3 ms·

> If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was th

by derefr 4y ago

> If it had been branded as a new "reading list" feature native to Mozilla I don't think it would have caused a stir. I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see your existing Pocket reading-list. But yeah, in the end that probably wasn't nearly as important as getting people who didn't already use Pocket to see the reading list as "Firefox's reading list" rather than some channel-partner bloatware encroachment. A happy medium would probably have been if the Firefox reading list was its own skin of Pocket, and synced using your Firefox Sync account, without needing to create a separate Pocket account; but when you first went to use it, it would ask if you want to sign into your Pocket account; and if you do, then your Pocket account would be merged with your Firefox Sync account, because "Pocket Sync is now part of Firefox Sync."

PaulHoule 4y ago
Exactly, it's basically offensive to put any product in a customer's face. I remember how Microsoft killed OneNote (a rather good note taking application) by (1) trying to shove it up your fingernails, into your armpits, etc. (I remember there being three onenote icons pinned to the task bar) and (2) going 100% cloud as opposed to the XML files OneNote used to leave on your computer that were very easy to parse and build tools to process. People are automatically going to assume a bundled product is crap because we're so used to drive-by downloads and other dark patterns.
JohnFen 4y ago
That makes sense. Mozilla's handling of Pocket was very poor.
dblohm7 4y ago
> I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see your existing Pocket reading-list. That was pretty much how it was viewed at the time (I worked at Mozilla during the Pocket acquisition). It was seen as, "we were going to build our own reading list, but let's just buy this instead and integrate it as /the/ reading list for Firefox." I agree that the external perception was different, and remains so to this day.
- ChrisSD 4y ago
  Tbh, all I recall about pocket is it showed me a load of random content which I had no interest in, which felt spammy. And I think it needs a login for some reason? It certainly looked and felt like an external addon rather than a built-in thing. If it had just been a reading list I'd have been much more interested.
pseudalopex 4y ago
Did you mean making Pocket end to end encrypted like Firefox Sync? Pocket's business model was data mining. Or did you mean making a part of Firefox Sync send your data to a 3rd party data miner? I don't think it would have helped.

by derefr 4y ago

PaulHoule 4y ago

Exactly, it's basically offensive to put any product in a customer's face. I remember how Microsoft killed OneNote (a rather good note taking application) by (1) trying to shove it up your fingernails, into your armpits, etc. (I remember there being three onenote icons pinned to the task bar) and (2) going 100% cloud as opposed to the XML files OneNote used to leave on your computer that were very easy to parse and build tools to process. People are automatically going to assume a bundled product is crap because we're so used to drive-by downloads and other dark patterns.

JohnFen 4y ago

That makes sense. Mozilla's handling of Pocket was very poor.

dblohm7 4y ago

> I imagine Mozilla's thinking there was that they should position the feature so that people who already use Pocket will realize that Firefox isn't adding a separate reading list (like the Safari one nobody uses), but rather that you can just sign into your existing Pocket account in Firefox, and see your existing Pocket reading-list. That was pretty much how it was viewed at the time (I worked at Mozilla during the Pocket acquisition). It was seen as, "we were going to build our own reading list, but let's just buy this instead and integrate it as /the/ reading list for Firefox." I agree that the external perception was different, and remains so to this day.

ChrisSD 4y ago
Tbh, all I recall about pocket is it showed me a load of random content which I had no interest in, which felt spammy. And I think it needs a login for some reason? It certainly looked and felt like an external addon rather than a built-in thing. If it had just been a reading list I'd have been much more interested.

pseudalopex 4y ago

Did you mean making Pocket end to end encrypted like Firefox Sync? Pocket's business model was data mining. Or did you mean making a part of Firefox Sync send your data to a 3rd party data miner? I don't think it would have helped.