that has no Pocket integration. There's a cost to the level of configuration that I assume you're advocating here. Not saying we can't get better here, but there's definitely an impact on code complexity, QA test combinations, and stability.
  - Esau 10y ago
    I don't like bloat in web browsers because, often, if just adds features best left as an add-on. Also, in something as important as a web browser, I feel a smaller codebase is wise from a security point-of-view.
rhelmer 10y ago
The client-side portion of Pocket has always been open-source. If you mean the server-side then fair enough, maybe this acquisition will help with that.
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
  It looks like their Firefox addon has (https://github.com/Pocket/pocket-ff-addon https://github.com/Pocket/pocket-ff-addon), and I guess by definition you can get the source of their Chrome addon and getpocket.com, but I don't think they meet the definition of open source unless they're somewhere other than Github. Also their mobile apps seem to be closed source too.
  - rhelmer 10y ago
    The built-in Pocket feature is an addon that is pre-installed into Firefox: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/extensions/pocket https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/exten...
    - Sylos 10y ago
      Yeah, but there's for example also a Pocket Android app and iOS app. Those should get open-sourced now, too, and I heavily doubt that they were before.
      - rhelmer 10y ago
        I agree!
- JustARandomGuy 10y ago
  Submitting links to Pocket is open source and has always been well documented, but other client-side portions of Pocket have always been closed, such as the Article View API. [1] It would be great to have access to article view to build other clients, such as a Linux client. 1: https://getpocket.com/developer/docs/v3/article-view https://getpocket.com/developer/docs/v3/article-view

st3fan 10y ago

"large segments of the userbase spoke out with scathing criticism" Actually .. no. It was a very vocal minority.

niftich 10y ago
You're right, I misspoke; I meant to say several audiences out of a larger pie of distinct cohorts; instead of using wording that implied a large absolute amount of people. In the past, I've written about [1][2] my views of Mozilla's audiences, and soon after, Mozilla's own internal audiences [3] were brought to my attention. Several of their 'user types' are either noted as averse to change or loss of control. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13425956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13425956 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12192509#12194161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12192509#12194161 [3] https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2013/08/firefox-user-types-in-north-america/ https://blog.mozilla.org/ux/2013/08/firefox-user-types-in-no...