Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

input.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#71

Post by soapdog »

untitaker_ wrote: post #41
soapdog wrote: post #28

Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you ca…

This feature (or the decisions behind it) does harm non-users. Firefox devs have publicly claimed that it will replace Firefox's current reading list. Before Pocket integration, the integration of Reading List into Firefox Sync was planned, which is a end-to-end encrypted service with very strict ToS -- much stricter than Pocket's current ones: http://dustri.org/b/firefox-youre-supposed-to-be-in-my-pocke... Claiming…

Core values never changed. You can ask the Firefox development team at their mailing list why they decided to go with Pocket instead of building their own solution based on Firefox Sync (which is now called Firefox Accounts).

If the ToS and practices from Read It Later or any other partner are beyond what you consider valid or good, you can always reach Mozilla through the user voices channel and the development mailing list. The Advocacy group would also probably want to hear more about your concerns. One can direct criticism into positive changes. Mozilla is what we make of it, you can help make it better by helping the processes if you don't agree with them.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#72

Post by scrollaway »

soapdog wrote: post #69
scrollaway wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I am affiliated with Mozilla. I am not a Mozilla employee. I also care very little about the Pocket situation. Pocket was massively mishandled. You should have seen it coming from a mile away. And when you didn't and it happened anyway, you should have backtracked a lot faster and released a public statement. And damn it, priorities . You talk about partnerships creating opportunities etc; you have plenty…

I agree with you on the Persona topic. I've heard that it was quite hard to maintain and it got no traction and thats why it was turned into a community project. Apparently the federation part was the hardest thing (federating identity servers and keeping trust and security is non-trivial). As for priorities, you know that there are many teams each one focusing on a different task. Pocket is not bookmark management,…

> As for priorities, you know that there are many teams each one focusing on a different task.

I am well aware. Like you said though, pocket was released internally because it was "easier". That should have never happened. It should never have left the aurora builds in that shape. This is a focus problem; you prioritized releasing Pocket in the state it was in, over... not doing that.

What else could the Pocket team have focused on? How about Firefox Hello? Part of why it is being received so poorly is because of how unpolished it is. And yet, it got released; and now it's giving a good idea a bad name.

I'll give you that hindsight is 20/20, but Mozilla is not fixing the situation. You guys should know when to backtrack, when to apologize (your users are angry at you!).

As for Persona, well yeah, it's hard. It's one of the hardest and most critical problems we have on the web. So is building a web browser, though. I don't remember Mozilla ever giving up "because it's hard", and I definitely don't remember Mozilla ever abandoning something because it didn't get enough traction. Did you turn into Square Enix[0]?

[0] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-tomb-raider-has...

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#73

Post by soapdog »

lgp171188 wrote: post #70
soapdog wrote: post #28

Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you ca…

> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. Not sure how it was easier, since there is already a Firefox extension for Pocket which could have been shipped as an extension installed by default (but removable by users who do not want it) > Instead of offering just a web view, Mozilla is trying to bundle features that the users find useful. None of the said features does you any harm if…

> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.

> Not sure how it was easier, since there is already a Firefox extension for Pocket which could have been shipped as an extension installed by default (but removable by users who do not want it)

Developers said that this way was easier to maintain. I am not sure why either.

> A lot of privacy-aware users will expect Mozilla to provide a way to easily disable and remove what are essentially features tangential to the core functionality of the browser. By making it a feature integrated into the core Firefox, the users now have to jump through various hoops to come close to achieving that. Having it as an extension makes it much easier to do so.

The hops thing works both way. What is better to have features enabled and then those that do not like them disable them or the other way around? (genuine question). The thing is that Pocket is not doing anything there unless you use it. So if you're not using it, then, its not actually working and removing it is two clicks away.

So, let me ask you a question, you prefer a browser where stuff is disabled by default and you enable them at your own will? Can you give me pointers into what about discovery of said features?

Thinking the other way around, what about a browser where features are enabled and then you disable what you do not like? Why is that bad in your opinion? The customize menu that allows you to reorder and remove features is not enough for you?

This is not a taunt or dare, I am asking questions because I think that when two groups have opposing views we can make a good civil discussion and come out with positive things we can do to fix any possible problem or at least to present to other groups as our desired behavior.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#74

Post by lgp171188 »

Quoting the About page of the Mozilla Input site,

"Firefox Input is Mozilla's primary feedback mechanism for products.It is set up to be a method of one-way communication about your experiences in using our products, the Internet you view it through, and what Mozilla can do to make that experience better"

So please provide do provide feedback on various Mozilla products on Mozilla Input and not just limit it to this Pocket integration.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#75

Post by soapdog »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #44
soapdog wrote: post #28

Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you ca…

I'd rather Mozilla didn't just add third-party components via a silent update, without even giving me a choice. I didn't complain, I didn't criticize...I simply uninstalled Firefox. Lots of people use lots of extensions on a daily basis, but they don't give preferential treatment to those extensions. I am trusting Mozilla less and less and I'm not going to complain very loudly about it - but I am just going to leave.

I completely agree with using what feels comfortable with ones values and ideals. Can you tell me what browser you moved to?

One thing that we can talk about is that Mozilla is the single browser vendor working in the open. The source code, the development process, the roadmap and teams are all open. You can be a part of the development process and help make the Firefox you want.

The cool thing about the Web is that we can all be makers in this medium. Our collective strength and will can do amazing things when we work together. If you moved to a closed source browser or to some browser where the development is not that open, then, why not move back and help make it better?

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#76

Post by soapdog »

dd9990 wrote: post #65
soapdog wrote: post #28

Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you ca…

>If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button. That's extremely condescending. Program defaults, as you are aware, are very powerful. Pocket was shoved in millions of people's faces. Most won't bother or don't have the technical skills to remove it or understand the privacy implications of us…

You know what? You're right. Defaults are extremely powerful and I haven't thought about that angle. I too would have loved a public, federated and open API for a "read it later" feature but right now we don't have one. The only way to solve this was to build it or bundle some ready made solution. You can ask the Firefox Development team at their mailing list why they chose to bundle Pocket instead of developing a new standard.

As for the submission of data, the same could be said for all search engines. A browser is a communication tool, it sends data around. What we need to make sure is that it sends only the data you consent and only when/if you want.

Now, lets do a little exercise because you might know more then me about alternatives and I am using this thread to learn new things. If we want a "read it later" feature and we can't build our own, what solution you'd rather have instead of pocket? Is there any other service that you're more comfortable with? If you're not using Pocket and it is not sending any data because you're not using it, having that feature present is actually harming you?

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#77

Post by dingaling »

soapdog wrote: post #71
untitaker_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feature (or the decisions behind it) does harm non-users. Firefox devs have publicly claimed that it will replace Firefox's current reading list. Before Pocket integration, the integration of Reading List into Firefox Sync was planned, which is a end-to-end encrypted service with very strict ToS -- much stricter than Pocket's current ones: http://dustri.org/b/firefox-youre-supposed-to-be-in-my-pocke... Claiming…

Core values never changed. You can ask the Firefox development team at their mailing list why they decided to go with Pocket instead of building their own solution based on Firefox Sync (which is now called Firefox Accounts). If the ToS and practices from Read It Later or any other partner are beyond what you consider valid or good, you can always reach Mozilla through the user voices channel and the development mail…

The ToS concerns have been raised repeatedly on moz-governance.

We have been told not to worry about it, everything is probably fine. Probably. One guy is going to check, sometime.

Edit:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.governance/2...

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#78

Post by sgdread »

soapdog wrote: post #28

Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you ca…

> There is no money involved in the Pocket thing.

* It doesn't matter if money are involved or not. Firefox always was a pure browser free of crapware (at least that was a goal: open and free software). Now it is not. The problem is: if one piece of adware is allowed, then there would be another one and in 5 years it will be fully supporting AskToolbar. Just stick to original plan and keep it pure. I bet there will be money involved: I just cancel my donations to Mozilla and send them to EFF instead if this adware won't be removed.

> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier.

* It doesn't matter if it was easier if the idea was not right in a first place. According to FirefoxFeedback 92% of requesters asking to remove "feature".

> You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature.

* Then why it is in the bundle, why it is on toolbar, why I have to perform actions to hide it? Why adBlock plus is not in the bundle (it's waaaay more popular)? Software is good when there's nothing good to remove from it; Pocket and loop (hello) are both not welcomed and not wanted pieces;

> If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you can click the "customize" menu item and remove that button.

Until someone will find exploit and create security hole. Removing the button won't remove code from codebase.

> Try to see how partnerships and opportunities make things better for everyone.

I believe it is better for everyone not to include questionable 3rd-party services into FF platform.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#79

Post by muraiki »

soapdog wrote: post #71
untitaker_ wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This feature (or the decisions behind it) does harm non-users. Firefox devs have publicly claimed that it will replace Firefox's current reading list. Before Pocket integration, the integration of Reading List into Firefox Sync was planned, which is a end-to-end encrypted service with very strict ToS -- much stricter than Pocket's current ones: http://dustri.org/b/firefox-youre-supposed-to-be-in-my-pocke... Claiming…

Core values never changed. You can ask the Firefox development team at their mailing list why they decided to go with Pocket instead of building their own solution based on Firefox Sync (which is now called Firefox Accounts). If the ToS and practices from Read It Later or any other partner are beyond what you consider valid or good, you can always reach Mozilla through the user voices channel and the development mail…

Downvoted because ToS concerns have indeed been queried about repeatedly on various public forums.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#80

Post by Mithaldu »

soapdog wrote: post #28

Let me clarify some things: * There is no money involved in the Pocket thing. * Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. * You don't become a Pocket user simply by using Firefox, you need to actually use the feature. * Mozilla helped Pocket create a new privacy policy * If you don't use it, then it is not doing you any harm. If somehow the presence of a button annoys you, then you ca…

No money may have changed hands, yet nevertheless the whole thing acted as publicity for Pocket. Whether it was intended to do that or not is up to Mozilla to prove.

Further, I personally fight features in Firefox that could be extensions, because Mozilla has already removed core features that were only of good value to the users, with the excuse that they could become extensions.

You don't get to preach water and drink wine without getting ridicule in response.

Mozilla has to respect its users first before it can even consider asking for ANY kind of respect.

Post reply on HN