Xmarks May Not Be Dead After All

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xmarks May Not Be Dead After All

Posted by kdawson on Thursday September 30, 2010 @03:49PM from the call-from-the-governor dept.

gatorfan sends word that Xmarks, which announced its upcoming closure a few days back, may not be so dead after all. The outcry from people willing to pay for the service was so loud that the company has now posted a pledge that users can sign if they are willing to pay for the service, and they say that they have fielded inquiries from several organizations who might be willing to buy the company's assets and keep the service going.

123 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

whatmarks? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 15:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

maybe put something in the summary about what it is.
1. Re:whatmarks? by mirix · 2010-09-30 15:59 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  xmarks the spot, obviously.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
2. Re:whatmarks? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 16:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's smart not to read even the summary cuz they don't tell you jackshit anyways. Who the fuck pays for this?
3. Re:whatmarks? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 23:05 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe crawl out of your cave once in a while. Seriously, how can you not have heard of this??
4. Re:whatmarks? by Rary · 2010-10-01 01:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Ya know, you don't even have to click on any of the links in the summary, but rather just hover over the first link to learn that XMarks is a bookmark synchronizer.
  More specifically, it's a centralized service plus a plugin for all major browsers so that you can have the same bookmarks in every browser on every machine you use. Further, it lets you create profiles for your bookmarks, so that you can have slightly different bookmarks on different machines based on what you use that machine for (ie. your "home" bookmarks don't show up on your "work" machine). And for those who don't trust the centralized bookmark repository, you can even set up your own XMarks server (albeit slightly limited in functionality) and not have to trust them.
  In short: it's pretty damn cool.
  
  --
  "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
5. Re:whatmarks? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  You don't know either, right?
6. Re:whatmarks? by Funnnny · 2010-10-01 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot about the password and open tabs sync. And the ability to backup the bookmark across multi browsers.
google says.... by metalmaster · 2010-09-30 15:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Its a bookmark and sync app. Idk why theres such a big outcry if there are many alternatives
1. Re:google says.... by buddyglass · 2010-09-30 16:00 · Score: 1
  
  The only common alternative for Firefox is Mozilla's Firefox Sync. It would be great...if it actually worked like Xmarks. But it doesn't.
2. Re:google says.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 16:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Your comment leads me to believe that you've never used it. For a substantial period of time it was the only sync app (which you would know if you read the original XMarks article), and it became quite popular. It's true that there are alternatives now, but the researching I did when I was looking to change led me to believe that they don't support as much as XMarks does. If you take into account that XMarks can sync bookmarks, history, open tabs, and passwords across several browsers across all the browser's supported OS's you can see why people would be a little upset.
  Regardless, people despise change. How would you feel if your favorite pub closed? There are probably plenty of pubs that are just about the same nearby, but I know I would be sad.
3. Re:google says.... by inside0ut · 2010-09-30 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know of any other addon that will sync between different browsers, which can be useful even on the same computer. I don't know why there's an outcry however when the addon tracks browsing usage by default. It's bad enough that there's no bookmark addon that I know of that allows backing up to a custom server. I gave up on xmarks when it corrupted all of my bookmarks, and upon disabling it I found firefox's memory usage dropped by around 400mb. Good riddance.
4. Re:google says.... by Wayne247 · 2010-09-30 16:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  None of the alternatives work across several browsers on multiple platforms. I have xmarks on chrome, firefox, safari on 2 windows pc and one mac, plus the iphone. All through xmarks.
  There are no alternatives at the moment.
5. Re:google says.... by plover · 2010-09-30 16:54 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Oddly enough, xmarks does allow backing up to a custom server. I haven't used their official server in a couple of years, because I don't really want them harvesting my bookmarks, nor do I want them examining all my google search results.
  I mean it's a neat concept and all, if you like that whole "sharing with a couple million people" thing. I'm just not that guy.
  
  --
  John
6. Re:google says.... by somersault · 2010-09-30 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Or you could use Chrome or Opera where online bookmark synch is built in.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
7. Re:google says.... by Mr.+Freeman · 2010-09-30 21:09 · Score: 1
  
  Hit the "encrypt this information" button, really that simple. They're not harvesting your info.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
8. Re:google says.... by usasma · 2010-09-30 21:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It's cross-browser and it's very good at what it does. I've used it and loved it for a long, long time. But they announced a closure, so I switched by sync apps around. I'm not going to go back to them "just in case" they decide to stay in business.
9. Re:google says.... by g4b · 2010-09-30 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  besides firefox you can use xmarks in chrome, safari and IE, too.
  
  it does sync really well and silently.
  
  actually there is no alternative to xmarks (speaking of feature completeness) at the moment. there sure will be if xmarks is gone.
  
  however, nobody would have wanted to pay for a service, which might be implemented by other browsers / plugins similarly.
  
  xmarks also builds on some kind of already open sourced protocol for syncing. at least, you could use custom servers in the past.
10. Re:google says.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 22:17 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Except when you want to synch your Firefox/Chrome and Safari extentions from your personal systems to the crappy IE only desktop you have to use at work. I work at many different sites, and often get placed on a computer there, with brand new profile. I love the fact that one synch with XMarks and I have all of my useful links right at my fingertips.
11. Re:google says.... by helix2301 · 2010-09-30 23:33 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Well the integration is so smooth its really idiot proof and it just works great. Plus anywhere you go and no matter if your computer crashes you always have your bookmarks. Fantastic service hope it lives on.
  
  --
  http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
12. Re:google says.... by creepynut · 2010-10-01 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  The custom server (last I checked) only works in Firefox, and I lose the convenience of being able to access my bookmarks online. I use Xmarks to sync across browsers primarily.
  If there are any cross-browser solutions for this I'd be happy to hear about it, even without the online access. Since Xmarks suggested on their blog other non-cross browser solutions, I'd wager a viable solution doesn't exist at this point.
13. Re:google says.... by Purist · 2010-10-01 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  According to the CEOs blog their customer base is mostly Firefox anyway...read more about the company's vision and motivations here:
  
  http://blog.xmarks.com/?p=1945
  
  --
  I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
14. Re:google says.... by jdoverholt · 2010-10-01 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  How would you feel if your favorite pub closed? There are probably plenty of pubs that are just about the same nearby, but I know I would be sad.
  Finally, an analogy we can all identify with!
15. Re:google says.... by tangelogee · 2010-10-01 01:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Its a bookmark and sync app. Idk why theres such a big outcry if there are many alternatives
  Because it's really the only one that does so across browsers...
16. Re:google says.... by tangelogee · 2010-10-01 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  How would you feel if your favorite pub closed? There are probably plenty of pubs that are just about the same nearby, but I know I would be sad.
  Finally, an analogy we can all identify with!
  Here Here!
17. Re:google says.... by Qaelith_2112 · 2010-10-01 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Furthermore, none of the alternatives appear to maintain daily backups of bookmarks so that if you realize today that sometime in the past three weeks you had inadvertently deleted (or lost due to a browser glitch) an entire folder of important bookmarks that you don't check often, you can go back three weeks and restore from an old backup. This feature saved my ass at least once.
18. Re:google says.... by slashsloth · 2010-10-01 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Its a bookmark and sync app. Idk why theres such a big outcry if there are many alternatives
  Because this one works *well* and does logins/passwords too. Also it works across a lot of browsers. There isn't a good alternative (yet).
  
  --
  The ducks in the bathroom are not mine. [http://www.27bslash6.com]
19. Re:google says.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  By the looks of things a new service is in alpha on Bookmark.com - I can't comment if it works, but their alternativeto.net page suggests multiple mobile devices - android, bberry and symbian
20. Re:google says.... by idontgno · 2010-10-01 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Where?
  Oh, there.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
21. Re:google says.... by SQLGuru · 2010-10-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  How would you feel if you favorite car was gone? There are probably plenty of cars that are just about the same nearby, but I know I would be sad.
  Or probably a better one that this audience can relate to....
  How would you feel if your favorite sci-fi show was cancelled? There are probably plenty of shows that are about the same.....ok, well probably not....there aren't enough sci-fi shows. But there are other shows.......
22. Re:google says.... by agbinfo · 2010-10-01 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Not me. I drink alone. With nobody else. 'Cause you know, when I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself.
23. Re:google says.... by buddyglass · 2010-10-01 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I could. I just got through trying Chrome for a week. No thanks. I might give Opera a try if Xmarks goes away or becomes unacceptably expensive.
24. Re:google says.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 05:08 · Score: 0
  
  It is the only cross-browser bookmark synch available. Plus it offers granular control on which bookmarks get synched to which computers. There are no other simple alternatives. If you have no need for it, or don't like the way it works then keep moving. As can be seen by the number of people who have already pledged to support a subscription model, there are plenty of us for whom this fills a need that we have.
  If you use multiple browsers, then it's well worth $10-20 a year and you should commit to supporting it by taking the pledge here: http://www.pledgebank.com/XmarksPremium
25. Re:google says.... by somersault · 2010-10-01 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  What's the problem with Chrome? IMO it has the cleanest and most efficient layout of all browsers (it actually looks very similar to how I always used to customise the Firefox menus whenever I was setting up a new account for myself), it's noticeably faster than Firefox even when you don't count the crazy startup time, and since it got adblocker plugins it's been my main browser.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
26. Re:google says.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  why theres such a big outcry if there are many alternatives
  As far as I know there aren't any alternatives who will sync between different browsers, every (common used) system, every (common used) browser...
27. Re:google says.... by mattack2 · 2010-10-01 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  And I bet you're bad to the bone, and like one bourbon, one scotch, and one beer.
28. Re:google says.... by buddyglass · 2010-10-01 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  Here are my complaints in no particular order:
  1. It won't open PDFs in a browser window.
  2. While its sync functionality does run automatically at browser shutdown, it currently doesn't sync stored passwords.
  3. Since there is no Application Bar in XP like there is on OSX I have to configure Chrome to have the "bookmark bar" visible on every tab.
  4. On XP Chrome exhibited a UI bug where the horizontal space at the bottom of the screen used to display downloaded files became permanently "blank". I wasn't able tor reproduce it, but the fact that it happened at all was annoying.
  5. Scrolling on XP was slow and jumpy compared to Firefox and IE. Not sure what's going on there. I tested it side-by-side w/ Firefox so I know it's not my mouse or mouse driver.
  6. While Chrome is faster on JS-intensive tasks it "feels" slower on regular page loads. My suspicion is that this is due to Chrome starting to render the page before all elements are received, which causes the page to visibly change as new elements are loaded. Firefox has a short delay where there are no visible changes then displays the page all at once. For whatever reason I find this more pleasing.
  7. At one point I had opened multiple embedded flash videos in various tabs, all of which were paused, and Chrome still pegged my cpu at 100%. I'm guessing this was a bug somewhere.
  8. I find the little address tab that appears and disappears at the bottom left of the screen when you're loading a new page to be highly distracting. I realize Firefox has a status bar across the bottom of the page, and that it updates when the browser is loading something, but having only the text change is less visibly distracting than having a tab appear and disappear. Especially when it happens rapidly.
29. Re:google says.... by tangelogee · 2010-10-01 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Where?
  Oh, there.
  Yeah...I realized that right as I hit submit...lack of caffeine is not your friend.
30. Re:google says.... by somersault · 2010-10-01 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I've been using Chrome on Ubuntu. I think I prefer page loading as it happens, to an extent. Sometimes it looks really nasty, but if a page is designed correctly then the basic layout loads first and then parts are filled in later without having to rearrange everything...
  Have never consciously noticed the little address tab until you mentioned it.. I've definitely read the text before as stuff loads, but didn't think about the design. I do prefer that to having screen real estate taken up by the status bar all the time. It's almost like they designed Chrome just for me, heh.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
31. Re:google says.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but will they sync to another pc running at your work where it is unacceptable to install any other browser besides Internet exploder?
32. Re:google says.... by Dr+Dodgy · 2010-10-01 21:56 · Score: 1
  
  You can still use custom servers, but that's only supported in Firefox.
  Those of us who use multiple browsers by necessity will be shit out of luck should XMarks shut their gates.
33. Re:google says.... by bipbop · 2010-10-01 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  My favorite car has a sentence misusing the word "preclude" in a Jesus-related rant scrawled across the side door. I don't think there are too many like it around here :-(
uhuh... by YoshiDan · 2010-09-30 15:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is probably what they planned all along. I mean really... If they were in such trouble and couldn't afford to keep running they would have just started charging. At least this way by saying "we're closing down because we can't afford to run" they got people to offer to pay without pissing too many people off by suddenly becoming a paid service.
1. Re:uhuh... by Grismar · 2010-09-30 18:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, because telling everyone you're closing down and then waiting a couple of days to see them move to alternatives before announcing your clever plan works - way better than just coming out with the news "sorry guys, the only way we can survive is by charging a fee"
  That's nonsense of course. You're creating a false dichotomy: either you do what XMarks did or "suddenly becoming a paid service". There would have been plenty of ways to deal with it more graciously, if they had planned to switch to a paid model. But the fact of the matter seems to be that they didn't think there would be enough paying customers. In fact, they've asked their users about this in the past, I've been with them since early beginnings. I think they were simply surprised by the number of users that turned out to be willing to pay, faced with the alternative of the service just disappearing.
  What is strange about all this is the fact that XMarks was unable to find a buyer or investor, if it now turns out XMarks can make a living out of selling this service. What did these investors see that XMarks doesn't? Will XMarks survive, or will they come to the same conclusion as the investors and decide it will never make a decent profit?
2. Re:uhuh... by Paintballparrot · 2010-09-30 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well it worked for Coca-Cola
3. Re:uhuh... by vlm · 2010-09-30 23:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because telling everyone you're closing down and then waiting a couple of days to see them move to alternatives before announcing your clever plan works - way better than just coming out with the news "sorry guys, the only way we can survive is by charging a fee"
  I have one machine left to convert from xmarks to firefox sync... This is killing them. I'm not about to convert back and chip in some cash. I probably would have been OK with chipping in some cash.
  Back when no-ip.com suddenly started charging for no-ip.com domains, I coughed up some dough because I liked it, they had served me well for years with NO service complaints, and it wasn't much dough. Very much like xmarks. If they had pulled a xmarks and reported their own closure, I'd have simply moved to a new dyndns provider.
  The other problem xmarks has/had was reportedly making business decisions based on the comments on their own web forum. Who the hell frequents their web browser synchronization service web support forum on a regular basis, and even posts to it? Uh, hold on, while I check the user support web forum for my CAT-5 patch cables and the support forum for my trackball.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:uhuh... by Ash+Vince · 2010-09-30 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not about to convert back and chip in some cash. I probably would have been OK with chipping in some cash.
  Everyone always says that. But they have had a donations button for years and less than 0.001% gave the suggested donation of $7.
  The interesting thing I found in his blog post is that most of their donations came from Europe rather than the US.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
5. Re:uhuh... by war4peace · 2010-09-30 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  I pledged to pay, and I WILL pay if the service continues to provide me the same synchronization quality.
  I tried Firefox Sync, it simply doesn't cut it, limits me to a single browser and is slow, so slow that one hour after I added a set of bookmarks, they still were not synced across machines. XMarks however does that right after a new Bookmark is added.
  On the other hand, if they "just started charging" I would have dumped the service based on a probably wrong assumption, and that would have been that they are trying to unnecessarily make money off my back.
  I think what they did was the best course of action.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
6. Re:uhuh... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Is it a paypal donate button? 'Cause that would explain it.
7. Re:uhuh... by silverglade00 · 2010-10-01 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Everyone always says that. But they have had a donations button for years and less than 0.001% gave the suggested donation of $7.
  I used Xmarks for about 3 years and never once have I had a need to go to their webpage. Maybe they shouldn't have made such a good product so I would go need support from their website and see their donation button.
Publicity Stunt? by HenryKoren · 2010-09-30 15:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

But not a bad one at that... Why simply implement a premium pricing plan when you can get a bunch of free press and encourage a public outpouring their love for your product.
I signed the pledge.

--
To blog is sublime
1. Re:Publicity Stunt? by LostCluster · 2010-09-30 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Setting up such a bookmark/password/sync app takes a lot of time, and it's a pain to switch services. People who use it already would rather pay than see it go away.
2. Re:Publicity Stunt? by hedwards · 2010-09-30 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  I probably would've paid, but not after the way it was handled. It just doesn't feel right. They aren't the first ones to do this, but to their credit they are offering an alternative.
  
  I remember when iwantsandy shut down and initially there wasn't even going to be a way of exporting ones information. Paying wasn't an option, and at no time did they even bother to ask the people that had come to rely upon it for help paying the bills, or even let on that it was becoming a problem.
  
  Free services are vulnerable to this sort of thing, but there's really no reason to behave in such a classless way. If you're legitimately not able to keep things running free of charge, at least tell the people that use the service. At least that way you can do it without it feeling like a shakedown.
3. Re:Publicity Stunt? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  Setting up such a bookmark/password/sync app takes a lot of time, and it's a pain to switch services. People who use it already would rather pay than see it go away.
  Yeah. But that doesn't change anything. You see, that's why the publicity stunt works.
  
  You douchebag.
4. Re:Publicity Stunt? by Eivind · 2010-09-30 17:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. It's as easy as installing Firefox Sync, and setting up an account there. This is a 3-minute operation. If they'd stayed open until FF-4 (which will come with sync built-in), it'd have been even less of an effort.
  Also, Xmarks has been getting increasingly annoying for a while now, with added antifeatures like manipulating search-results with their opinion of the links and thus submitting your search-history to them. Yes you can turn this off, but it's still an annoyance.
  In contrast, Firefox sync encrypts everything, so even if you sync to their servers, they don't even know what bookmarks you have. And it's open source.
  Frankly, the only advantage of Xmarks, is that it's cross-browser. (so you can share bookmarks between Firefox and IE, for example)
5. Re:Publicity Stunt? by dissy · 2010-09-30 23:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Just curious, does Firefox sync addon support syncing to your own server somehow?
  I see no mention of such a feature on the plugin webpage, but you mention "so even if you sync to their servers" which implies the option.
  Thanks
6. Re:Publicity Stunt? by vlm · 2010-09-30 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  Just curious, does Firefox sync addon support syncing to your own server somehow?
  I see no mention of such a feature on the plugin webpage, but you mention "so even if you sync to their servers" which implies the option.
  Because you're googleing for "firefox sync own server" or something like that. The product went thru a name change, during R+D it was called "WEAVE". So google for something like "firefox weave support own servers" and eventually you find detailed descriptions of exactly what to do to set up your own sync server.
  Such as:
  https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Sync/1.0/Setup
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
7. Re:Publicity Stunt? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 01:26 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But Xmarks did tell you. They gave you alternatives. They even were going to keep Xmarks active until January so you'd have time to research and find a viable alternative.
  They had no reason to believe that enough people would pay to support their server costs, especially since they had been asking for donations and receiving nowhere near enough. Then, after they announced they were closing, the massive response convinced them to reevaluate their options, believing that maybe they could earn enough to keep Xmarks alive after all.
  I can't see anything wrong with their approach to this issue.
8. Re:Publicity Stunt? by Tisha_AH · 2010-10-01 02:05 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I do not believe that this is a publicity stunt through up by some marketing department. The amount of money they are asking for is very modest and can probably pay for the electricity, network connectivity, server space and a developer or two.
  I have used Xmarks for several years and it has been a painless experience to sync across machines and platforms. In fact it is so easy to use that I forget that there is a real application running somewhere that takes care of the synchronization and storage.
  If they renew their pledge for data privacy and keep it spam/ adware free I will pay a modest annual fee to keep the service up and running.
  For those who want to gripe about paying $10 - $20 for this service, either you have never used it or you are whining on the grounds that "all software should be free and someone else should donate the hardware, administrative expenses and electricity".
  Be real folks, this would cost as much as one pizza, once a year.
  
  --
  Tisha Hayes
9. Re:Publicity Stunt? by dissy · 2010-10-01 03:41 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  Nice, thank you very much!
you know by buddyglass · 2010-09-30 15:59 · Score: 0

I wouldn't mind Xmarks disappearing if FireFox Sync actually had the same functionality. It doesn't. Specifically it doesn't sync automatically at browser shutdown. So if you bookmark something and then shut down the browser before the next periodic sync...it doesn't get sync'd. So I switched to Chrome. Now I keep noticing all these annoying things about Chrome that make me wish I were still using FireFox. Except...the non-Xmarks sync is deficient. Woe is me.
1. Re:you know by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 16:59 · Score: 0
  
  Uh, you must be using a very old version. If you have unsynced changes it will warn you before shutdown. Not to mention, the icon also has an indicator of pending changes,
2. Re:you know by buddyglass · 2010-09-30 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  I had the latest. Actually got into a discussion with someone from the FF sync team on their Google Weave group. They basically said, "This has come up before and no we're still not going to implement automatic sync on shutdown."
Stuck in a moment they can't get out of. by LostCluster · 2010-09-30 16:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

These "We're shutting down... oh no we're not!" stories remind me of a electronics/appliances store around here called Bernie's. See, they were losing money and decided to go out of business. They started a Going Out of Business sale and under state law, you can't advertise a Going Out of Business sale without going out of business immediately afterwards. But, a funny thing happens when you start discounting things like TVs and Monster Cables below their minimum advertised price and offering your customers good value for what they pay and cutting down on returns with an All Sales Final policy. You become... gasp... PROFITABLE!
It's legal to bring in new inventory even during a Going Out of Business sale, so they're restocking with versions of products that didn't exist when the "Going Out of Business Sale" and they've been stuck going out of business for years. It's a business model that works for them.
1. Re:Stuck in a moment they can't get out of. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 16:56 · Score: 0
  
  Er... just what would Xmarks restock with? Sorry, but that's a car-level bad analogy. Xmarks is a free Firefox add-on that decided to shut down, then simply found enough interests to restructure as a traditional sales model and keep everyone happy. So they're having the grace to do that. And it's a freaking Mitch (Lotus-EFF-Mozilla) Kapor project. This is more likely the courteous exit of an experiment.
  (Round here, the "Going Out of Business Sale" perpetuals are always carpet retailers. It's been common since at least the sixties; I think you'll find none of those people are "stuck", but rather are following a business plan laid down on day one.)
2. Re:Stuck in a moment they can't get out of. by Rude+Turnip · 2010-09-30 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  On a long enough scale, we're all going out of business...
  
  --
  Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
3. Re:Stuck in a moment they can't get out of. by somersault · 2010-09-30 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  DEAR GOD!!! You're right! What is the point.. of ANYTHING?! *harakiri*
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
4. Re:Stuck in a moment they can't get out of. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 21:22 · Score: 0
  
  and they've been stuck going out of business for years. It's a business model that works for them.
  Yes, we have all seen "You Don't Mess With the Zohan"
  And by all, I mean, my roommate watched it and we had a studio apartment. Not a bad movie, surprisingly.
5. Re:Stuck in a moment they can't get out of. by vlm · 2010-09-30 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  On a long enough scale, we're all going out of business...
  Some worthless bank in a commodity market (banking) almost goes out of business, its "too big to fail" so the govt takes our money to bail out the failed management, whom promptly award themselves bonuses.
  On the other hand, a genuinely useful non-commodity service goes out of business, and its tough luck charlie.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Brilliant PR by mysidia · 2010-09-30 16:02 · Score: 1

This is almost as good as an it could be worse plan. Instead of doing research about your customer base and if they're willing to pay... announce you're going to pay model, announce you are going to shutdown.. let your users beg to pay for a service they used to get for free.
You have framed the conversation. And all "complaints" about going to a pay service are now de-legitimized.
Youtube, Twitter, Facebook could learn from them.... not making money? Striving to find a business model? Want to go premium, don't announce that there will now be a fee.... announce you're shutting down, because your business is so unprofitable. Let your customers beg to save you by promising to buy some sort of premium service from you.
I'm not saying Xmarks planned it that way or anything, it just (abstractly) seems like the perfect strategy to move towards premium while p***'ing off as few people as possible. I imagine things would have been totally different if their first announcement was everyone with more than say 100 bookmarks would have to start paying for sync.
1. Re:Brilliant PR by hedwards · 2010-09-30 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I won't be one of them, this feels way too much like a shakedown. Sure they've got bills that presumably need to be paid, but this move really lacks class or planning. Not sure which, but I'm not sure that I want to get dependent upon a service that's run like that.
Did the hire the GOG PR clowns? by WatcherXP · 2010-09-30 16:05 · Score: 1

Announce shutdown
Illustrate free alternatives
Display a big "delete everything now button"
Yerp, they are dead to me.

--
09-f9-11-02-9* (G^GCA_++{>. RV>>>>+++ NO CARRIER
1. Re:Did the hire the GOG PR clowns? by hedwards · 2010-09-30 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  This really isn't the same thing. Not by a long shot, the xmarks people didn't pepper their press release with hints that they'd be back. And a bit of common sense would tell you that GoG wasn't completely gone, that they'd've told people to download their stuff if they were really shutting down, although cutting off purchases ahead of that is always possible.
  
  Services like this depend upon the users to trust that it's going to be there, it's not like GoG where they encouraged people to keep backups, you can't really back up a service and still have something that functions.
2. Re:Did the hire the GOG PR clowns? by Daetrin · 2010-09-30 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  And to follow up on what hedwards said, it's not like they shut down their servers overnight and cut off everyone's access to their content. They informed everyone that they _would_ be shutting down a couple months from now in order to give everyone time to find alternatives and back up their data. Very different from the crap GOG was pulling, real or not.
  
  --
  This Space Intentionally Left Blank
3. Re:Did the hire the GOG PR clowns? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 17:25 · Score: 0
  
  Actually with Xmarks you could run your own server and it worked just fine that way. They gave out enough code to make that feasible, so you could backup your bookmarks effectively.
Warning: Pay for ZoneEdit or you'll lose free DNS. by LostCluster · 2010-09-30 16:10 · Score: 3, Informative

Also in the business-model-change department that users of this site will care about, ZoneEdit is transitioning accounts to a new business model soon. People who enjoyed five free domains worth of DNS service will see their free service cut to two domains (potentially leaving some forgotten-about sites unreachable) unless they've paid for credits for their premium services at some point in the past. They're also multiplying stored credits by 12 because they're going monthly instead of annual credit usage.
There isn't an alternative by schnikies79 · 2010-09-30 16:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I signed the pledge.
I tried Firefox sync but it's not quite as good and it's not cross-browser.

--
Gone!
Nothing I'd pay for. by Beelzebud · 2010-09-30 16:23 · Score: 1

People keep saying that this allowed you to share bookmarks with other browsers, as if that's some type of revolutionary feature. What browser doesn't have options to import/export bookmarks?
1. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  Come on... it's not just import/export. I use that at work, and it sync my bookmark at home. It's not just a cross platform tools but also cross location.
2. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by darthdavid · 2010-09-30 16:38 · Score: 1
  
  Xmarks handled it automatically, no real effort needed past the initial install. I've switched to firefox sync. It's almost as good and I don't really need to sync cross browser so I'm not really troubled by this, but I can definitely see how someone might be...
3. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by DarkJC · 2010-09-30 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's about keeping your bookmarks in sync across all of the various computers you have/use in a day. If you only use one, it's probably not for you.
4. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 17:09 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  You aren't very bright are you ? This is the *ONLY* utility that allows you to automatically sync bookmarks across browsers and computers. I have 10s of thousands of bookmarks across 3 machines.
  Do you have any idea how quickly those would get out of sync if I was forced to do manually ?!
5. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by Tacvek · 2010-09-30 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  I've never udersttod the need for more than a dozen or two bookmarks. All the main sites I use have either memerable URLs or can be found reliably in quick one or two word Google search.
  On;y a few useful but rarely used sites that don't have memorable URLs do I ever bookmark. I have 23 bookmarks in Firefox, and many of those were ancient things added by accident, that I never bothered to delete.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
6. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 17:56 · Score: 0
  
  People keep saying that this allowed you to share bookmarks with other browsers, as if that's some type of revolutionary feature. What browser doesn't have options to import/export bookmarks?
  This is a service for people too stupid to think of that. The high demand for it isn't surprising really.
7. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by pandrijeczko · 2010-09-30 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  I use it for the convenience, I like it as well.
  But for a mainly Linux using shell person like me, what it's doing isn't rocket science - it wouldn't take much effort just to use a tool like rsync to copy browser settings from my home directory from one PC to another. Even on a Windows PC, I could mount a Windows drive on Linux using Samba and use rsync with that also - or just use DeltaCopy on Windows as an rsync client to a Linux rsync server.
  
  --
  Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
8. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by inpher · 2010-09-30 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think you imagine bookmarks as rather permanent and I understand that, sometimes I go moths without a new bookmark. However, like real world bookmarks I tend to use mine frequently when I actually use them. For example, researching some subject online I tend to create dozens or more new bookmarks on a subject that I later delete when finished. If I wasn't happy using Delicious I would certainly have tried Xmarks. On top of my head I think I have created about 150 bookmarks this year and deleted about 120 of those. Bookmarks to me are rather fluid.
9. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by icebraining · 2010-09-30 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  I use tabs for that - right now, I have about 40 tabs open. Of course, I only use one browser, so syncing would be useless anyway.
  I have bookmarks, but I wouldn't mind losing them - it would just take me a while to dig to the specific page on the website, and I might forget a couple of links, but nothing important.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
10. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by icebraining · 2010-09-30 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  Import/export:
  1) Click bookmark manager
  2) click export
  3) choose path
  4) insert usb drive
  5) copy file
  6) remove drive
  7) insert drive on another PC
  8) open bookmark manager
  9) import file
  10) deal with inconsistencies and duplicated bookmarks
  Xmarks:
  1) Close browser
  2) open browser in another computer
  Yes, Xmarks users are the stupid ones.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
11. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by icebraining · 2010-09-30 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  Unison is better for two-way sync (even with more machines, as long as you sync pairs: AB, BC).
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
12. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by vlm · 2010-09-30 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  All the main sites I use have either memerable URLs or can be found reliably in quick one or two word Google search.
  Which is exactly why I don't bookmark "bankofamerica.com"
  On the other hand I do bookmark apparently the only source of drivers for an obscure Taiwanese settop PC video card which I found on a link from a link from a link from a link etc, and I can't even google for it because I don't speak Chinese so I wouldn't know what to type, probably a screen full of UTF-8. From memory its a via micro ITX from about 2005 with a strange on board video card, but thats probably not even the right manufacturer much less something I can google for, and I don't even remember the motherboard model. There's another web page I have linked for it, I believe to a Japanese gentleman's blog whom figured out how to enable Xwindows to output to the integrated composite video output. In the bad old days, thats what we had to do to make tiny, fanless, ultra low power (5 to 10 watts) mythtv frontends. Now a days it is much simpler.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
13. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by vlm · 2010-09-30 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  Unison is better for two-way sync (even with more machines, as long as you sync pairs: AB, BC).
  I use a hub -n- spoke topology.
  For small text-y stuff with lots of files I use git. For individual config files I tend to use Puppet. For big multimedia collections its unison time. And to "do it all" on request, I have a script that takes care of it. Distributed in git of course.
  For big fun, roughly "once per debian stable release" unison changes its online format. So default unison from lenny is not going to sync with squeeze. For civilized OSes, backports are available for mostly seamless interoperation. On the other hand, for windows, I don't know.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
14. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by inpher · 2010-10-01 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  I don't trust any browser keeping multiple windows and multiple tabs going for months. I just know the browser or (more likely) some plugin is going to hit a bug sooner or later that will kill the browser. That is why I begun using bookmarks to begin with.
15. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  You clearly don't understand the concept of syncing between multiple PCs across different networks with no central server of your own.
  
  But hey, don't pay for it. No big deal to me but I can tell you now that people following your method are going to lose bookmarks from time to time due to human error. I don't want to have to worry about it and for that peace of mind I'm willing to drop a few bucks a month to do it.
16. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by lightning_queen · 2010-10-01 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  I've amassed a collection of bookmarks of various resources that I use frequently or have an important enough application that it's best to have quick access to, or are used just infrequently enough that duplicating a search for them is damn near impossible. There's also recipes, useful tools, and articles I particularly enjoy.
17. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by icebraining · 2010-10-01 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, if I need stuff for months I won't trust bookmarks either - I'll save a copy of the pages to the disk. I don't want to suffer 404 hell :|
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
18. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by tehcyder · 2010-10-01 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  This is the *ONLY* utility that allows you to automatically sync bookmarks across browsers and computers. I have 10s of thousands of bookmarks across 3 machines.
  
  Doesn't Delicious do that or am I missing something?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
19. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by maxwell+demon · 2010-10-01 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, I don't want them to be in sync. At work I have work related bookmarks, and at home I have non-work related bookmarks. Even where the same bookmark appears on both computers, they are usually in quite different places, because the bookmarks are organized for different purposes.
  Now having said that, easily accessing each other's bookmarks would still be nice, but not by making them the same.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
20. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by neonKow · 2010-10-01 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  When this many people love it, maybe you should actually take the time to look into what it does before dismissing it. You think you're the first person in the world to notice that you can export bookmarks?
21. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  This type of comment shows that you do not understand what Xmarks does. Of course any idiot could export and import bookmarks manually. However, if If I chose to do that manually every time a bookmark changes on one of the six computers and multiple browsers I need, then I'd be the idiot because I'd be spending time doing something Xmarks does seamlessly in the background. Xmarks has its place and if it does indeed close down will be sorely missed by people who do have to use multiple browsers or computers.
22. Re:Nothing I'd pay for. by allsorts46 · 2010-10-01 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Getting to the front page of a site, I also usually find it quicker just to type the URL or do a quick search. However, I quite often want to remember a particular page or article, or something nested fairly deeply into its parent site that would take lots of navigation steps to reach, and for that a bookmark is superior.
I use my own server by tsa · 2010-09-30 17:30 · Score: 1

I never used xmarks' server so I don't really see the need for paying for their service. I would pay for their software though. It's very handy and has been working flawlessly for me for quite some years now.

--
-- Cheers!
Curious about why by zooblethorpe · 2010-09-30 18:11 · Score: 1

Did they offer any reason why? Persistence of state on shutdown is a basic desire, and a sensible one. Not implementing an autosave-on-shutdown feature is rather braindead, unless there's some technical issue getting in the way. Are they just being curmudgeons, or do they have some rationale?
Curious,

--
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
1. Re:Curious about why by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  Because it's a "hard" problem and the people behind FireFox Sync are likely (no offense intended) junior level at best.
2. Re:Curious about why by buddyglass · 2010-10-01 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  They said that, since FF Sync manages a lot more than just bookmarks, automatically syncing at browser shutdown would cause an unacceptable delay that would bother some users. I suggested they make it toggle-able and default "off" and was basically told, "We've already discussed this at length in other threads; we're not going to do it."
  That's certainly their prerogative. It just means I'm either going to pay for Xmarks or use a different browser.
  Here is the thread.
3. Re:Curious about why by zooblethorpe · 2010-10-01 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. Sure sounds curmudgeonly to me, but I'm happy to admit I have a very limited view of the issues.
  Cheers,
  
  --
  "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
  "A four-foot prune."
$2 million dollars a year by Rix · 2010-09-30 20:04 · Score: 1

Really
What the hell were they spending that on?
1. Re:$2 million dollars a year by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-30 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  Funnily enough, it actually says in the article linked in the OP.
2. Re:$2 million dollars a year by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 01:15 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  2 Million a year.
  Office building lease, business overhead (insurance, legal consult, business licenses etc) could be 300-500K easily.
  Couple of executives worth having in a startup.. 150-200K each/year, so another 500K
  5 decent programmers. 100G each/year, so 500K
  Couple of sysadmins 150K
  Server Hardware budget including provisioning/replacement/depreciation 200K
  Telecom costs 100K
  Office manager, secretary, general cost of business, travel expenses, tradeshows, customer focus groups? ...
  Seriously, if you think 2 million a year is an outrageous budget for a hosted software service, and cross platform software development you have *no* idea what you're talking about.
3. Re:$2 million dollars a year by siglercm · 2010-10-01 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Please mod parent up! -- I have no mod points.
  
  $2mil/yr is peanuts, in almost any business serving more than a small handful of clients. OTOH, if you run your business out of your mom's basement, $250k/yr may be enough. </sarcasm>
  
  --
  sigfault (core dumped)
4. Re:$2 million dollars a year by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-01 03:39 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, that's a lot of dollar dollars.
From their blog by EmagGeek · 2010-09-30 23:56 · Score: 1

"This is not a scientific experiment to predict what % of our base will pay, but it's a data point that will definitely help."
No, it's not an experiment. It is a very deliberate effort to increase the perceived value of the XMarks assets by attaching an anticipated revenue stream, thereby increasing the amount of money a potential suitor would need to pay.
Clever. Very clever.
Not worth $: It's a feature not a product. by nlinecomputers · 2010-10-01 02:19 · Score: 1

Xmarks had a great idea but it doomed from the start. Syncing bookmarks isn't a product. It is a feature like spellcheck in a Word Processor. It can't stand alone and can't be protected from others doing the same thing. Thus it can't be marketed as the only place to get this feature. Google or Firefox will have it built in at some point because they can recreate it without paying the original creators for the idea. Had they patented the idea they might have had a chance. IF they could patent it. As it stands this never had a chance and anybody that pays now for it is a fool for the company will go bust.

--
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
1. Re:Not worth $: It's a feature not a product. by neonKow · 2010-10-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'd pay for it. I have multiple machines all running multiple browsers. I also often reformat my machines. What xmarks does is not easy, AND they do it quite well, so they have a lot more going for them than a single lousy patent-able idea.
  Yeah, I know organizations like the RIAA exist and profit solely from the concept of exclusive rights to intellectual property, but some companies still make money by making something GOOD.
  I'm happy to see my money going toward something I've been using for free for years, and I'm happy that my money is going toward something I'd like to succeed for once.
2. Re:Not worth $: It's a feature not a product. by nlinecomputers · 2010-10-01 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  I understand the value. But you really think that Google will not be offering all the features of Xmarks in the next 3-6 months? For free(in exchange for data mining your bookmarks and tracking the use of them of course.)
  
  --
  Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
3. Re:Not worth $: It's a feature not a product. by neonKow · 2010-10-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Seeing as how Xmarks has been around for 6 years and this hasn't happened yet, that's exactly what I think.
4. Re:Not worth $: It's a feature not a product. by horza · 2010-10-01 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  Syncing bookmarks is a product. As is connecting Evolution to an Exchange server. As is pretty much anything that makes people's lives easier. At the moment there is no other product doing the job, and as their pledge page shows there are tens of thousands of people prepared to pay for such a service.
  Sure anybody can do the same thing, they've been able to for all the years Xmarks has been around. But they haven't.
  Sure Google can do a Firefox version of their sync, or Firefox can do a Google version of their sync, but they haven't. Where is their incentive?
  Patenting software is a stupid idea, and I'm glad they didn't. It wouldn't legal in Europe anyway. What they did instead is keep adding features. Support more browsers, start backing up passwords, then history. Harder work for them but fantastic for us.
  If they go bust in a year, I haven't lost my $10. There will have been an additional year of development work and I will have had an additional year of usage at less that 3c a day. Bargain.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Warning: Pay for ZoneEdit or you'll lose free D by mr_stinky_britches · 2010-10-01 03:58 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info. Yargh...anyone know of possible alternatives out there? What a PITA..

--
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
Re:Xmarks by Runaway1956 · 2010-10-01 15:11 · Score: 1

Since you live in a cave, and have never heard of Xmarks before - I won't bother asking you where the link is to PAY NOW. I signed the pledge, but where is the link that will actually open the pay/donation dialogue? Phhht. I'll go look again - probably hidden right in front of me where no normal person could miss it . . .

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Xmarks by Dr+Dodgy · 2010-10-01 21:54 · Score: 1

It's a pledge, you don't pay until they make good and stay alive....
OK, so how does this work again?
Re:Xmarks by Runaway1956 · 2010-10-02 03:13 · Score: 1

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/13255/ Someone pointed me to a link, and I just paid the suggested $15 through paypal. I feel a wee bit better now, since I've been using Xmarks for two years (or more) and never paid a dime.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
At what price? by Autonomous+Crowhard · 2010-10-02 15:57 · Score: 1

And these "organizations who might be willing to buy the company's assets and keep the service going" would be planning to do what with the (hopefully) aggregated data?
I support the pledge... by disi · 2010-10-06 02:54 · Score: 1

this is THE only tool (next to the human brain) to sync bookmarks cross-browser and cross-plattform.
if not, please prove me wrong :)

since the 27.09.10 I tried Opera and just can't get used to the stuff moving the frame on the left hand side. I tried Firfox sync and not sure if it works, need to check later at home.