Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Has 'No Plans' To Offer Firefox Without Pocket (venturebeat.com)

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-go-together-like-peanut-butter-and-pocket dept.

An anonymous reader writes: In June, Mozilla integrated Pocket into Firefox, garnering a mixed response from the browser's community. This week, VentureBeat stumbled upon a Bugzilla ticket (bug 1215694) to "move Pocket to a built-in add-on" and immediately reached out to the company. "There are currently no plans to offer a version of Firefox that doesn't include Pocket," said Dave Camp, Firefox's director of engineering.

9 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Could you at least hint what "Pocket" is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks Dicedot. Please, you know, edit.

    1. Re:Could you at least hint what "Pocket" is? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 5, Informative

      "...the manner in which videos, articles or content has been accessed, saved and shared. We may use aggregated information to offer a list of top sites or content, or to make suggestions to our users or to report on usage and trends. We may also analyze and use aggregated information to improve the products and services that we offer, and to develop new products and services. "

      Yep.

      https://getpocket.com/privacy

      It's written a bit slimy, making strong statements then giving really innocent examples. I'm reading it while trying to keep in mind that a service to store your bookmarks is going to have to have a privacy policy which allows them to store your bookmarks.

      Everything free is malware these days, and many things paid.

    2. Re:Could you at least hint what "Pocket" is? by StormReaver · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pocket is a proprietary usage tracking system. You sign up for an account, which is how the tracking is performed. Then you can save Web pages, videos, etc. to your hard drive using the Pocket system to you can view the content offline later. All the while, Pocket is building a database of what you saved, which laws you've broken (to be handed over to law enforcement upon request), what your viewing preferences are, etc.

  2. browser.pocket.enabled = false by Luthair · · Score: 5, Informative

    NT

    1. Re: browser.pocket.enabled = false by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But that doesn't change the fact that the guys at Mozilla have lost it. Who is picking up the torch? Non-profit, open-source, privacy-aware fork. Please?

    2. Re: browser.pocket.enabled = false by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      What you want is Pale Moon which is FF without the bullshit, NO Australis, NO Pocket, and NO ending the extensions, in fact they've been reaching out to ext devs to get them to support PM which now has its own user agent string and the ones who don't they are compiling their own version.

      I've been using them a couple years and its a rock solid dependable browser without the politics and crap, try it I bet you'll like it. Oh and before somebody asks they've recently added a Linux build which you can either get with the installer or through tarball, your choice.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re: browser.pocket.enabled = false by qubezz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Payola. That's the only reason why a third-party plugin would be forced onto an unwilling user base. Who's getting the money, and how much?

  3. Re:Iceweasel for Windows? by twocows · · Score: 5, Informative

    You might want to look into Pale Moon.

  4. Re:Please forgive my ignorance, by vux984 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but why does Pocket matter?

    Its not what it is, it's what it represents.

    Pocket is a proprietary system, with a commerical company behind it, that produced an addon that a small number of people used.

    That was fine. Nobody objected to it. Nobody cared.

    Then one day, pocket was integrated into the browser. Why? WHY? What possible reason was there to integrate a 3rd party commercial add on directly into the codebase.No good one.

    The free software people were pissed at having a proprietary service.

    The no-bloat were pissed off at another completely pointless feature; especially when the add-on was working just fine for the people who wanted it.

    And the rest of us look at it as the thin edge of the wedge; as in if Mozilla is willing to just thrust this on us... where does it end? Facebook integration next built right in? Twitter after that? Snapchat? Zynga games? Chatroulette? Not as addons... all built right in to firefox.