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

401–410 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#401

Post by ikurei »

djhworld wrote: post #133

I use Instapaper on a daily basis, how does Pocket compare?

These are the most salient differences in my experience with both:

- Apart from saving the parsed, "readable" version of an article, it can also save the web as-it-is. This is very useful for those times when the formatting is important (as it is in articles that include code; you loose syntax-highlighting with the readable view. Pocket can be set to try and choose the best view for each article.

- It does a great job with videos.

- It uses tags instead of folders.

- Instapaper has been less reliable for me (specially the android app), although in fairness I've used it more, so I'd notice it's unreliability more often.

I'm not that interested in recommendations, but I gotta admit that the few times I've looked at them, Pocket's recommendations were fairly good.

I've been using Instapaper for around two years now, keeping Pocket as a bag of less-important links, not-really-reading-material, and very often video. I was thinking of going back to Pocket as my main read-it-later service, specially for the first feature I mentioned.

It being Mozilla-owned and some day also OSS will surely be a further advantage in my mind.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#402

Post by ForHackernews »

rhelmer wrote: post #173
zobzu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thunderbird doesn't make money. Pocket makes money. That Mozilla is a Corp owned by a not-for-profit isn't the real thing anymore (ie not what people may believe, not that they have any obligation beside following the rule of law) - it just frees the Corp from having to report to random share holders - instead, the Corp and the Org self-select a Board of directors that they report to. At the end of the day, it's othe…

Mozilla needs products that are relevant in the marketplace, to exist. Revenue is part but not all of this. I don't think Mozilla can make meaningful impact in a world where it doesn't make products that internet users want to use. It would be a largely toothless advocacy organization at that point.

Millions of people want to use Thunderbird! I would even pay some amount for an "officially supported edition" of Thunderbird.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#403

Post by duncanawoods »

hvidgaard wrote: post #389
coredog64 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slack has a standalone app? I've only ever used the web version. What more does it do? Chew up a bunch of RAM and glitch display compositing if my experience is typical.

My slack has been running for days now, and it's humming along at 50mb.

Electron is multi-process. If looking in Windows task manager, there will be the initial process at 50 Mb and then e.g. 7 more background processes.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#404

Post by vetinari »

rhelmer wrote: post #177
Manishearth wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong here, but the thunderbird thing is basically that it was way too much work for little gain -- the way Thunderbird is designed was that it was a kind-of-fork of Firefox, and too many resources were being wasted just keeping the "fork" up to date from changes to internal Firefox APIs. I'm also not sure of this, but that vision thing you link to is focused on the goals of the Foundation proper (excludin…

Aside from technical issues, native mail clients are shrinking in use over time, not growing. It does not seem like the right place to invest to continue having relevance in the marketplace.

> native mail clients are shrinking in use over time, not growing.

I see that with my colleagues, who have Gmail (Gapps for domains) in one tab and OWA in another... instead of using a mail client with unified mailbox and not having tp look after which account has the message.

Yes, Apple Mail.app user here, who is not going to switch to webapp mail anytime soon.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#405

Post by vetinari »

icebraining wrote: post #396
vetinari wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one? https://developers.google.com/gmail/api/

I'm asking which Gmail APIs would Thunderbird have to keep up with. As far as I know, it never used that API, hence it doesn't have to keep up with it.

Sorry, didn't understand you right.

Basically, the only thing that is kind-of Gmail specific is the auth support (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=849540). If Gmail sometimes in future switches from OAuth2 to some other protocol, the client will have to be updated.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#406

Post by hvidgaard »

duncanawoods wrote: post #403
hvidgaard wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My slack has been running for days now, and it's humming along at 50mb.

Electron is multi-process. If looking in Windows task manager, there will be the initial process at 50 Mb and then e.g. 7 more background processes.

That puts it at 250mb. That is quite a lot for a chat app.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#407

Post by vetinari »

rhelmer wrote: post #161
Esau wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated." Not me. I don't want a bloated Firefox; even if the bloat is well intentioned and fully open sourced.

One person's bloat is another person's critical feature. Are you thinking of install size, runtime cost, all of the above? Firefox is open-source and (fairly) easy to build - if you really want the utmost control then I'd suggest this is the best way to do it. You can easily do a build that has no Pocket integration. There's a cost to the level of configuration that I assume you're advocating here. Not saying we can'…

> One person's bloat is another person's critical feature.

That's what extensions are for. Those who want it, can have it, those who don't, they won't. Everybody wins, no need to raise emotions.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#408

Post by vetinari »

bartvk wrote: post #354
pcnix wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only on mobile afaik. How do you deal with it on the desktop?

On macOS, do something like this: $ brew install youtube-dl

On macOS, the following works as well:

    $ pip install youtube-dl
even if you don't use brew. Python is there out of the box.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#409

Post by raesene6 »

kobayashi wrote: post #285
raesene9 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you prefer security updates from paid employees of an organization rather than volunteers, surely a commercial product rather than a free one would be more suitable for your needs?

Not necessarily. I appreciate the values for which Mozilla stands, and those values are entrenched in their products.

So you're looking for an organisation who will use non-free employees to give you a product for free?

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#410

Post by johnchristopher »

ForHackernews wrote: post #402
rhelmer wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla needs products that are relevant in the marketplace, to exist. Revenue is part but not all of this. I don't think Mozilla can make meaningful impact in a world where it doesn't make products that internet users want to use. It would be a largely toothless advocacy organization at that point.

Millions of people want to use Thunderbird! I would even pay some amount for an "officially supported edition" of Thunderbird.

Why not postbox ?
Post reply on HN