Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a company with a huge user base (Mozilla) acquires a company with a much smaller user base (Pocket), they're probably not doing it to cross-sell the smaller user base. I thought Mozilla was going to be investing in Pocket and giving them the resources to grow, as well as sending them Mozilla's users — a fraction of whom would become premium Pocket subscribers. But as far as I can tell, there haven't been any not…
So what was the point?
I’m glad they haven’t changed the Pocket experience too much. I still use and pay for Pocket but I’ll probably jump ship to pinboard or build a personal solution if they do something that diminishes the value I find in it today. The most likely ways this could happen is by reducing functionality (e.g., discontinuing clients/APIs), adding unwanted things (more advertising and social media), and doing things that seem unexplainably arbitrary (see: colorways). Pocket works everywhere I need it to, it has acceptable design and performance, and it has demonstrated some maturity and resilience as a product that’s around 15 years old.
Other solutions I’ve tried include clips in Evernote, OneNote, Zim; the app Keep Everything; the services RainDrop and Larder; and e-mailing myself. All of these except the last turned out to be more of a hassle to put up with than using Pocket.
If Pocket gets worse, I’ll probably make my own solution with e-mail. I practically never look at or for anything I save in Pocket, so it would seem my main attraction is the ease of sending things into a vault from anywhere I’m likely to use the internet and the confidence that I can find these another day. I’ll probably be able to access all my old e-mails in 10 years, there’s pretty good search, and it’s ubiquitous (although it is easier to use HTTP than SMTP in some scenarios).