3 ms·
I believe it is in Google's and Microsoft's interest to keep bookmarks crippled. Every time you forgo using your bookmarks to lookup something, you instead use
by 1MachineElf 5y ago
I believe it is in Google's and Microsoft's interest to keep bookmarks crippled. Every time you forgo using your bookmarks to lookup something, you instead use their search services, which indirectly translates to money in their pocket.
- wly_cdgr 5y agoBingo
- PoignardAzur 5y agoSo the reasoning is there's a Google corporate stooge sending secret emails to Mozilla, telling them "if you ever make a bookmark system better than ours, we'll pull all our Google funding"? I'm going to stick with Hanlon's razor and assume making a better bookmark system is non-trivial.
- 1MachineElf 5y ago>So the reasoning is there's a Google corporate stooge sending secret emails to Mozilla Ok. Curious to know your theory on why Mozilla let go of the Servo team the same month Google agreed to give them hundreds of millions of dollars.
- PoignardAzur 5y agoBudget cuts. The project had reportedly already integrated the major improvements from Servo into the main engine. It's not outlandish to assume that the marginal benefit of working on Servo was lower, compared to working on features on the main browser. If you really want to go that route, you could make an argument that maybe Mozilla is handicapping Firefox's bookmark feature to get people to subscribe to Pocket... but people in this thread who are using Pocket also complain it doesn't solve their problems. What's the angle there? Pocket doesn't want paying customers?
- freediver 5y agoInteresting theory. However Apple has no such agenda and yet Safari has probably the worst bookmark/history management of them all. So it seems to be a question of product management priorities really.