Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Responds To Firefox User Backlash Over Pocket Integration

Posted by Soulskill on from the yelling-on-the-internet dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Last week, Mozilla updated Firefox to add Pocket integration — software that lets you save web articles to read later. Over the weekend, some Firefox users began to voice their displeasure over the move on public forums like Bugzilla, Google Groups, and Hacker News. The complaints center around Pocket being a proprietary third-party service, which already exists as an add-on, and is not a required component for a browser. Integrating Pocket directly into Firefox means it cannot be removed, only disabled. In response, Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration and the integration code is open source.

28 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Oh mozilla by blueshift_1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... telling the users what they like. Well done.

    1. Re:Oh mozilla by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fact is that those who like it won't complain

      ... and those that know nothing about it also won't complain either.

      The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively. IT is a choice of providing 95% of what everyone needs, in a small easy to use package, or having 99.9999% of what everyone MIGHT need in a package that is too bloated to actually be usable.

      How many times have you used Notepad/Wordpad instead of Word?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Oh mozilla by luvirini · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately Mozilla has been doing this for quite a while.

      It used to be that firefox was the most userfriendly and at the same time most extendable browser with fairly good stability and fairly high resource use.

      Now it is a lot less userfriendly, though still as extendable with better stability than before and while the resource use has not really changed the other browsers have started using more and more resources so by relative position it is very good in resource use.

      What makes me gringe with each major update of firefox is how it gets more and more annoying to use, that is you need to tweak, install extensions and disable more and more to get it closer to a usable browser.

    3. Re:Oh mozilla by ProzacPatient · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why not? It works for Apple.

      On a more serious note I've been a loyal Firefox user for the past 12 years however I'm getting rather upset with the direction it has taken the past couple years, however I don't want to use Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer or Edge (all of which are owned and maintained by large corporations) and since Opera has jumped on the WebKit bandwagon making it a glorified Chrome skin I'm thinking maybe it's time for a new open source browser. The only browser I can think of that isn't tied to some other browser is Konqueror but unfortunately I find KHTML to be somewhat awful and even if it wasn't Konqueror is *nix only.

      tl;dr: Mozilla has become detached from what made early Firefox versions great and it's probably time for them to be replaced.

    4. Re:Oh mozilla by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps it's time for a community-driven, open--source reboot that will focus on producing a lean, mean, standards-compliant browser without all the politics and bloat, but which is very flexible and user-configurable.

      Maybe we can call it, "Phoenix".

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    5. Re:Oh mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So you've been stuck in the BIOS configuration screen for fifteen years?

    6. Re:Oh mozilla by Torodung · · Score: 4, Informative

      I just stuck it into "Additional Tools and Features" like "Share this page," "Hello," and "Apps." I took "Forget" off the main toolbar, where it intruded one day, and stuffed it in the hamburger menu, as a feature that I rarely going to use.

      Like everything they're adding, it inconvenienced me for all of three seconds.

      Now, it does raise questions as to whether the Mozilla philosophy is still a "lightweight browser that you can customize with extensions," and including these features by default defeats the feeling that you have a choice of adding potentially unnecessary functionality by extensions. Lightweight does not seem to be the objective any longer.

      For the people for whom this is an ideology, they are very irritated.

    7. Re:Oh mozilla by nmb3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The trend in software development is always towards bloat, cruft and kitchen sink. In the end, you have a program that does everything for everyone, that nobody really can use effectively.

      Which is the beauty of the Firefox addon system. The baseline browser as a framework is extensible in an almost unlimited fashion, which should allow them to keep the default web browser lean and focused on browsing the web. If someone wants add chat client or "read it later" functionality, users can choose to install that addon. Mozilla could even show a "suggested addons" page the first time a user runs Firefox that includes stuff like Pocket and the absurd Firefox Hello crap. For that matter, they could even bundle addons for things like Hello, making it easy for users to remove addons they have no interest in.

      But no. Mozilla is filled with people hell-bent on destroying Firefox the web browser and and replacing it with Firefox the Platform. I'm just waiting for them to start decommissioning the addon framework, which they've already started by requiring all addons to be signed by Mozilla, or they won't be loaded. It's sickening.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    8. Re:Oh mozilla by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As much evidence as there is of this mass of "user feedback" asking them to integrate a shitty data-mining add-on into the browser core.

    9. Re:Oh mozilla by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Informative

      they did it based on popularity

      Bollocks. It's got barely 10% of the users of the #5 app (Noscript), and about 1% of the #1 (ABP). It doesn't show up until the 4th page when sorted by popularity (#64).

  2. The statement by arielCo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Quoth Mozilla from TFA:

    Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and we’ve seen that users love to save interesting Web content to easily revisit it later, so it was an easy choice to offer Pocket as a service in Firefox and we’ve gotten lots of positive feedback about the integration from users.

    All the code related to this integration within Firefox is open source and Pocket has licensed all the Firefox integration code under the MPLv2 license. On top of that, Pocket asked Mozilla for input on how to improve their policy, based on early comments from Mozillians. After that discussion, Pocket updated their privacy policy in early May to explain more precisely how they handle data. You can read Pocket’s privacy policy here.

    Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide this feature to our users in the best way possible. To disable Pocket, you can remove it from your toolbar or menu. If Pocket is removed from the toolbar or menu, then the feature is effectively disabled, though you can still find it again by accessing it in the Customize Panel. You can find detailed instructions here.

    The "removal instructions" are just to drag the button out of sight, but the bug report asking for actual removal, quoth Manish Goregaokar [:manishearth]:

    Pocket is just a bunch of API calls. Firefox UI code is lazy loaded. Put those two together, and yes, Pocket code is effectively "disabled". It will cause no extra baggage until viewed.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    1. Re:The statement by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and...

      Let's see if they were right about that. Most popular extensions

      Adblock plus: 20 million users
      Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
      Firebug: 2 million users
      .
      .
      .
      Pocket: 257k users

      It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list.

    2. Re:The statement by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The malformed URL would've resulted in an error otherwise, with more or less the same result.

      Yes, it would have resulted in an error, which is exactly what I needed. It was not "more or less the same result." It was a completely different result that obfuscated the actual problem. When they got the Bing page, I first had to determine if they typed it into the correct box. Then, I had to determine what they typed in and what was wrong with it. But since it erased what I typed, the user couldn't read back to me what they typed.

      There is a compromise: If it gave them the Bing search result, but didn't change what they entered into the URL bar, and/or echoed back what they typed in, then I would not have lost valuable information.

      I had to include the scheme in this case, and I couldn't mail them the URL because it was the URL to get to their mail. :-) Worse yet, it had a port number.

    3. Re:The statement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a feature that violates Mozilla's own Manifesto.

      This is not a core feature of a browser and as such it needs to be in a plugin. Even worse is that it relies on a proprietary solution that has a different privacy policy than FF. The company is VC funded and the PP states that "all your data are belong to us and also to whomever we sell out to".

      Is that acceptable in an open source browser?

      It is like they forgot what happened to Navigator when it tried to be a kitchen sink browser.

      It is the same reason no one uses Seamonkey.

      Stop trotting out strawmen and just admit you are a Mozilla shill, and a bad one at that.

      New features are fine, when they make sense.

  3. Seamonkey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Want FireFox like it was back in the 3.x days?

  4. Adblock is even more popular by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ship that by default if you dare!

  5. Sigh by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obligatory why is all this shit built into Firefox comment here. I don't even want the developer console, on some machines. It's just an annoyance when I accidentally pop it up. Why should I have features that bloat the install if I'm not using them? Make them all extensions. Wasn't that the point of the design? That it's a platform?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Vote with your feet by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you do not like what the Mozilla Foundation is doing with Firefox, and they don't seem to care what you think - join the millions of us who've already switched to a different browser.

    I was a loyal Firefox user for many years, but somewhere along the way Mozilla lost its focus. The things I used to need Firefox for (DOM Inspector, JavaScript debugging, Ad Block) are readily available with other browsers. So I bid adieu to their political agendas and bloated infrastructure (seriously - how much money do you need to develop a web browser?) and moved on.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Vote with your feet by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, what's our options here?

      There's Chrome, which is owned by an advertising company. There's Chromium, which I've never been clear on what it's for. There's Firefox (which we have two stories today about bloat). There's Opera, which is essentially Chrome. Apple abandoned Safari on Windows quite some time ago.

      So, what's left that isn't either a) a marketing/ad platform, or b) full of bloat?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Yet Firefox continues to lose marketshare... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Mozilla has released a statement saying users like the integration...

    Maybe Mozilla should stop telling users what they want, and start giving users what they want.

  8. This looks like another tracker. by BitPit1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pocket should not be built in to Firefox as it is yet another third party that gets to capture your browser usage. Good old bookmarks have the same function without involving some unknown third party. I do not want the Pocket feature taking up resources on my computer! Leave it as an addon for folks that can't figure out how to use bookmarks.

  9. The short version by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here's some bloatware chasing down some rarely used media extensions.
    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here's a Mozilla "operating system."
    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here are some built-in ads.
    >> Users: Quit adding unnecessary crap. Stick to the original mission of "leanest browser available."
    >> Mozilla: F*** you. Here is some built-in crapware from Pocket.
    >> Users: No, f*** you. We already switched ourselves and everyone we know still running Firefox to Chrome.

  10. The degradation of Firefox continues by The+Faywood+Assassin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Using Firefox has become like that relationship that used to be perfect and then out of nowhere your partner starts cheating on you and each time swears its going to be the last time.

    And you keep falling for it.

    --

    "I'm a humble person really,

    I'm actually much greater than I think I am"

  11. If mozilla cares about userbase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They would do an ask slashdot about how they've been treating the browser lately.

  12. Re:I'm not sure I get this by NotInHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difference is, it gets saved in the cloud, and your data can be sold to third parties.

  13. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bigfinger76 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "You can change the source, you have the power!" Yeah, not so much... nobody is really going to do anything except complain. (Well, except that one guy who is now going to make it his life work to fork it into something he calls Freefox that gets used by around 53 people... but those 53 people are very happy about it.)

    Firefox has been forked already. More than 53 people are very happy about it.
    Pale Moon

  14. Re:Fuck you Mozilla by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But open source is supposed to be about what the users want

    Since when? Seems to me open source is primarily about what the developers want, and if the 'user' happens to have developer skills he can make it what he wants. Which open source projects are the ones that do what the users (vs developers) want?

  15. How to disable pocket for the lazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1.about: config
    2. Find browser.pocket.enabled preference and change its value to ‘false’.
    3. To remove Reader view, change reader.parse-on-load.enabled preference value to ‘false‘.
    4. Restart the browser to see the changes.

    -S