3 ms·

> With Pocket, Mozilla forced it on everyone, It was ridiculously easy to turn off. Making a fairly non-obtrusive service opt-out instead of opt-in is not forc

by troyvit 10mo ago

> With Pocket, Mozilla forced it on everyone, It was ridiculously easy to turn off. Making a fairly non-obtrusive service opt-out instead of opt-in is not forcing it on everyone.

wtallis 10mo ago
They literally forced every user to either accept the invasion of the proprietary service, or have to take extra steps to disable it on each of their devices. Neither of those is actually a reasonable, respectful way to treat your users.
- jrflowers 10mo ago
  I just never used Pocket. I don’t think I had to change my habits or settings to do so.
  - wtallis 10mo ago
    Sure, living with the nuisance of the advertising and UI clutter is an option, as I said. But the fact that they were relatively minor nuisances compared to eg. Windows 11's BS doesn't change the fact that they were still unwelcome and unnecessary and disrespectful. I don't think there's anything radical about my stance that a new toolbar button showing up—with advertising calling attention to it—integrating a proprietary service into my open-source browser is inappropriate behavior on Mozilla's part.
    - moogly 10mo ago
      > Sure, living with the nuisance of the advertising and UI clutter is an option about:config<enter> extensions.pocket.enabled set to `false`. That's how hard that used to be.
      - wtallis 10mo ago
        Anything requiring messing with about:config is an unreasonable way to treat non-technical users. And the point I've already made that you're ignoring is that the complexity of the workaround is not the problem—the necessity of taking action to disable Pocket is what was most concerning about what Mozilla did.
        II2II 10mo ago
        I simply removed it from the toolbar, same as I did with the Firefox sync icon. Out of sight, out of mind. Granted, they were much more pushy about other features and services. Much less pushy than other vendors and it was, in some respects, understandable. (How do you convince people your product is relevant if they think it does less than the competition because they aren't aware of what's there?)
        moogly 10mo ago
        I found no value in Pocket and it was annoying to have to disable it once per machine but you didn't have to "live with it" as claimed. That's just ridiculously overdramatic.
    - plorg 10mo ago
      I found it unnecessary and annoying, but there was a toggle for it in the settings, it wasn't even hard to find.
- kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
  How much are you paying, again?
  - wtallis 10mo ago
    Price is irrelevant. Mozilla's behavior with Pocket was at odds with Mozilla's stated goals and values.
    - safety1st 10mo ago
      The broader discussion but especially this little exchange reminds me of a similar situation with Ubuntu. At one point they were the darling of the desktop Linux space and much beloved by an online community of highly principled people who didn't pay them anything. Those same people then utterly blasted them when they tried a few monetization/promotion features that fell flat, like the Amazon lens in Unity. I had no love for that lens but it was easy to remove. Shuttleworth gave a fairly telling interview afterwards which basically amounted to "Fuck these guys, you can never make them happy." Canonical proceeded to focus on the server side where there's more money, fewer loud freeloaders, and now they're somewhat more evil. There is also a whole strain of thought in SaaS which says don't ever have a free version because those guys always end up being the biggest complainers. I think you have to accept that no company is going to get it 100% perfect and if you're too loud, annoying, and you're not giving them anything in return, they may just take their ball and go home. Being the company that does the right thing is arguably not worth it, the devil's advocate argument is, some guy online is going to ride you even harder because you said you were trying to do the right thing, so better to stay quiet, or even cultivate an air of vague evil instead, then they won't bother. Perhaps also related: the idea that riots are stupid, because rioters are inevitably protesting someone/something that's far away, even as they set fire to local businesses owned by members of their own community.
      - matwood 10mo ago
        > There is also a whole strain of thought in SaaS which says don't ever have a free version because those guys always end up being the biggest complainers. Not just free, but also cheap. I have found the less someone pays the higher the likelihood they are a problem customer.

by troyvit 10mo ago

> With Pocket, Mozilla forced it on everyone, It was ridiculously easy to turn off. Making a fairly non-obtrusive service opt-out instead of opt-in is not forcing it on everyone.

wtallis 10mo ago

They literally forced every user to either accept the invasion of the proprietary service, or have to take extra steps to disable it on each of their devices. Neither of those is actually a reasonable, respectful way to treat your users.

jrflowers 10mo ago
I just never used Pocket. I don’t think I had to change my habits or settings to do so.
- wtallis 10mo ago
  Sure, living with the nuisance of the advertising and UI clutter is an option, as I said. But the fact that they were relatively minor nuisances compared to eg. Windows 11's BS doesn't change the fact that they were still unwelcome and unnecessary and disrespectful. I don't think there's anything radical about my stance that a new toolbar button showing up—with advertising calling attention to it—integrating a proprietary service into my open-source browser is inappropriate behavior on Mozilla's part.
  - moogly 10mo ago
    > Sure, living with the nuisance of the advertising and UI clutter is an option about:config<enter> extensions.pocket.enabled set to `false`. That's how hard that used to be.
    - wtallis 10mo ago
      Anything requiring messing with about:config is an unreasonable way to treat non-technical users. And the point I've already made that you're ignoring is that the complexity of the workaround is not the problem—the necessity of taking action to disable Pocket is what was most concerning about what Mozilla did.
      - II2II 10mo ago
        I simply removed it from the toolbar, same as I did with the Firefox sync icon. Out of sight, out of mind. Granted, they were much more pushy about other features and services. Much less pushy than other vendors and it was, in some respects, understandable. (How do you convince people your product is relevant if they think it does less than the competition because they aren't aware of what's there?)
      - moogly 10mo ago
        I found no value in Pocket and it was annoying to have to disable it once per machine but you didn't have to "live with it" as claimed. That's just ridiculously overdramatic.
  - plorg 10mo ago
    I found it unnecessary and annoying, but there was a toggle for it in the settings, it wasn't even hard to find.
kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
How much are you paying, again?
- wtallis 10mo ago
  Price is irrelevant. Mozilla's behavior with Pocket was at odds with Mozilla's stated goals and values.
  - safety1st 10mo ago
    The broader discussion but especially this little exchange reminds me of a similar situation with Ubuntu. At one point they were the darling of the desktop Linux space and much beloved by an online community of highly principled people who didn't pay them anything. Those same people then utterly blasted them when they tried a few monetization/promotion features that fell flat, like the Amazon lens in Unity. I had no love for that lens but it was easy to remove. Shuttleworth gave a fairly telling interview afterwards which basically amounted to "Fuck these guys, you can never make them happy." Canonical proceeded to focus on the server side where there's more money, fewer loud freeloaders, and now they're somewhat more evil. There is also a whole strain of thought in SaaS which says don't ever have a free version because those guys always end up being the biggest complainers. I think you have to accept that no company is going to get it 100% perfect and if you're too loud, annoying, and you're not giving them anything in return, they may just take their ball and go home. Being the company that does the right thing is arguably not worth it, the devil's advocate argument is, some guy online is going to ride you even harder because you said you were trying to do the right thing, so better to stay quiet, or even cultivate an air of vague evil instead, then they won't bother. Perhaps also related: the idea that riots are stupid, because rioters are inevitably protesting someone/something that's far away, even as they set fire to local businesses owned by members of their own community.
    - matwood 10mo ago
      > There is also a whole strain of thought in SaaS which says don't ever have a free version because those guys always end up being the biggest complainers. Not just free, but also cheap. I have found the less someone pays the higher the likelihood they are a problem customer.