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

241–250 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#241

Post by comex »

kibwen wrote: post #221
toyg wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Slack and Riot.im use Electron; Signal's desktop app uses the soon-to-be-deprecated Chrome app platform and will probably end up on Electron (AFAIK). I refuse to use any of them, having been spoiled by IRC clients that can actually handle large message volumes without flopping over.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#242

Post by TekMol »

Mozilla has the resources to buy companies. But not the resources to make videos play smoothly. 2017 and Firefox has no hardware accelerated video playback on Linux.

Every time I read about something Mozilla does, I am reminded of this xkcd comic from 2013:

https://xkcd.com/619/

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#243

Post by hkmurakami »

callahad wrote: post #168
Roritharr wrote: post #122

After this, why should I donate to Mozilla? I really don't get what's the difference between donating to Mozilla and donating to Facebook. Facebook open-sources some of their stuff. Facebook buys companies to generate revenues... I guess Mozilla doesn't need help anymore.

Donations to "Mozilla" go to the non-profit Mozilla Foundation, which does exceptional, meaningful work. Firefox is developed by the Foundation's self-funding, for-profit subsidary, the Mozilla Corporation (MoCo). MoCo acquired Pocket, using its own funds. For legal / tax reasons, MoCo can only push a tiny fraction of its revenue up into the Foundation. This means that donations are necessary to sustain the Foundatio…

I feel like sufficiently large numbers of people are confused about the arrangement of the company and the foundation (I definitely don't know the details of the money flow between the two), that this warrants some kind of easily referable page on Mozilla's website.

(appreciate you clarifying this here)

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#244

Post by hkmurakami »

zyngaro wrote: post #80

"We believe that the discovery and accessibility of high quality web content is key to keeping the internet healthy by fighting against the rising tide of centralization and walled gardens" that alone is a reason to welcome this aquisition. Facebook has become for many, me included the entry point to the web much more so than the browser and I really don't like that. I can imagine Mozilla suggest content to users bas…

I suppose then that the strategy will be "the browser as a platform" vs "FB as a platform", with the technical difference that all FF tools will be open source?

That actually sounds promising. Next logical content vertical would be video then (judging from FB's content importance)

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#245

Post by trome »

carussell wrote: post #234
moberemk wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Pocket is killer when I'm commuting or without Wi-Fi ... and yet this thread and every other Mozilla apologist thread is always filled with folks who suggest that it's no big deal to assume an always-on, always-available network connection.

Yeah, the problem with all these web apps is the lack of functionality when offline. Most just don't work, and some have a half working offline mode, but non-perfect connectivity or no connectivity really limits productivity today.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#246

Post by webwanderings »

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.

I recently downloaded TB to move some offline mbox emails of large quantity. TB became increasingly slow processing few thousand. I downloaded Opera Mail to do the same exact work. I was done within few hours.

I have a need for more people to repeat the same process. There's zero chance I'll be asking them to download TB.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#247

Post by jacquesm »

webwanderings wrote: post #246
jacquesm wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I recently downloaded TB to move some offline mbox emails of large quantity. TB became increasingly slow processing few thousand. I downloaded Opera Mail to do the same exact work. I was done within few hours. I have a need for more people to repeat the same process. There's zero chance I'll be asking them to download TB.

Thunderbird sets up a full-text index to allow you to search your emails. This eats up a bit of time while importing large mailboxes but is quite handy once it is done.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#248

Post by alphapapa »

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

Lists and tags are the same thing, where with "tags" URLs can be on multiple lists.

Tags are essential. Think about this: a user saves this link to a list of stories about Pocket. He also collects links about Mozilla's management, so he puts it on a list of stories about Mozilla. Then he remembers that he wants to talk about this link with a friend, so he adds it to a list of links he wants to share with his friend.

According to "lists," he has to choose between one of those three lists, while with tags he can use all three. Search does not replace tags, and neither does having to manually type keywords into the description field.

Leaving out tags is a fundamental oversight. I would never consider using any service that didn't have them.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#250

Post by nisa »

notatoad wrote: post #153
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…

The people that complain about mozilla stopping development on thunderbird seem to be the same people that complain about things like firefox moving to WebExtensions, and Firefox changing their UI, and Firefox integrating Pocket. I don't understand why people are disappointed that Mozilla has stopped actively developing thunderbird - it means it's not going to change . There is an email client that you like, as is, a…

Maybe it's something that is of value to a lot of users and a non-profit (http://www.computerworld.com/article/3011418/web-browsers/mo...) might help move that important software in the future. Like a competitive open-source browser, a competitive mail client is a good thing. Not everyone want to use the cloud.
Post reply on HN