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

221–230 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#221

Post by kibwen »

toyg wrote: post #189
kibwen wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, but we're talking about XUL the platform. That platform was built with the same use-case in mind that Electron has: allowing people to build cross-platform desktop applications with web technologies (html, js etc). Unfortunately Mozilla failed to execute on that vision, leaving the field open for Electron and friends to emerge. Part of that failure was due to bad technological choices (RDF-XML was terrible ), pa…

But lots of people did write apps in XUL. My first IRC client and my first FTP client were both XUL apps. I'm not convinced that Electron today is any more popular than XUL was back then (aside from Atom (or VS Code, based on Atom), I can't name any programs that use Electron).

Additionally, XUL uses web tech, but it is not a standard and was never intended to be a standard (not even an informal specification exists AFAIK), so it's a stretch to say that Mozilla failed to execute on pushing XUL. What would the web gain by pushing it?

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#222

Post by kilroy123 »

splintercell wrote: post #47
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...

I read A LOT on pocket (they sent me an email that I was one of their top 1% readers, with having read 1.7 million words). For me it's a great time saver, I see some interesting article during work, but instead of wasting my time on it during work, I save it for later. Granted I get no signal during the subway where Pocket becomes a really useful app, but it results in me being a lot more efficient with reading.`

Same here.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#223

Post by moberemk »

FatalBaboon wrote: post #215
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…

I cannot understand the need for a thing like Pocket. Much less why Mozilla prefers to keep it close, and even less for money. I mean, what is wrong with bookmarks and sharing links? Firefox can even send tabs to other computers I got linked via ff sync. Iterate on a bad idea, give it a social spin, and voilà! You have a sellable startup. Except you should not buy that.

Two big things: 1) it's a lot faster to send to Pocket with the button > mark as read than managing bookmarks IMO but the real killer feature for me is 2) the offline saving of articles. Pocket is killer when I'm commuting or without Wi-Fi because it means I can keep reading things without worrying about finding a hotspot or wasting my (very limited) data.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#224

Post by yuhong »

Feld0 wrote: post #217
yuhong wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish there was an easier way to do this, ideally something like a corporation with no shareholders.

That's exactly what a nonprofit is. Nonprofits are corporations like any other, with a few key differences: - Instead of shareholders, nonprofits have members. Members don't own the corporation (no one does) but control it insofar that they hire-and-fire its directors. - Memberships normally can't be sold, and nonprofits have no equivalent to dividends. - There are stronger conflict-of-interest protections, preventin…

Yes, something like that but without the need to create a separate foundation and corporation.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#225

Post by UnfalseDesign »

bttf wrote: post #211
threatofrain wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be curious to see an organization scheme other than just tags, as I suspect that it leads to difficult to trim (potentially always climbing up) bloat and cognitive load.

interesting point. tags have been a feature we have not added yet partly because they seem slightly superfluous. the user is able to search across titles, descriptions, URLs, and can curate links with lists. not sure if tags can provide any extra value

If your goal is to create a service that's main feature is content discoverability, I would think that tags are essential. It would provide you with great metrics for knowing what the user prefers. For instance, "They tend to tag lots of funny stories on Saturday. The tag tech news on Monday and Tuesday. They tag movie news on Thursday." Your recommendation engine would then be able to suggest articles to them. "Other users have tagged these stories as tech news and it is Monday. Here's your Monday feed!" I'm not saying you can't make a working product without them. I'm simply saying you probably can't make a competitive product without them.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#226

Post by ffjffsfr »

zobzu wrote: post #66
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…

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…

how does pocket make money? they do have pocket premium: https://getpocket.com/premium?ep=2 but I never saw them advertising it and never thought about using it and I'm using pocket heavily past several months. Is "pocket premium" their main source of income? Is it bringing real dollars?

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#227

Post by raesene9 »

kobayashi wrote: post #214
chii wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why do you care where the patches come from?

One might care where the patches come from as a volunteer community could be less reliable over time than the paid Mozilla staff. I know I certainly feel that way.

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?

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#228

Post by [deleted] »

moron4hire wrote: post #125
RyanZAG wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thunderbird doesn't make money. Pocket makes money. That's not the case anymore with this merger though, right? Pocket will now cease to make actual money.

From the announcement: "Pocket will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Corporation" Mozilla Corporation is a for-profit, taxable entity. Here are their articles of incorporation: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/documents/articles-... . It is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation, which is the non-profit thing that people call "Mozilla". The Foundation is really just a holding compan…

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#229

Post by usrusr »

toyg wrote: post #199
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.

It is ridiculous though. Mozilla already had a sync infrastructure, it didn't need another service just for bookmarks, "only" a decent additional UI. To me, the whole Pocket thing always smelled of cronyism. Someone is friend with someone else, and lo, Pocket appears. People get all angry, Pocket's hockey-stick fails to materialise, and lo, Mozilla bail them out...

Or in a less negative spin, acqui-hire a group of people you already know you enjoy working together with.

I don't think that there would have been that many other suitors for pocket, so depending on how close they were to just closing the price might be extremely low (or are any numbers making the rounds?). Maybe there is not much acqui in the hire, could have been more like a deal between founders and investors, "allow me to take the brand with me to my future employer".

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#230

Post by jventura »

maxxxxx wrote: post #156
omouse wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can see that just by looking at their job postings. The experimental ads team was hiring and then stopped and then the team was absorbed into other teams. Now they have more postings for project managers. They're basically introducing more hierarchy and traditional corp. stuff from the sounds of it.

Having more project managers is how things get done. I see it everyday at my company...

I had a coworker that used to say that when you have more managers than toilets, something is clearly wrong. It was a rule of thumb in his experience..
Post reply on HN