4 ms·

They are allowed to make good products too you know. If Pocket is the best they got then they deserve go to zero. If they have a product so polarising then may

by verroq 6y ago

They are allowed to make good products too you know. If Pocket is the best they got then they deserve go to zero. If they have a product so polarising then maybe it shouldn’t be bundled as bloat to the browser.

tasty_freeze 6y ago
verroq -- can you tell me which browser you use that doesn't suffer from any feature you don't like? Or is it a philosophical problem where a non-profit adding a small feature to raise revenue means it should be abandoned and died, but if a for profit company building a browser can incorporate all manner of devious and privacy harming features but that is acceptable because you expect so little from for-profit companies?
- verroq 6y ago
  Being a non-profit doesn’t give them a pass on making bad products. Being open source doesn’t give a free pass on bad products. If they choose a unsustainable business model, where making profit ruins their product, then they created this problem themselves. I run Chromium, it probably spies on me, but it doesn’t do it in my face, and it doesn’t pretend otherwise. When I run Firefox, they say they care, but they shamelessly bundle that crapware. Makes me wonder if another day after another Firefox update they’ll add Pocket 2.0 without me knowing. It’s the same issue I have with Brave as well, I cannot stand the BAT integration.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    Your arguments are so full of holes I don't even know where to start. Pocket is fully documented and very easy to turn off. That's all I'm going to reply to you on this. Good grief.
  - tasty_freeze 6y ago
    I guess the difference is you value things vastly differently. This feature, which doesn't spy on you and takes epsilon resources if not used and can be disabled with two clicks "ruins their product", makes firefox a "bad product", and this feature is "shameless crapware." But chrome spying on you apologetically is acceptable.

by verroq 6y ago

tasty_freeze 6y ago

verroq -- can you tell me which browser you use that doesn't suffer from any feature you don't like? Or is it a philosophical problem where a non-profit adding a small feature to raise revenue means it should be abandoned and died, but if a for profit company building a browser can incorporate all manner of devious and privacy harming features but that is acceptable because you expect so little from for-profit companies?

verroq 6y ago
Being a non-profit doesn’t give them a pass on making bad products. Being open source doesn’t give a free pass on bad products. If they choose a unsustainable business model, where making profit ruins their product, then they created this problem themselves. I run Chromium, it probably spies on me, but it doesn’t do it in my face, and it doesn’t pretend otherwise. When I run Firefox, they say they care, but they shamelessly bundle that crapware. Makes me wonder if another day after another Firefox update they’ll add Pocket 2.0 without me knowing. It’s the same issue I have with Brave as well, I cannot stand the BAT integration.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Your arguments are so full of holes I don't even know where to start. Pocket is fully documented and very easy to turn off. That's all I'm going to reply to you on this. Good grief.
- tasty_freeze 6y ago
  I guess the difference is you value things vastly differently. This feature, which doesn't spy on you and takes epsilon resources if not used and can be disabled with two clicks "ruins their product", makes firefox a "bad product", and this feature is "shameless crapware." But chrome spying on you apologetically is acceptable.