3 ms·
I think the context is missed here. It's a useful tool, but should it be an active-by-default feature shipped with the browser? It doesn't add security and does
by a1371 5y ago
I think the context is missed here. It's a useful tool, but should it be an active-by-default feature shipped with the browser? It doesn't add security and doesn't enhance speed. Wasn't it more acceptable if this was an add-on?
- TumorousJoker 5y agoYou could say the same about several features in Chrome or Firefox or any other browser. Does Firefox need to have Pocket by default? Does chrome need to have integration with Google? Organizations build browsers due to their self interest, so just talking about security and speed is a small part of the decisions that the product team might make.
- nine_k 5y agoBTW I always wonder what kind of profit Pocket might bring to Mozilla. They own it anyway. The integrated Pocket does show some "suggestions" on the default new tab page. But I don't see any ads on them, and sometimes they are pocketed articles from paid-subscription resources like e.g. The Atlantic. It it's a kind of paid content advertising ("we pay you to bring more readers to this ad-free text page"), it can't be a very lucrative service. Disclaimer: I actively use Pocket, but I'm not a paying subscriber of it.
- fennecfoxy 5y agoPocket totally has ads. The HelloFresh ones are incessant. It's just that they're ads in "article" form.
- 113 5y agoYes, because product teams don't make decisions based on what will annoy me. I find Pocket being active by default incredibly annoying too.
- actually_a_dog 5y agoIf “adding security” and “enhancing speed” were the only criteria for enabling features, then every browser would ship with JavaScript disabled. You might claim this would be a good thing, but, I’m pretty sure the average web user would disagree.