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

421–430 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#421

Post by lmm »

jacquesm wrote: post #142
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My 1K+ folders and millions of archived emails disagree with you. I've yet to find a client that works as well as Thunderbird with my massive email archive. Why would it be slow? I can only type so fast and sending/receiving mail is mostly dependent on the connectivity, not on the software.

How does KMail perform for that? I never had trouble with its performance, though I don't think I ever quite made it into the millions of emails.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#422

Post by mxuribe »

nerdponx wrote: post #59
shmerl wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a resistance to using Pocket, because it's a closed proprietary service. Now Mozilla plan to open source it, for which they had to buy it first. So it's a good outcome IMHO.

Now all they need to do is make it self-hostable.

I'm with you!

I know there's wallabag, but i always felt it was too hefty for self-hosting on, say, a small digital ocean vps. I've been using Shaarli [https://github.com/shaarli/Shaarli] because its so lean, and easy/quick to set up...though admittedly it is also lean on features (which i'm cool with, but others might want more). My hope is that pocket - once made to be self-hostable - is easy and lean to self-host on a small vps.

...Though even if its not as lean and easy to set up, the fact that pocket will now/soon be added to the open source world is always a win!

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#423

Post by rhelmer »

Sylos wrote: post #372
rhelmer wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The built-in Pocket feature is an addon that is pre-installed into Firefox: https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/browser/exten...

Yeah, but there's for example also a Pocket Android app and iOS app. Those should get open-sourced now, too, and I heavily doubt that they were before.

I agree!

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#424

Post by tertius »

stymaar wrote: post #378
dbbk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is YouTube's prerogative to offer that feature for their paid service.

And it's the user's prerogative to build and use tools to circumvent artificial[1] limitations. [1]: reminder: technically, streaming isn't different from download, what your computer does when watching a video in streaming is downloading . Forcing users to delete the video they have downloaded (which is exactly what's happening with streaming) so they pay the premium service for off-line use, is not a legitimate way…

> is not a legitimate way to do business.

You're not the arbiter of this.

> but people who don't want to pay aren't doing anything wrong.

Not wanting to pay isn't wrong. Circumventing the Youtube's restrictions is though.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#425

Post by tertius »

andrepd wrote: post #415
dbbk wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is YouTube's prerogative to offer that feature for their paid service.

So is the user's prerogative to use their downloaded content in any way they want, in this case not consuming immediately but saving for later.

> So is the user's prerogative to use their downloaded content in any way they want, in this case not consuming immediately but saving for later.

It's not their (the user's) content.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#427

Post by KarlFreeman »

It's fairly early stage but I've been actively building an alternative to Pocket called Filltray (https://filltray.com). I found myself being overwhelmed by products like Pocket/Instapaper so wanted to build something different. A place to keep things for "short" periods of time but without the baggage of having 100s of items permanently on your never-ending reading list. A "do-later" place that may or might not come around. A couple months ago I put up a public roadmap (https://medium.com/filltray/public-product-roadmap-3964c3fa4...) and I'm continuing to work hard to produce a product which meets mine — and I think others — needs for a rethink on read-later. Please feel free to follow @filltray to keep up to date with my progress :)!

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#428

Post by vivekd »

I use pocket because it is automatically synced with my Kobo e-reader. One thing I wish they would offer is folders. Before I bought the kobo I stuck with instapaper just because of the cleaner interface and the option to use folders.

I get that pocket offers the option to tag, but different people have different preferences and folders would be nice.

Also a bunch of large squares doesn't seem to be the best way to organize information consisting of web blogs and pictures.

Hopefully mozilla will make some UX changes to pocket.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#430

Post by ForHackernews »

mcherm wrote: post #419
ForHackernews wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would you be willing to pay that amount for an open source project without the official backing of Mozilla? Because I was under the impression that the source code to Thunderbird was, in fact, available under an open source license.

Yeah, I might be, actually. It would depend on who was involved and how much I trusted those devs, but at least conceptually, sure.
Post reply on HN