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

91–100 of 456 posts

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#91

Post by nnethercote »

omouse wrote: post #75
niftich wrote: post #57

Oh, what a twist! In a story that began two years ago with Pocket's integration by Mozilla [1] in Firefox [2], large segments of the userbase spoke out with scathing criticism. This, at first blush, appears unrelated: Mozilla previously announced its Context Graph initiative, which was a bold undertaking to be built partially upon a new and emerging set of W3C standards to take back some of the control over linkage,…

My only problem with Pocket was that it was proprietary and it was integrated with Firefox. If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated. Pocket makes Mozilla competitive on mobile because Firefox's market share on mobile is very low.

Pocket will be open sourced.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#92

Post by yellowapple »

baby wrote: post #23
datatan wrote: post #5

So much for my hopes of them removing it from Firefox. Uhg.

You want them to remove one of the most useful feature of Firefox? You can remove it easily, but I'd advise you to try using it. It personally helps me go through interesting news and "pocket" it if I don't have the time to read it now, or want to keep my time for more important articles but still think it's an important piece of news. I have both the desktop Pocket application and the mobile Pocket application. They…

The existing bookmark system does pretty much all of that already (with the sole exception of offline viewing, but Pocket's implementation is reportedly buggy anyway), and then some. It also syncs across one's devices.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#93

Post by haukilup »

dbbk wrote: post #72
mplewis wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a paid service. Youtube-DL is free and open source.

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

It sure is their prerogative. It's unfortunate their paid service is not available to most of the world.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#94

Post by superdaniel »

smacktoward wrote: post #18
Touche wrote: post #7

This is weird. Has Mozilla acquired any startups in the past? Feels weird to me for a browser non-profit to own a web app product.

It is weird - the press release itself notes that this is the first such acquisition Mozilla has ever made. In their defense, it won't be the first time they've gotten into operating a service -- there's Sync, for instance. So if they see expanding FF's bookmarking abilities as a key strategic differentiator, buying an existing read-it-later service they're already familiar with could be a simpler/cheaper way of gett…

Too bad sync kind of sucks... Just yesterday I was looking at a recipe on my desktop and then I opened Firefox on my phone and tried to get at the link without emailing or messaging myself and it only showed sync'd tabs from over a week ago.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#95

Post by Dylan16807 »

mwcampbell wrote: post #84
M_- wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the way Thunderbird is designed was that it was a kind-of-fork of Firefox, and too many resources were being wasted just keeping the "fork" up to date from changes to internal Firefox APIs. No. Thunderbird was built against something that the Mozilla foundation used to tout as the future of building software in general: XUL. And there also was a XULRunner which was to Gecko/Firefox what Electron is to Blink/Chrome:…

XUL was the future of old-school, heavy desktop applications. But people generally aren't interested in those anymore. At least HTML and the rest of the web stack work OK on mobile platforms.

What definition of heavy are you using here? Because despite often being 'thin clients', most of the programs I run that embed HTML engines for the UI end up being stupendously resource-intensive compared to their native equivalents.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#98

Post by mbel »

mwcampbell wrote: post #84
M_- wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the way Thunderbird is designed was that it was a kind-of-fork of Firefox, and too many resources were being wasted just keeping the "fork" up to date from changes to internal Firefox APIs. No. Thunderbird was built against something that the Mozilla foundation used to tout as the future of building software in general: XUL. And there also was a XULRunner which was to Gecko/Firefox what Electron is to Blink/Chrome:…

XUL was the future of old-school, heavy desktop applications. But people generally aren't interested in those anymore. At least HTML and the rest of the web stack work OK on mobile platforms.

> XUL was the future of old-school, heavy desktop applications.

The old-school, heavy desktop apps seem to be so unbelievably light in comparison to current electron-based craziness. But I guess we deserve all the bloat for not being able to come up with sensible common API for desktop development :(

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#99

Post by TillE »

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...

Neither do I, but it's invaluable when I remember something in that 0.5% and need to search for it.

I use Pinboard for organized reference bookmarks, and Pocket as a dumping ground for anything that seems interesting. Some of it gets moved to Pinboard or deleted, but otherwise I like keeping it there as a record in case my brain decides something from the past is important again.

Re: Mozilla Acquires Pocket

#100

Post by Esau »

omouse wrote: post #75
niftich wrote: post #57

Oh, what a twist! In a story that began two years ago with Pocket's integration by Mozilla [1] in Firefox [2], large segments of the userbase spoke out with scathing criticism. This, at first blush, appears unrelated: Mozilla previously announced its Context Graph initiative, which was a bold undertaking to be built partially upon a new and emerging set of W3C standards to take back some of the control over linkage,…

My only problem with Pocket was that it was proprietary and it was integrated with Firefox. If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated. Pocket makes Mozilla competitive on mobile because Firefox's market share on mobile is very low.

"If it's released under and open source license, then I'll be glad to have it integrated."

Not me. I don't want a bloated Firefox; even if the bloat is well intentioned and fully open sourced.

Post reply on HN