User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla • Hacker News Board

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#91

Post by Aldo_MX » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 8:30 PM UTC

anc84 wrote: post #40

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…

Looking at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us... it looks like Adblock Plus and Video DownloadHelper are really popular. Adding those by default would make things better for everyone. Lots of people are loving those addons and using them on a daily basis. They do not do you any harm if you don't use them. You could just click the addons menu and remove them. Yeah, petty, but well... How many…

> How many of the Firefox users actually wanted Pocket and how many are using it?

Honestly, since when does users (talking about your average Joe) know what do they want? IMHO, I don't see the harm of bundling Pocket if including it improves the experience of users.

The only concern should be the privacy implications.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#92

Post by kaolinite » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 8:35 PM UTC

brerlapn wrote: post #88

kaolinite wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pocket was added internally and not as an extension because it was easier. There's the problem you need to fix. It should be just as easy (easier, frankly) to build this as an add-on. I recently built a small extension[1] that targets Firefox, Chrome and Safari (with the same code-base) and found Firefox to be - by far - the most annoying to deal with. It's sad that the browser that championed add-ons is such a pai…

As an aside to this discussion, your extension is quite excellent and saves me the RAM of keeping profile windows open during some of the extended HN debates where profile info/bio was helpful to understand where participants were coming from, or even just to check things like karma/profile age before I follow a link. Glad you mentioned it here, as I'm not sure it would have occurred to me to go looking for a solutio…

Thank you - that means a lot, I'm glad you find it useful :-)

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#93

Post by untitaker_ » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

soapdog wrote: post #86

muraiki wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And they have been answered here https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8te...

Opting for the solution that is offering less privacy to users requires an explanation. This isn't one. They say that they've collaborated with Pocket on their ToS, but those are still way worse than Firefox Sync's.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#94

Post by dd9990 » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 10:14 PM UTC

soapdog wrote: post #76

dd9990 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ne…

You tried to look like you were agreeing with me but skirted the main point and instead asked me a question. Excellent PR skills :). The problem isn't the fact a utopian version of a Reader List doesn't exist, the problem is what Mozilla did in shipping Pocket. Let's not get away from that.

>> 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?

Pocket doesn't "hurt" me, it hurts Mozilla's reputation and it hurts Firefox's less knowledgeable users, particularly because it was made a prominent default. You're handing your users over to a closed source company and not even getting paid for it!

In my opinion if Mozilla was really focused on what it says are its values, it would never have shipped with Pocket integrated like it did. Instead it would have have taken the time and developed the feature in Sync and allowed users like me to host my own. Integrating Pocket to simply rush a feature to get a PR win is the problem.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#95

Post by jszymborski » Tue, Jul 14, 2015, 11:18 PM UTC

lagadu wrote: post #15

jszymborski wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

very much agree. I honestly don't see what the hubub is all about. Re: privacy, Firefox maintains it's commitment and integrity. The pocket integration is very transparent (pocket has agreed to open-source it), and the tech-saavy people that seem to be the only people this offends can disable with about:config. Honestly, it seems that people seem to be upset about the idea that Firefox is raising money outside of don…

Allow me to quote the Pocket ToS[1]: > We may work with trusted third parties that we refer to as internal service providers to facilitate or outsource one or more aspects of the products and services that we provide to you, and we may provide some of your personal information directly to these internal service providers. I feel that speaks for itself. [1] https://getpocket.com/privacy

That's the Pocket ToS... you only agree to it when you use Pocket, not firefox.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#96

Post by lewisl9029 » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 12:09 AM UTC

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…

Definitely this.

I don't have issues with Firefox integrating useful functionality into the browser, but what they did with the pocket integration was delegate their duty of protecting users' privacy to a third-party, profit-driven company that does not have users' best interests at heart.

This is an act that betrays the trust that users have placed in Mozilla.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#97

Post by pseudalopex » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 12:46 AM UTC

soapdog wrote: post #76

dd9990 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ne…

> You can ask the Firefox Development team at their mailing list why they chose to bundle Pocket instead of developing a new standard.

Firefox Sync isn't a standard, but it does its job while respecting my privacy.

There was a reading list feature in development before it was scrapped and replaced Pocket. People have asked why that decision was made. The only answer I've seen is that Pocket popular as an add-on, which just raises more questions.

> 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?

I work with intelligent, technically knowledgeable people who didn't realize Pocket was a third-party service. Or they assumed that Mozilla wouldn't ship a feature like that without client-side encryption. My parents don't understand "client-side encryption", but they understand "even Mozilla can't see your bookmarks", which is what made them comfortable with Firefox Sync. They don't understand why the new kind of bookmark is different.

I no longer trust Mozilla to clearly communicate when, how, or why privacy has taken a back seat to developers' convenience or other goals, so I have to spend time scrutinizing every new feature. Also, getting a private reading list feature into Firefox will be harder, both politically and technically.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#98

Post by lgp171188 » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 8:24 AM UTC

soapdog wrote: post #73

lgp171188 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

Not sure if you understood me right. All I stated was that if it had been an extension that shipped with Firefox and turned on by default, it is easier for the user to turn it off or remove it than when it is a part of core Firefox. Please see my above comment for details. I did not talk about browsers with features turned off by default.

Re: User feedback on Pocket submitted to Mozilla

#99

Post by anc84 » Wed, Jul 15, 2015, 1:02 PM UTC

Aldo_MX wrote: post #91

anc84 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking at https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=us... it looks like Adblock Plus and Video DownloadHelper are really popular. Adding those by default would make things better for everyone. Lots of people are loving those addons and using them on a daily basis. They do not do you any harm if you don't use them. You could just click the addons menu and remove them. Yeah, petty, but well... How many…

> How many of the Firefox users actually wanted Pocket and how many are using it? Honestly, since when does users (talking about your average Joe) know what do they want? IMHO, I don't see the harm of bundling Pocket if including it improves the experience of users. The only concern should be the privacy implications.

Apart from the privacy issue, I consider the integration of a proprietary third-party provider to be a concern. I am totally fine with the functionality itself being added, but it should be a Mozilla project. I could see myself becoming a user then.