5 ms·

mozilla's response: http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-firefox-user-backlash-over-pocket-integration/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozil

mozilla's response: http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-firefox-user-backlash-over-pocket-integration/ http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-firefo... > Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and we’ve seen that users love to save interesting Web content to easily revisit it later, so it was an easy choice to offer Pocket as a service in Firefox and we’ve gotten lots of positive feedback about the integration from users. > All the code related to this integration within Firefox is open source and Pocket has licensed all the Firefox integration code under the MPLv2 license. On top of that, Pocket asked Mozilla for input on how to improve their policy, based on early comments from Mozillians. After that discussion, Pocket updated their privacy policy in early May to explain more precisely how they handle data. You can read Pocket’s privacy policy here. > Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible. To disable Pocket, you can remove it from your toolbar or menu. If Pocket is removed from the toolbar or menu, then the feature is effectively disabled, though you can still find it again by accessing it in the Customize Panel. You can find detailed instructions here.

anonymousab 11y ago
> Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible That's sounds weird. Why wouldn't they just make it opt-in on the "you've been updated" page? Or just bundle the extension?
- azakai 11y ago
  Almost all users of any popular browser are not tech savvy like you and I and other people here on Hacker News. They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. The Firefox design team did studies on this, seeing how real users interact with the feature. The results are that bundling it in the browser makes it useful to a lot of people, overall making the browser experience better for them. That's really all this comes down to - the data shows users are happier, overall, with it present by default. Some users don't like it, like the author of this article, but more users do like it.
  - JadeNB 11y ago
    > They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. This sounds like an excuse that could justify withholding just about any choice from users. Why not have a first-run splash page with something like "Pocket is a really cool service that runs best when it's part of your Firefox. May we turn it on? [yes] [no] Don't worry, you can always change your mind later! [Read more about what Pocket does.]"
    - azakai 11y ago
      The real decision isn't made based on a guess like "it would sound complex". It is made by doing a user study - a test of actual users. That data guides the decision, and the data here showed users benefited more, on average, by bundling it, rather than having it be something the user needs to authorize and/or install.
      - ObviousScience 11y ago
        You keep saying "we tested!", but I don't think you understand how testing works or what you're actually claiming to have tested versus what other people are talking about. You see, what you tested is the behavior of users when a particular app was introduced, over a short period of time. However, you failed to test against rivals (because you haven't used any of that data to explain your decision), and the only "test" you seemed to have done is "how do we best get users to utilize our paid features?" I think you know that though, and you're just here lying for money. Not really surprising shady software practices are being defended by shady PR liars.
        dang 11y ago
        > you're just here lying for money This is absolutely not ok in a Hacker News comment. If you can't comment civilly, please don't comment here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        11y ago

anonymousab 11y ago

> Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible That's sounds weird. Why wouldn't they just make it opt-in on the "you've been updated" page? Or just bundle the extension?

azakai 11y ago
Almost all users of any popular browser are not tech savvy like you and I and other people here on Hacker News. They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. The Firefox design team did studies on this, seeing how real users interact with the feature. The results are that bundling it in the browser makes it useful to a lot of people, overall making the browser experience better for them. That's really all this comes down to - the data shows users are happier, overall, with it present by default. Some users don't like it, like the author of this article, but more users do like it.
- JadeNB 11y ago
  > They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them. This sounds like an excuse that could justify withholding just about any choice from users. Why not have a first-run splash page with something like "Pocket is a really cool service that runs best when it's part of your Firefox. May we turn it on? [yes] [no] Don't worry, you can always change your mind later! [Read more about what Pocket does.]"
  - azakai 11y ago
    The real decision isn't made based on a guess like "it would sound complex". It is made by doing a user study - a test of actual users. That data guides the decision, and the data here showed users benefited more, on average, by bundling it, rather than having it be something the user needs to authorize and/or install.
    - ObviousScience 11y ago
      You keep saying "we tested!", but I don't think you understand how testing works or what you're actually claiming to have tested versus what other people are talking about. You see, what you tested is the behavior of users when a particular app was introduced, over a short period of time. However, you failed to test against rivals (because you haven't used any of that data to explain your decision), and the only "test" you seemed to have done is "how do we best get users to utilize our paid features?" I think you know that though, and you're just here lying for money. Not really surprising shady software practices are being defended by shady PR liars.
      - dang 11y ago
        > you're just here lying for money This is absolutely not ok in a Hacker News comment. If you can't comment civilly, please don't comment here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        11y ago