Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla Acquires Pocket

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#101

Post by kibwen »

mbel wrote: post #98
mwcampbell wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XUL was the future of old-school, heavy desktop applications. But people generally aren't interested in those anymore. At least HTML and the rest of the web stack work OK on mobile platforms.

> XUL was the future of old-school, heavy desktop applications. The old-school, heavy desktop apps seem to be so unbelievably light in comparison to current electron-based craziness. But I guess we deserve all the bloat for not being able to come up with sensible common API for desktop development :(

Thunderbird didn't lose to an Electron-based app, it lost to Gmail.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#102

Post by wiredearp »

philfrasty wrote: post #21

I have used Pocket for the last five years or so. 99.5% of the articles I bookmark every day I never actually read. Probably should make me think why I use it at all...

All the latest e-readers from Kobo come with Pocket integration (hopefully also going forward) and I can testify that it helps a lot if you get the reading material off the LCD display and off the general internet where I would otherwise also just browse around and bookmark stuff without actually reading anything.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#103

Post by baby »

yellowapple wrote: post #92
baby wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want them to remove one of the most useful feature of Firefox? You can remove it easily, but I'd advise you to try using it. It personally helps me go through interesting news and "pocket" it if I don't have the time to read it now, or want to keep my time for more important articles but still think it's an important piece of news. I have both the desktop Pocket application and the mobile Pocket application. They…

The existing bookmark system does pretty much all of that already (with the sole exception of offline viewing, but Pocket's implementation is reportedly buggy anyway), and then some. It also syncs across one's devices.

the offline viewing is the only reason I use Pocket.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#104

Post by Broken_Hippo »

philfrasty wrote: post #21

I have used Pocket for the last five years or so. 99.5% of the articles I bookmark every day I never actually read. Probably should make me think why I use it at all...

My Pocket usage increased significantly if I'm out of the house often. I use very little mobile internet to keep my phone costs down - using pocket offline works out great.

I don't read all of the articles I have on there, of course, but that's OK. It still works for bathroom or on-the-road reading. Admittedly, games get played during toilet visits more often than articles getting read.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#105

Post by dyukqu »

baby wrote: post #36
wodenokoto wrote: post #16

I've always liked Pocket, but felt queasy about its integration with Firefox. I consider this a great move for a better bookmarking experience in Firefox as well as a better pocket service.

I agree. For example, you can't really see a list of what you pocketed unless you go to their webpage. Or if you want to be able to read them offline, you need to download the Pocket application. I wish all was integrated in Firefox. It's 2017 and a browser needs this and tabs on the side by default.

You can have tabs on the side via an addon. Here: https://testpilot.firefox.com/experiments/tab-center

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#106

Post by BinaryIdiot »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #48

Mozilla is growing, experimenting more, and can acquire startups. Mozilla doesn't have the resources to continue with Thunderbird. I am increasingly baffled by their decisions and how they relate to the strategic plans [0] they've been producing for a while. Despite the worthy words in their plan they seem to have no sense of direction. That saddens me. That said I'm happier having Pocket as an open source part of Mo…

To be fair Thunderbird is awful. Every single time I try to find a better client I see someone suggesting "oh Thunderbird has gotten way better; give it a shot! I love it!" and every time I fall for it and it's the same slow, horrible application that I've tried again and again.

I'm all for them killing it.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#107

Post by Broken_Hippo »

SwellJoe wrote: post #74

Pocket, for me, is a weird product/feature. I've tried to use it, but it ends up just being like a clumsy bookmarking feature. Allegedly, you can read things offline, but that feature never works for me. It seems the feature for offline reading doesn't exist at all in Firefox (which I'd assumed was the point of its integration, but my assumption was wrong), and I've tried the Chrome desktop app and the Android mobile…

It isn't all that obvious how the offline function works - which is a shame. I've been caught without offline availability for some articles I saved.

The main thing with the work-around is that you need to start Pocket on your phone while you have a data connection so that the articles are on the phone. There may be an option to automatically download the articles, but I've never found it. After the one-time data connection, it comes up offline.

This is the case when I save from the computer and view them on my phone (or different device, I guess, but I've not checked a different computer). Your luck may vary.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#108

Post by hubert123 »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #106
anexprogrammer wrote: post #48

Mozilla is growing, experimenting more, and can acquire startups. Mozilla doesn't have the resources to continue with Thunderbird. I am increasingly baffled by their decisions and how they relate to the strategic plans [0] they've been producing for a while. Despite the worthy words in their plan they seem to have no sense of direction. That saddens me. That said I'm happier having Pocket as an open source part of Mo…

To be fair Thunderbird is awful. Every single time I try to find a better client I see someone suggesting "oh Thunderbird has gotten way better; give it a shot! I love it!" and every time I fall for it and it's the same slow, horrible application that I've tried again and again. I'm all for them killing it.

I was recently looking for desktop email clients and there is literally not a single free alternative? Cant be that awful if it's the only one.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#109

Post by kibwen »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #95
mwcampbell wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XUL was the future of old-school, heavy desktop applications. But people generally aren't interested in those anymore. At least HTML and the rest of the web stack work OK on mobile platforms.

What definition of heavy are you using here? Because despite often being 'thin clients', most of the programs I run that embed HTML engines for the UI end up being stupendously resource-intensive compared to their native equivalents.

I think that your parent commentator is noting that people pretty much just stopped writing desktop apps altogether, at least relative to webapps. In my childhood I downloaded desktop apps left and right for everything, but nowadays I only download apps in two categories: developer tools and Steam games. E.g. something like http://hirnsohle.de/test/fractalLab/ would have invariably been a desktop app only a few years ago.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#110

Post by mintplant »

yellowapple wrote: post #89
derefr wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the resistance to having it in at this point? Every browser has a cloud-backed page snapshot feature.

My own reason for disliking it was that it's a closed-source piece of an otherwise-FOSS browser. Hopefully this acquisition means a change for the better on that front.

Pocket will become FOSS, so yes. Follow [0] for status updates.

[0] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=open-pocket

Post reply on HN