8 ms·

Everyone saying "oh, just right click and remove it; it's so easy" is entirely missing the point. The simple fact is, Mozilla took a third-party, proprietary se

Everyone saying "oh, just right click and remove it; it's so easy" is entirely missing the point. The simple fact is, Mozilla took a third-party, proprietary service and bundled it into the browser. If this becomes the new norm, imagine downloading Firefox v53 and having six different services installed (all consuming memory, collecting personal data, etc.) all because some research studies they collected said "people like this." Sure, every subset of the population is going to like different services. When I download Chrome, I install PushBullet, Disconnect, the Chromecast extension, and Ublock. But that doesn't mean that every other users wants or even needs those same things. The entire purposes of add-ons is that they can be... added onto the default experience. Mozilla has now begun changing the default. While they may claim this was done "purely for the benefit of users," it sure smells like it was done for money. EDIT: for anyone who doesn't think it wasn't about money, please explain why it is so difficult to remove, why I have to open about:config to "disable" (not remove) it, and why it wasn't just added as an add-on (which already existed)?

throwaway2048 11y ago
Sure is funny how a little bit of cash goes a long way to ensuring something is for the benefit of the user.
- emn13 11y ago
  [citation needed].
brighteyes 11y ago
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876467 they will do that, but it takes more effort i guess.
21echoes 11y ago
> (all consuming memory, collecting personal data, etc.) the integration does not collect personal data until the user opts in, and it does not consume memory beyond loading the image from disk until the user opts in. meanwhile, that search bar up at the top is an integrated browser function (not even an add-on) that sends personal data to a 3rd party, closed source server. > please explain why it is so difficult to remove you remove it just like every other thing in your toolbar: click the menu button, drag it off of the toolbar. > Mozilla has now begun changing the default like when they added bookmarks, search, download menu, spaces, and countless other functions? that's literally what browser vendors do.
- pllbnk 11y ago
  > like when they added bookmarks, search, download menu, spaces, and countless other functions? that's literally what browser vendors do. All of those features either work offline or use Mozilla's own services as opposed to third party services. The only exception I can think of at the moment is search which should also be provided through add-ons in my opinion because I don't use it - I go directly to Google website and search there.
glandium 11y ago
> please explain why it is so difficult to remove right-click, "Remove from toolbar". There you go.
- vacri 11y ago
  Removed from toolbar, but not from Firefox itself. My password list isn't accessed directly from the toolbar, but it's still in the application.
  - rockdoe 11y ago
    It's just a bunch of JS code that never gets loaded. Why would you care if it's still on the disk, are you on a 100M HDD?
    - lagadu 11y ago
      He cares because installing Firefox means you now also install software that can very easily be considered to be spyware. This is stuff that we'd expect for-profit corporations (hi Google, Microsoft and Opera!) to pull not the Mozilla Foundation who describe themselves as, and I quote, "non-profit organization that promotes openness, innovation and participation on the Internet. We promote the values of an open Internet to the broader world."[1] [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/
      - josteink 11y ago
        Indeed. Mozilla has clearly positioned itself as (1) the independent browser-vendor who cares about (2) open source, (3) the open web and (4) your online privacy. If they start bundling "free" proprietary third-party services, where the price is a piece of the user's privacy, to provide a more seamless experience at the cost of bypassing "normal" rules for web-application integration, they have effectively compromised themselves on all 4 of those criterias. This one incident is not the end of the world to me, but I've had this feeling for quite a while that Mozilla is losing both direction and momentum, and stuff like this helps cement it. Had it not been proposed as a joke, I would already be looking forward to those Emacs-patches incorporating Webkit as the new embedded browser.[1] [1] Embedding Webkit was proposed as a "solution" to the famous Emacs-quote "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping"[2] no longer being valid or relevant. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war#Humor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war#Humor
Manishearth 11y ago
> Mozilla took a third-party, proprietary service and bundled it into the browser This is no different from the integration with Google or Yahoo. The Firefox-side code is not proprietary. It doesn't consume resources if you're not using it. You can remove it via the customizeable UI feature too. I've seen Firefox employees stating that there was no money involved.
- asddubs 11y ago
  wow, if there really was no money involved, this has to be the dumbest PR decision they've made
  - spyder 11y ago
    I agree, and if it wasn't for money then it's possible that someone at Pocket has a friend at Mozilla who pushed the integration of their business.
    - rockdoe 11y ago
      IIRC Pocket (then called Read It Later) won a Mozilla add-on design competition, the guy won a MacBook and then went on to build a company out of it. Edit: Checking more closely, something like that: http://getpocket.com/blog/2009/08/reading-it-later-two-years-of-read-it-later/ http://getpocket.com/blog/2009/08/reading-it-later-two-years... So it does sound likely that Pocket was well known.
  - seba_dos1 11y ago
    This. I really hope there was money included, because that's the only reason to do this integration that I understand and somehow accept.
    - emn13 11y ago
      There is this odd concept that things might actually be useful to people called "users". I think the integration is useful, and I've used it quite a bit. It's a lot better (faster, more reliable) than pocket's old extension.
asddubs 11y ago
of course it was done for money, I don't think there's any doubt about that. The question is: Is that bad? If this was an extension you could remove entirely, that didn't be default track you, I'd say no. Just like with google/yahoo tie-ins, mozilla has to earn money somehow. But I think the implementation of this tie-in was extremely clumsy
- astrobe_ 11y ago
  > of course it was done for money, I don't think there's any doubt about that. The question is: Is that bad? Yes it is. They have started to sell users just like everyone else.
  - EwanToo 11y ago
    In that case, the day they sold the search bar to Google they sold their users..
    - psykovsky 11y ago
      Except you can customize the search bar to use any search engine.
      - madeofpalk 11y ago
        ...well can't you customise firefox to remove the Pocket add-on? The issue here is about the reason why it was included _as a default_ in the first place.
        psykovsky 11y ago
        You can't customize it to use a different service, no.
    - astrobe_ 11y ago
      Yes. They sold their search bar to a company that arguably doesn't respect their manifesto: > (4) Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. Google, Pocket, etc. are arguably not compatible with this manifesto, because their business model is precisely to sell user data. So Mozilla says it respects and defend your privacy but makes deals with companies that won't. I'll let you pick a name for that kind of behaviour.
Trombone12 11y ago
Could someone explain how pocket isn't like the cloud synching bookmarks Firefox already provides?
- joekrill 11y ago
  Well for one thing Firefox's cloud sync is completely open source, whereas Pocket is a proprietary cloud service. This, I believe, is one of the primary reasons people have a problem with this whole situation.
JohnTHaller 11y ago
The service integration code is entirely open source and isn't executed even once unless you choose to use it. Just for comparison, Chrome has chunks of closed source code, including the binary blob that is downloaded on first run to enable listening for "OK Google". This add-on is pre-installed. And it's pre-installed to make Google more money.
- psykovsky 11y ago
  How do you define executing the addon? Clicking the Icon in the addons bar? Just having it there?
- cddotdotslash 11y ago
  It's not an add-on; it's a default, difficult-to-remove-entirely integration into the browser. Surely that must have taken more engineering work than to simply ship it as a default add-on, which is why people are questioning the motives behind it. How about instead of installing extra, third-party services into the browser that people may or may not want, Mozilla improves the add-on search experience to direct users to add-ons they may like? Or the first boot experience? And I think comparing Firefox to Chrome is just legitimizing the argument; Firefox markets itself essentially as the opposite of most of the things Google does. "It's okay because Chrome does it" doesn't make me feel very good about Firefox.
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    It's a feature that folks had been asking for in Firefox and was originally planned a while back. The resources to do the actual service side were better used elsewhere, though. I only referenced Chrome because the post I responded to specifically mentioned Chrome for comparison.
- DavideNL 11y ago
  > The service integration code is entirely open source and isn't executed even once unless you choose to use it. Not very reassuring. Do you suggest i make a daily reminder to check the Firefox source code to check whether the implemented privacy invading code still "isn't executed" ?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
frogpelt 11y ago
Literally one person said "just remove it, it's so easy."

throwaway2048 11y ago

Sure is funny how a little bit of cash goes a long way to ensuring something is for the benefit of the user.

emn13 11y ago
[citation needed].

brighteyes 11y ago

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876467 they will do that, but it takes more effort i guess.

21echoes 11y ago

> (all consuming memory, collecting personal data, etc.) the integration does not collect personal data until the user opts in, and it does not consume memory beyond loading the image from disk until the user opts in. meanwhile, that search bar up at the top is an integrated browser function (not even an add-on) that sends personal data to a 3rd party, closed source server. > please explain why it is so difficult to remove you remove it just like every other thing in your toolbar: click the menu button, drag it off of the toolbar. > Mozilla has now begun changing the default like when they added bookmarks, search, download menu, spaces, and countless other functions? that's literally what browser vendors do.

pllbnk 11y ago
> like when they added bookmarks, search, download menu, spaces, and countless other functions? that's literally what browser vendors do. All of those features either work offline or use Mozilla's own services as opposed to third party services. The only exception I can think of at the moment is search which should also be provided through add-ons in my opinion because I don't use it - I go directly to Google website and search there.

glandium 11y ago

> please explain why it is so difficult to remove right-click, "Remove from toolbar". There you go.

vacri 11y ago
Removed from toolbar, but not from Firefox itself. My password list isn't accessed directly from the toolbar, but it's still in the application.
- rockdoe 11y ago
  It's just a bunch of JS code that never gets loaded. Why would you care if it's still on the disk, are you on a 100M HDD?
  - lagadu 11y ago
    He cares because installing Firefox means you now also install software that can very easily be considered to be spyware. This is stuff that we'd expect for-profit corporations (hi Google, Microsoft and Opera!) to pull not the Mozilla Foundation who describe themselves as, and I quote, "non-profit organization that promotes openness, innovation and participation on the Internet. We promote the values of an open Internet to the broader world."[1] [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/
    - josteink 11y ago
      Indeed. Mozilla has clearly positioned itself as (1) the independent browser-vendor who cares about (2) open source, (3) the open web and (4) your online privacy. If they start bundling "free" proprietary third-party services, where the price is a piece of the user's privacy, to provide a more seamless experience at the cost of bypassing "normal" rules for web-application integration, they have effectively compromised themselves on all 4 of those criterias. This one incident is not the end of the world to me, but I've had this feeling for quite a while that Mozilla is losing both direction and momentum, and stuff like this helps cement it. Had it not been proposed as a joke, I would already be looking forward to those Emacs-patches incorporating Webkit as the new embedded browser.[1] [1] Embedding Webkit was proposed as a "solution" to the famous Emacs-quote "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping"[2] no longer being valid or relevant. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war#Humor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor_war#Humor

Manishearth 11y ago

> Mozilla took a third-party, proprietary service and bundled it into the browser This is no different from the integration with Google or Yahoo. The Firefox-side code is not proprietary. It doesn't consume resources if you're not using it. You can remove it via the customizeable UI feature too. I've seen Firefox employees stating that there was no money involved.

asddubs 11y ago
wow, if there really was no money involved, this has to be the dumbest PR decision they've made
- spyder 11y ago
  I agree, and if it wasn't for money then it's possible that someone at Pocket has a friend at Mozilla who pushed the integration of their business.
  - rockdoe 11y ago
    IIRC Pocket (then called Read It Later) won a Mozilla add-on design competition, the guy won a MacBook and then went on to build a company out of it. Edit: Checking more closely, something like that: http://getpocket.com/blog/2009/08/reading-it-later-two-years-of-read-it-later/ http://getpocket.com/blog/2009/08/reading-it-later-two-years... So it does sound likely that Pocket was well known.
- seba_dos1 11y ago
  This. I really hope there was money included, because that's the only reason to do this integration that I understand and somehow accept.
  - emn13 11y ago
    There is this odd concept that things might actually be useful to people called "users". I think the integration is useful, and I've used it quite a bit. It's a lot better (faster, more reliable) than pocket's old extension.

asddubs 11y ago

of course it was done for money, I don't think there's any doubt about that. The question is: Is that bad? If this was an extension you could remove entirely, that didn't be default track you, I'd say no. Just like with google/yahoo tie-ins, mozilla has to earn money somehow. But I think the implementation of this tie-in was extremely clumsy

astrobe_ 11y ago
> of course it was done for money, I don't think there's any doubt about that. The question is: Is that bad? Yes it is. They have started to sell users just like everyone else.
- EwanToo 11y ago
  In that case, the day they sold the search bar to Google they sold their users..
  - psykovsky 11y ago
    Except you can customize the search bar to use any search engine.
    - madeofpalk 11y ago
      ...well can't you customise firefox to remove the Pocket add-on? The issue here is about the reason why it was included _as a default_ in the first place.
      - psykovsky 11y ago
        You can't customize it to use a different service, no.
  - astrobe_ 11y ago
    Yes. They sold their search bar to a company that arguably doesn't respect their manifesto: > (4) Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional. Google, Pocket, etc. are arguably not compatible with this manifesto, because their business model is precisely to sell user data. So Mozilla says it respects and defend your privacy but makes deals with companies that won't. I'll let you pick a name for that kind of behaviour.

Trombone12 11y ago

Could someone explain how pocket isn't like the cloud synching bookmarks Firefox already provides?

joekrill 11y ago
Well for one thing Firefox's cloud sync is completely open source, whereas Pocket is a proprietary cloud service. This, I believe, is one of the primary reasons people have a problem with this whole situation.

JohnTHaller 11y ago

The service integration code is entirely open source and isn't executed even once unless you choose to use it. Just for comparison, Chrome has chunks of closed source code, including the binary blob that is downloaded on first run to enable listening for "OK Google". This add-on is pre-installed. And it's pre-installed to make Google more money.

psykovsky 11y ago
How do you define executing the addon? Clicking the Icon in the addons bar? Just having it there?
cddotdotslash 11y ago
It's not an add-on; it's a default, difficult-to-remove-entirely integration into the browser. Surely that must have taken more engineering work than to simply ship it as a default add-on, which is why people are questioning the motives behind it. How about instead of installing extra, third-party services into the browser that people may or may not want, Mozilla improves the add-on search experience to direct users to add-ons they may like? Or the first boot experience? And I think comparing Firefox to Chrome is just legitimizing the argument; Firefox markets itself essentially as the opposite of most of the things Google does. "It's okay because Chrome does it" doesn't make me feel very good about Firefox.
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  It's a feature that folks had been asking for in Firefox and was originally planned a while back. The resources to do the actual service side were better used elsewhere, though. I only referenced Chrome because the post I responded to specifically mentioned Chrome for comparison.
DavideNL 11y ago
> The service integration code is entirely open source and isn't executed even once unless you choose to use it. Not very reassuring. Do you suggest i make a daily reminder to check the Firefox source code to check whether the implemented privacy invading code still "isn't executed" ?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

frogpelt 11y ago

Literally one person said "just remove it, it's so easy."