2 ms·
What I quoted is Pocket's Terms of Service[1], as explicitly stated in the article Which quite obviously don't apply to Firefox in their entirety. The quoted s
by rockdoe 11y ago
What I quoted is Pocket's Terms of Service[1], as explicitly stated in the article
Which quite obviously don't apply to Firefox in their entirety. The quoted section specifically doesn't apply, and I hope it's obvious to see why.
You can decide whatever you want, but given that you specifically quoted that section as the reason earlier, it's obviously not based on sane reasoning but on self-justification.
- morganvachon 11y agoYour ad hominem attack notwithstanding, I see where you're coming from. I just think you fail to see where I'm coming from. Here's my issue as simply as I can put it: Mozilla chose to use a service provider that is not only proprietary, but (as the terms I quoted indicate) aggressively anti open-source/open standards. This, combined with the fact that we can't choose a different "read later" provider, makes me wary of using Firefox from here on out. As I indicated in another comment, I also don't care for search engine integration, but that's a battle that was lost a long time ago. At least with most browsers (including Firefox) the user can change the search provider to one she prefers; with the Pocket integration, it's Pocket period because it's hardcoded with their API only. I would have preferred Mozilla either bundle Pocket as an add-on, or if they are going to integrate a "read later" function, do it using an open (as in open to any provider) API and publish the specs so any provider can then offer their services. I hope that clears up any confusion on your part.