8 ms·

User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

79 points by lgp171188 11y ago

realusername 11y ago
Yes sure, It's really negative feedback here but the majority of users commenting there have technical knowledge as you can see in the comments and most people are only commenting when they don't like things anyway, you never have any thanks if they like things (if you ever created something used by other people, you know what I'm talking about). So we can see that technical people (including me) don't like so much this feature but it does not help to know if the average user is finding it useful, I would bet on my case average users are not even using it since you need to create a separate account, but anyway, we will see. And also, in my opinion, Firefox became a great product by trying new things. And as always, when you change things, sometimes it does not work, sometimes you explore in other directions, you need to experiment a bit. PS: Downvoting-me does not change these facts.
- jszymborski 11y ago
  very much agree. I honestly don't see what the hubub is all about. Re: privacy, Firefox maintains it's commitment and integrity. The pocket integration is very transparent (pocket has agreed to open-source it), and the tech-saavy people that seem to be the only people this offends can disable with about:config. Honestly, it seems that people seem to be upset about the idea that Firefox is raising money outside of donations. I for one am very happy about them finding revenue sources that also add functionality for users, all while maintaining user privacy as a main interest.
  - hiou 11y ago
    If Mozilla is going to start including proprietary closed platforms like pocket, what do they offer that Chrome is not? WebKit is much more targeted by web developers so I'm going to have a slightly better experience with Chrome. Without the moral high ground of openness and privacy why would anyone chose Firefox over the competition?
    - sanxiyn 11y ago
      Firefox uses less memory than Chrome, for example.
  - lagadu 11y ago
    Allow me to quote the Pocket ToS[1]: > We may work with trusted third parties that we refer to as internal service providers to facilitate or outsource one or more aspects of the products and services that we provide to you, and we may provide some of your personal information directly to these internal service providers. I feel that speaks for itself. [1] https://getpocket.com/privacy https://getpocket.com/privacy
    - jszymborski 11y ago
      That's the Pocket ToS... you only agree to it when you use Pocket, not firefox.
  - muraiki 11y ago
    Mozilla is receiving no monetary compensation from Pocket's inclusion. See also my comment re: Pocket's TOS applying by virtue of installation, not usage. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9885795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9885795
- hiou 11y ago
  I understand the hip trend of only thinking about an inept fool who can barely click a link in a browser, but the reality is that a large percentage of Firefox's users are educated users who are concerned about things like openness and privacy. Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer have a fairly strong grip on the technically unskilled user. Can Mozilla survive in marketshare without this group? I have a feeling we are going to find out soon enough.
- ArekDymalski 11y ago
  >it does not help to know if the average user is finding it useful The feedback itself isn't helpful, but the data about the percentage of users using the Pocket add-on should be.
mariusmg 11y ago
Mozilla is not a merry band of hackers anymore. They're a bona fida corporation with its own agenda. Their agenda depends on having as many users as possible so they're trying to make everything they can for that. The free web, choice and all that become second place now. PS : Look at their corporate HQ.
- sp332 11y ago
  The Mozilla Corporation is completely owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit with a manifesto https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ that reads in part, "Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."
  - tiplus 11y ago
    Somehow the part about privacy seems to refer to a 'special' form of privacy... look at FF hello: Mozilla about FF Hello [1]: "Firefox Hello is provided to you in collaboration with TokBox, Inc. ("TokBox") and sends data to TokBox as a part of the function of the service." Tokbox (Telefonica)[2]: "We neither rent nor sell your information to anyone. We don’t share your information with other organizations or individuals outside of TokBox, except as described below" below: - "With our affiliates and trusted business partners that cooperate with us to provide you our services" - "We may share Aggregate Data publicly and with our partners." Please try to contact Mozilla and tell me who these 'trusted business partners' are. I tried and did not get anywhere... I am a former customer of Telefonica and they sure tried very hard to appear as a 'will mug you for money' type of company. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox-hello/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox-hello/ [2] https://tokbox.com/support/privacy-policy https://tokbox.com/support/privacy-policy
  - userbinator 11y ago
    What worries me more is that freedom isn't mentioned as fundamental.
    - sp332 11y ago
h1fra 11y ago
These are mostly childish comment, not really HN worthy.
- morganvachon 11y ago
  And yours is? Most of the comments center around the same idea: Mozilla removed the choice of which "read later" service to use by default, by baking it into the browser itself instead of leaving it as an extension or add-on, where it and all the other services like it belong. So, now if you have a user who doesn't want a "read later" service, they have to take the extra steps to disable the button and go into about:config to completely turn it off. For the users who do want a "read later" service but don't want to use Pocket, they now have whatever they install via extension, plus Pocket, which is redundant and silly. Basically, all this integration has accomplished is bloating Firefox to serve the single digit percentage of past Pocket extension users (many of whom will continue to use the extension since that's what they are used to), and maybe grab a few hundred more who see the new Pocket icon and decide to keep using it after trying it out. If they had gone with an open platform for this service, or even better, their own homegrown solution, I wouldn't be upset by it. As it stands, Firefox was supposed to be the open standard the other browsers should strive to imitate; instead, it is steadily spiraling downward. This is becoming a pattern, and it's not a pretty one.
  - eli 11y ago
    Honest question: would it be better if instead they rolled out a custom Firefox-only Read Later service, as was the original plan? Is the issue that they "picked a winner" or that Read Later shouldn't be built in to the browser, period?
    - cscharenberg 11y ago
      Neither of those is a good choice. The custom Firefox-only would be a waste of developer resources. Similarly, picking a winner is also a waste of developer resources: there were already extensions that had far more functionality. Firefox should have added a more general "Experience Enhancements" feature that suggested great features that could be enabled and offered a few options. This same concept of periodically offering enhancements to users could be presented periodically and offer any number of things over time. My complaint is the Mozilla folks missed a more general, better capability they could have built.
k-mcgrady 11y ago
When did they build in Pocket? I didn't like when they added Hello but this seems even stranger. I guess they're getting money from Pocket for it in the same way they get money from Google for search but users can opt-out of Google search - from those complaints it doesn't sound possible for Pocket. (Please let me know if I'm wrong).
- zokier 11y ago
  Mozilla does not get money from Pocket source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2930532/reading-service-pocket-built-into-firefox-replacing-reading-list-feature.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2930532/reading-service-pocke... There's no monetary benefit to Mozilla from the integration: Pocket didn't pay for placement in the browser.
  - cscharenberg 11y ago
    Which is odd, because that means Mozilla is paying Pocket for it by funding developer and support time. The fact Pocket is not paying is a bad thing: it's a one-way drain on Mozilla resources. How is this a fair partnership?
- morganvachon 11y ago
  You can delete the button, and you can go into about:config, turn off switches and set strings to "null". But the code is baked in, and your work to disable it will likely be reversed with each Firefox update. There's nothing nefarious about the Pocket code in Firefox from what I've seen, but the service it connects your browser to is opaque, closed source, and the ToS is hostile and aggressive towards openness. In short, it should have remained an extension.
- Mahn 11y ago
  About a month or so ago. The rationale was that Firefox used to have or intended to have a similar read for later feature but they decided to scrap it in favour of direct integration with Pocket. Oddly enough, Mozilla employees claim there wasn't money involved in the integration. See this thread for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809
gadders 11y ago
I can remember when the whole point of creating Firefox was as a response to a bloated Netscape that included an email client, newsreader, kitchen sink etc. Now it seems they're trying to bundle everything back in again.
DrinkWater 11y ago
This is a bit off-topic, but some of the user feedback (esp. in German) is really childish.
blfr 11y ago
I don't understand the complaint here. Do people expect Mozilla to build everything themselves? Reader View is a great feature that was clearly missing. Adding a third party sync to it is really no different from picking a default search engine to serve location bar entries. Pocket is fine, best of the trio (Instapaper, Readability) IMHO. I actually switched to Pocket from Readability, which was getting buggier, a few weeks before it was integrated. Getting all that while bringing revenue for Mozilla to support further development of Firefox is a win-win-win. Unlike Hello or "Share This Page" which I have never seen anyone use.
- Zuikaku 11y ago
  The complaint is the fact that Pocket is now natively built into Firefox, which if you read the Pocket ToS, can be considered a violation of privacy. That, and the fact that because it is natively built in rather than a default extension, it cannot be removed, only disabled. It's something that couldn't be farther from necessary. That's the complaint here.
  - blfr 11y ago
    What's the difference between removing and disabling? Aren't they effectively the same? The source is still there to read/hack. Do you care about a few lines of inactive code? If so, I'd start the purge with Hello.
    - michaelt 11y ago
      I can't speak for firefox users, but when I buy a phone and it comes with a "phone company daily deals" app that that can't be removed because it's a "system component" it often seems to me that they could easily have been made it removable, and that making bloat impossible to remove was a business decision. Perhaps firefox users feel the same way.
- a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
  I love the pocket integration. The built-in functionality definitely works much better than the plugin, which was weirdly slow sometimes and had some glitches. Pocket has changed how I use the web. With a single click I send any substantive article to get automatically synced to my Kobo ereader, which also has built-in pocket integration.
soapdog 11y ago
Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button. Firefox Hello is a collaboration, developed by Mozilla with help from Telefonica. Its videoconferencing without accounts. You don't need to create any account and it doesn't track you, how that is not good is beyond me. The Pocket feature is really useful for those using it and harmless for those not using it. You can always remove the button or replace it with an add-on of your choice. Instead of offering just a web view, Mozilla is trying to bundle features that the users find useful. None of the said features does you any harm if you don't use them. Before finishing this comment, let me leave you with a little nugget of advise: Less war and more dating. Instead of being a critic and combating every form of feature that somehow you dislike. Try to see how partnerships and opportunities make things better for everyone.Lots of people are loving the Pocket and Hello features and using them on a daily basis. Instead of removing features we can think of scenarios where they are useful and understand why they are there. And again, if you don't like them, you can use the Customize feature to remove them from the toolbars.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Mozilla. I am not a Mozilla employee. I also care very little about the Pocket situation. Pocket was massively mishandled. You should have seen it coming from a mile away. And when you didn't and it happened anyway, you should have backtracked a lot faster and released a public statement. And damn it, priorities. You talk about partnerships creating opportunities etc; you have plenty of opportunities already. How about Persona, for example? How come it got moved to community support and got sod all marketing behind it, despite being a technology the open web direly needs and Mozilla being one of the only entities that can pull it off? The tech is good, too! Where's that commitment to the open web now? How many people were complaining about their bookmark management before Pocket was introduced? Was it ever an area of firefox that needed dire improvements? Not since sync was introduced. You have nobody to blame but yourselves. Users are hostile to change by default, you have to be able to back up the change with solid reasoning, and you have to be able to sell it to anyone who doesn't actually read what you say. You should have known better; don't be surprised about the hostile reaction now.
donatj 11y ago
Someone should fork Firefox with all this crap removed. Does IceWeasel have Pocket and Sync and such?
- kpcyrd 11y ago
  Iceweasel actually has a file somewhere in /etc that overrides the config to disable some of those features.
SunShiranui 11y ago
I didn't realize Pocket was a third-party service. Perhaps this should be made clear when updating Firefox.
Dysprosium 11y ago
The thing with Pocket is that it's basically an extension installed by default. This is the first time Mozilla does such a thing to Firefox, and this doesn't please the community, including myself. I though that the whole point of integrating a new feature is to really implement it into the software, where you can make it efficient and reliable, where you don't rely on a third party to make it work and where users' data is bundled to their Firefox profile only. If they think it was not worth it to implement it, then they could just label the extension "featured", make a blog post to advice it to the community and call it a day. Otherwise they can just start integrating any popular extension, call it a new "feature" and defend themselves by saying that people use it so it's important.
lgp171188 11y ago
Quoting the About page of the Mozilla Input site, "Firefox Input is Mozilla's primary feedback mechanism for products.It is set up to be a method of one-way communication about your experiences in using our products, the Internet you view it through, and what Mozilla can do to make that experience better" So please provide do provide feedback on various Mozilla products on Mozilla Input and not just limit it to this Pocket integration.

79 points by lgp171188 11y ago

Yes sure, It's really negative feedback here but the majority of users commenting there have technical knowledge as you can see in the comments and most people are only commenting when they don't like things anyway, you never have any thanks if they like things (if you ever created something used by other people, you know what I'm talking about). So we can see that technical people (including me) don't like so much this feature but it does not help to know if the average user is finding it useful, I would bet on my case average users are not even using it since you need to create a separate account, but anyway, we will see. And also, in my opinion, Firefox became a great product by trying new things. And as always, when you change things, sometimes it does not work, sometimes you explore in other directions, you need to experiment a bit. PS: Downvoting-me does not change these facts.

jszymborski 11y ago
very much agree. I honestly don't see what the hubub is all about. Re: privacy, Firefox maintains it's commitment and integrity. The pocket integration is very transparent (pocket has agreed to open-source it), and the tech-saavy people that seem to be the only people this offends can disable with about:config. Honestly, it seems that people seem to be upset about the idea that Firefox is raising money outside of donations. I for one am very happy about them finding revenue sources that also add functionality for users, all while maintaining user privacy as a main interest.
- hiou 11y ago
  If Mozilla is going to start including proprietary closed platforms like pocket, what do they offer that Chrome is not? WebKit is much more targeted by web developers so I'm going to have a slightly better experience with Chrome. Without the moral high ground of openness and privacy why would anyone chose Firefox over the competition?
  - sanxiyn 11y ago
    Firefox uses less memory than Chrome, for example.
- lagadu 11y ago
  Allow me to quote the Pocket ToS[1]: > We may work with trusted third parties that we refer to as internal service providers to facilitate or outsource one or more aspects of the products and services that we provide to you, and we may provide some of your personal information directly to these internal service providers. I feel that speaks for itself. [1] https://getpocket.com/privacy https://getpocket.com/privacy
  - jszymborski 11y ago
    That's the Pocket ToS... you only agree to it when you use Pocket, not firefox.
- muraiki 11y ago
  Mozilla is receiving no monetary compensation from Pocket's inclusion. See also my comment re: Pocket's TOS applying by virtue of installation, not usage. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9885795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9885795
hiou 11y ago
I understand the hip trend of only thinking about an inept fool who can barely click a link in a browser, but the reality is that a large percentage of Firefox's users are educated users who are concerned about things like openness and privacy. Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer have a fairly strong grip on the technically unskilled user. Can Mozilla survive in marketshare without this group? I have a feeling we are going to find out soon enough.
ArekDymalski 11y ago
>it does not help to know if the average user is finding it useful The feedback itself isn't helpful, but the data about the percentage of users using the Pocket add-on should be.

mariusmg 11y ago

Mozilla is not a merry band of hackers anymore. They're a bona fida corporation with its own agenda. Their agenda depends on having as many users as possible so they're trying to make everything they can for that. The free web, choice and all that become second place now. PS : Look at their corporate HQ.

sp332 11y ago
The Mozilla Corporation is completely owned by the Mozilla Foundation, a non-profit with a manifesto https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/details/ that reads in part, "Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must not be treated as optional."
- tiplus 11y ago
  Somehow the part about privacy seems to refer to a 'special' form of privacy... look at FF hello: Mozilla about FF Hello [1]: "Firefox Hello is provided to you in collaboration with TokBox, Inc. ("TokBox") and sends data to TokBox as a part of the function of the service." Tokbox (Telefonica)[2]: "We neither rent nor sell your information to anyone. We don’t share your information with other organizations or individuals outside of TokBox, except as described below" below: - "With our affiliates and trusted business partners that cooperate with us to provide you our services" - "We may share Aggregate Data publicly and with our partners." Please try to contact Mozilla and tell me who these 'trusted business partners' are. I tried and did not get anywhere... I am a former customer of Telefonica and they sure tried very hard to appear as a 'will mug you for money' type of company. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox-hello/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox-hello/ [2] https://tokbox.com/support/privacy-policy https://tokbox.com/support/privacy-policy
- userbinator 11y ago
  What worries me more is that freedom isn't mentioned as fundamental.
  - sp332 11y ago

h1fra 11y ago

These are mostly childish comment, not really HN worthy.

morganvachon 11y ago
And yours is? Most of the comments center around the same idea: Mozilla removed the choice of which "read later" service to use by default, by baking it into the browser itself instead of leaving it as an extension or add-on, where it and all the other services like it belong. So, now if you have a user who doesn't want a "read later" service, they have to take the extra steps to disable the button and go into about:config to completely turn it off. For the users who do want a "read later" service but don't want to use Pocket, they now have whatever they install via extension, plus Pocket, which is redundant and silly. Basically, all this integration has accomplished is bloating Firefox to serve the single digit percentage of past Pocket extension users (many of whom will continue to use the extension since that's what they are used to), and maybe grab a few hundred more who see the new Pocket icon and decide to keep using it after trying it out. If they had gone with an open platform for this service, or even better, their own homegrown solution, I wouldn't be upset by it. As it stands, Firefox was supposed to be the open standard the other browsers should strive to imitate; instead, it is steadily spiraling downward. This is becoming a pattern, and it's not a pretty one.
- eli 11y ago
  Honest question: would it be better if instead they rolled out a custom Firefox-only Read Later service, as was the original plan? Is the issue that they "picked a winner" or that Read Later shouldn't be built in to the browser, period?
  - cscharenberg 11y ago
    Neither of those is a good choice. The custom Firefox-only would be a waste of developer resources. Similarly, picking a winner is also a waste of developer resources: there were already extensions that had far more functionality. Firefox should have added a more general "Experience Enhancements" feature that suggested great features that could be enabled and offered a few options. This same concept of periodically offering enhancements to users could be presented periodically and offer any number of things over time. My complaint is the Mozilla folks missed a more general, better capability they could have built.

k-mcgrady 11y ago

When did they build in Pocket? I didn't like when they added Hello but this seems even stranger. I guess they're getting money from Pocket for it in the same way they get money from Google for search but users can opt-out of Google search - from those complaints it doesn't sound possible for Pocket. (Please let me know if I'm wrong).

zokier 11y ago
Mozilla does not get money from Pocket source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2930532/reading-service-pocket-built-into-firefox-replacing-reading-list-feature.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2930532/reading-service-pocke... There's no monetary benefit to Mozilla from the integration: Pocket didn't pay for placement in the browser.
- cscharenberg 11y ago
  Which is odd, because that means Mozilla is paying Pocket for it by funding developer and support time. The fact Pocket is not paying is a bad thing: it's a one-way drain on Mozilla resources. How is this a fair partnership?
morganvachon 11y ago
You can delete the button, and you can go into about:config, turn off switches and set strings to "null". But the code is baked in, and your work to disable it will likely be reversed with each Firefox update. There's nothing nefarious about the Pocket code in Firefox from what I've seen, but the service it connects your browser to is opaque, closed source, and the ToS is hostile and aggressive towards openness. In short, it should have remained an extension.
Mahn 11y ago
About a month or so ago. The rationale was that Firefox used to have or intended to have a similar read for later feature but they decided to scrap it in favour of direct integration with Pocket. Oddly enough, Mozilla employees claim there wasn't money involved in the integration. See this thread for more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809

gadders 11y ago

I can remember when the whole point of creating Firefox was as a response to a bloated Netscape that included an email client, newsreader, kitchen sink etc. Now it seems they're trying to bundle everything back in again.

DrinkWater 11y ago

This is a bit off-topic, but some of the user feedback (esp. in German) is really childish.

blfr 11y ago

I don't understand the complaint here. Do people expect Mozilla to build everything themselves? Reader View is a great feature that was clearly missing. Adding a third party sync to it is really no different from picking a default search engine to serve location bar entries. Pocket is fine, best of the trio (Instapaper, Readability) IMHO. I actually switched to Pocket from Readability, which was getting buggier, a few weeks before it was integrated. Getting all that while bringing revenue for Mozilla to support further development of Firefox is a win-win-win. Unlike Hello or "Share This Page" which I have never seen anyone use.

Zuikaku 11y ago
The complaint is the fact that Pocket is now natively built into Firefox, which if you read the Pocket ToS, can be considered a violation of privacy. That, and the fact that because it is natively built in rather than a default extension, it cannot be removed, only disabled. It's something that couldn't be farther from necessary. That's the complaint here.
- blfr 11y ago
  What's the difference between removing and disabling? Aren't they effectively the same? The source is still there to read/hack. Do you care about a few lines of inactive code? If so, I'd start the purge with Hello.
  - michaelt 11y ago
    I can't speak for firefox users, but when I buy a phone and it comes with a "phone company daily deals" app that that can't be removed because it's a "system component" it often seems to me that they could easily have been made it removable, and that making bloat impossible to remove was a business decision. Perhaps firefox users feel the same way.
a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
I love the pocket integration. The built-in functionality definitely works much better than the plugin, which was weirdly slow sometimes and had some glitches. Pocket has changed how I use the web. With a single click I send any substantive article to get automatically synced to my Kobo ereader, which also has built-in pocket integration.

soapdog 11y ago

Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button. Firefox Hello is a collaboration, developed by Mozilla with help from Telefonica. Its videoconferencing without accounts. You don't need to create any account and it doesn't track you, how that is not good is beyond me. The Pocket feature is really useful for those using it and harmless for those not using it. You can always remove the button or replace it with an add-on of your choice. Instead of offering just a web view, Mozilla is trying to bundle features that the users find useful. None of the said features does you any harm if you don't use them. Before finishing this comment, let me leave you with a little nugget of advise: Less war and more dating. Instead of being a critic and combating every form of feature that somehow you dislike. Try to see how partnerships and opportunities make things better for everyone.Lots of people are loving the Pocket and Hello features and using them on a daily basis. Instead of removing features we can think of scenarios where they are useful and understand why they are there. And again, if you don't like them, you can use the Customize feature to remove them from the toolbars.

scrollaway 11y ago
Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Mozilla. I am not a Mozilla employee. I also care very little about the Pocket situation. Pocket was massively mishandled. You should have seen it coming from a mile away. And when you didn't and it happened anyway, you should have backtracked a lot faster and released a public statement. And damn it, priorities. You talk about partnerships creating opportunities etc; you have plenty of opportunities already. How about Persona, for example? How come it got moved to community support and got sod all marketing behind it, despite being a technology the open web direly needs and Mozilla being one of the only entities that can pull it off? The tech is good, too! Where's that commitment to the open web now? How many people were complaining about their bookmark management before Pocket was introduced? Was it ever an area of firefox that needed dire improvements? Not since sync was introduced. You have nobody to blame but yourselves. Users are hostile to change by default, you have to be able to back up the change with solid reasoning, and you have to be able to sell it to anyone who doesn't actually read what you say. You should have known better; don't be surprised about the hostile reaction now.

donatj 11y ago

Someone should fork Firefox with all this crap removed. Does IceWeasel have Pocket and Sync and such?

kpcyrd 11y ago
Iceweasel actually has a file somewhere in /etc that overrides the config to disable some of those features.

SunShiranui 11y ago

I didn't realize Pocket was a third-party service. Perhaps this should be made clear when updating Firefox.

Dysprosium 11y ago

The thing with Pocket is that it's basically an extension installed by default. This is the first time Mozilla does such a thing to Firefox, and this doesn't please the community, including myself. I though that the whole point of integrating a new feature is to really implement it into the software, where you can make it efficient and reliable, where you don't rely on a third party to make it work and where users' data is bundled to their Firefox profile only. If they think it was not worth it to implement it, then they could just label the extension "featured", make a blog post to advice it to the community and call it a day. Otherwise they can just start integrating any popular extension, call it a new "feature" and defend themselves by saying that people use it so it's important.

lgp171188 11y ago

Quoting the About page of the Mozilla Input site, "Firefox Input is Mozilla's primary feedback mechanism for products.It is set up to be a method of one-way communication about your experiences in using our products, the Internet you view it through, and what Mozilla can do to make that experience better" So please provide do provide feedback on various Mozilla products on Mozilla Input and not just limit it to this Pocket integration.