Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[David Rajchenbach-Teller]

Hum. Apparently, _someone_ in bizdev thought that "revenue sharing"
doesn't involve money, and spread information inside Mozilla
accordingly. :rolling eyes:

It seems that we do have a revenue sharing agreement with Pocket. If I
understand correctly, we did not receive money for integrating it (which
makes the earlier affirmation of "no money" technically true), but we
received some money as a result from the integration (which makes that
same information much less true in my book).

My apologies for spreading false information.

Best regards,
 David

On 15/12/15 18:37, »Q« wrote:
> In ,
> David Rajchenbach-Teller  wrote:
> 
>> On 15/12/15 18:27, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>>> I agree and it's disappointing when the first thread on Pocket was
>>> discussed here Mozilla said there was no money deal to integrate
>>> pocket but recently a VP at Mozilla admitted Mozilla is getting
>>> paid to integrate Pocket.  
>>
>> Wait, who did what when?
> 
> Maybe Benjamin has more info, but there is this:
> 
> 
> 
>Although the company emphasizes that Pocket and Telefonica didn’t
>pay for placement in the Firefox browser, Mozilla Corp. chief legal
>and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told WIRED that Mozilla
>has revenue sharing arrangements with both companies.
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> 
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[Benjamin Kerensa]

Would you agree though that while you were not paid to integrate
that it was probably known that there was a revenue sharing deal
going into this and that roughly translates to incentivizing
the integration?

I'm sure someone on the Firefox Team didn't wake up one morning
and say "Great Scotts we are missing Pocket in Firefox!" and AFAIK
this was not on any long term roadmap.

So I can only assume that this was a money versus something that
Mozilla that users wanted.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 1:00 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller <
dtel...@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Hum. Apparently, _someone_ in bizdev thought that "revenue sharing"
> doesn't involve money, and spread information inside Mozilla
> accordingly. :rolling eyes:
>
> It seems that we do have a revenue sharing agreement with Pocket. If I
> understand correctly, we did not receive money for integrating it (which
> makes the earlier affirmation of "no money" technically true), but we
> received some money as a result from the integration (which makes that
> same information much less true in my book).
>
> My apologies for spreading false information.
>
> Best regards,
>  David
>
> On 15/12/15 18:37, »Q« wrote:
> > In ,
> > David Rajchenbach-Teller  wrote:
> >
> >> On 15/12/15 18:27, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> >>> I agree and it's disappointing when the first thread on Pocket was
> >>> discussed here Mozilla said there was no money deal to integrate
> >>> pocket but recently a VP at Mozilla admitted Mozilla is getting
> >>> paid to integrate Pocket.
> >>
> >> Wait, who did what when?
> >
> > Maybe Benjamin has more info, but there is this:
> >
> > <
> http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/
> >
> >
> >Although the company emphasizes that Pocket and Telefonica didn’t
> >pay for placement in the Firefox browser, Mozilla Corp. chief legal
> >and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told WIRED that Mozilla
> >has revenue sharing arrangements with both companies.
> > ___
> > governance mailing list
> > governance@lists.mozilla.org
> > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
> >
> ___
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
>



-- 
Benjamin Kerensa
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[David Rajchenbach-Teller]

I don't have details, but I can only imagine that yes, someone in the
leadership team or just below pushed for this integration based on this
deal. If my memory serves all of this happened with the previous
leadership team, so I can only hope that this piece of history won't
repeat itself.

On 17/12/15 22:08, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Would you agree though that while you were not paid to integrate
> that it was probably known that there was a revenue sharing deal
> going into this and that roughly translates to incentivizing
> the integration?
> 
> I'm sure someone on the Firefox Team didn't wake up one morning
> and say "Great Scotts we are missing Pocket in Firefox!" and AFAIK
> this was not on any long term roadmap.
> 
> So I can only assume that this was a money versus something that
> Mozilla that users wanted.
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[David Rajchenbach-Teller]

I should add that this was not a case of "money versus something that
Mozilla users wanted", but rather a case of "the core Mozilla Community
clearly doesn't want it but User Research suggests that most Mozilla
users actually do". I remember that we had numbers at the time, although
I don't quite remember these numbers.

While it is quite possible that money may have subtly influenced
perception and pushed us towards overconfidence, the intention has
always been to serve our users.

Best regards,
 David

On 17/12/15 22:12, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote:
> I don't have details, but I can only imagine that yes, someone in the
> leadership team or just below pushed for this integration based on this
> deal. If my memory serves all of this happened with the previous
> leadership team, so I can only hope that this piece of history won't
> repeat itself.
> 
> On 17/12/15 22:08, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
>> Would you agree though that while you were not paid to integrate
>> that it was probably known that there was a revenue sharing deal
>> going into this and that roughly translates to incentivizing
>> the integration?
>>
>> I'm sure someone on the Firefox Team didn't wake up one morning
>> and say "Great Scotts we are missing Pocket in Firefox!" and AFAIK
>> this was not on any long term roadmap.
>>
>> So I can only assume that this was a money versus something that
>> Mozilla that users wanted.
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[Adam Roach]

On 12/17/15 15:08, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:

I'm sure someone on the Firefox Team didn't wake up one morning
and say "Great Scotts we are missing Pocket in Firefox!" and AFAIK
this was not on any long term roadmap.


Having a reading list was, in fact, plotted out as a desired Firefox 
feature. Before Pocket came into the picture, Mozilla was working on its 
own implementation of such a feature:


http://www.myce.com/news/mozilla-releases-firefox-38-beta-with-reading-list-mode-75635/

I wasn't privy to the decision making process involved in swapping 
Reading List out for Pocket. However, as a general principle, there 
seems to be a certain kind of wisdom in accepting an offer from a third 
party to support an operationally expensive feature.


--
Adam Roach
Principal Platform Engineer
a...@mozilla.com
+1 650 903 0800 x863
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[Mike Connor]

Hi all,

Let's be perfectly clear here: the decision to integrate (and continue
shipping) Pocket in Firefox did not, and does not, have anything to do with
money. I can understand how people can fear the worst, so I'd like to set
the record straight as much as I can.

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Benjamin Kerensa 
wrote:

> Would you agree though that while you were not paid to integrate
> that it was probably known that there was a revenue sharing deal
> going into this and that roughly translates to incentivizing
> the integration?
>

Frankly, I don't know if revenue sharing was widely discussed, but I would
be somewhat surprised.  I know that the focus of the Firefox team was
entirely on getting a great feature into the product, and the idea to
bundle Pocket instead of Reading List came from that product team.  That we
negotiated a revenue sharing arrangement was more about getting to share in
what a for-profit entity would potentially gain from inclusion.  (Much like
our various search deals!)  It wasn't a priority or driving factor at all.

I'm sure someone on the Firefox Team didn't wake up one morning
> and say "Great Scotts we are missing Pocket in Firefox!" and AFAIK
> this was not on any long term roadmap.
>

If you look at the history (as Adam just linked), we'd been working on
Reading List as a Firefox feature/service for months, with various pieces
landed across products and deployed on our infrastructure, even shipped in
a beta.  There was considerable research that suggested that this was a
core use-case for browser users that we were not meeting ourselves, which
is why we were making significant investments into the feature.  The
decision to partner with Pocket instead of building our own service was a
shift in strategy, based on the belief that they offered a significantly
better feature and service than we were going to be able to deliver in a
timely fashion, and (as a bonus) at significantly less cost to Mozilla.

So I can only assume that this was a money versus something that
> Mozilla that users wanted.


Even if your other assumptions were correct, revenue sharing requires
generating revenue, which really requires a lot of usage (especially in a
freemium business model like Pocket's).  If users didn't want the feature,
it'd be silly to ship it, let alone try to profit from it after the cost of
making the deal, building, shipping and promoting the product, and
maintaining the code long term.  The _only_ way for us to even
theoretically profit from an integration like this is for it to be
successful with users, which means we have to give users something they
want and need.

Happily, we're actually doing all of this for the right reasons, and with
no revenue pressure.

-- Mike
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[Benjamin Kerensa]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Mike Connor  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Let's be perfectly clear here: the decision to integrate (and continue
> shipping) Pocket in Firefox did not, and does not, have anything to do with
> money. I can understand how people can fear the worst, so I'd like to set
> the record straight as much as I can.
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 4:08 PM, Benjamin Kerensa 
> wrote:
>
>> Would you agree though that while you were not paid to integrate
>> that it was probably known that there was a revenue sharing deal
>> going into this and that roughly translates to incentivizing
>> the integration?
>>
>
> Frankly, I don't know if revenue sharing was widely discussed, but I would
> be somewhat surprised.  I know that the focus of the Firefox team was
> entirely on getting a great feature into the product, and the idea to
> bundle Pocket instead of Reading List came from that product team.  That we
> negotiated a revenue sharing arrangement was more about getting to share in
> what a for-profit entity would potentially gain from inclusion.  (Much like
> our various search deals!)  It wasn't a priority or driving factor at all.
>
> I'm sure someone on the Firefox Team didn't wake up one morning
>> and say "Great Scotts we are missing Pocket in Firefox!" and AFAIK
>> this was not on any long term roadmap.
>>
>
> If you look at the history (as Adam just linked), we'd been working on
> Reading List as a Firefox feature/service for months, with various pieces
> landed across products and deployed on our infrastructure, even shipped in
> a beta.  There was considerable research that suggested that this was a
> core use-case for browser users that we were not meeting ourselves, which
> is why we were making significant investments into the feature.  The
> decision to partner with Pocket instead of building our own service was a
> shift in strategy, based on the belief that they offered a significantly
> better feature and service than we were going to be able to deliver in a
> timely fashion, and (as a bonus) at significantly less cost to Mozilla.
>
> So I can only assume that this was a money versus something that
>> Mozilla that users wanted.
>
>
> Even if your other assumptions were correct, revenue sharing requires
> generating revenue, which really requires a lot of usage (especially in a
> freemium business model like Pocket's).  If users didn't want the feature,
> it'd be silly to ship it, let alone try to profit from it after the cost of
> making the deal, building, shipping and promoting the product, and
> maintaining the code long term.  The _only_ way for us to even
> theoretically profit from an integration like this is for it to be
> successful with users, which means we have to give users something they
> want and need.
>
> Happily, we're actually doing all of this for the right reasons, and with
> no revenue pressure.
>

Have you even looked at Input? Because the feedback about Pocket continues
to be overwhelmingly
negative.

https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/?q=pocket&date_start=2015-09-18&selected=90d

Let me share some feedback from users:

"unable to remove Pocket from menu. it does not show up in bookmarks or
bookmark toolbar. and generally such 3rd party items are unwanted."

"I really don't like you force things upon users. You remove innovative
unique features like tab grouping that I use and you add vendor specific
addons like pocket which I don't use. Why there's no feature voting system
already? You asks for donation while forcing ideas upon users. I regret my
donation."

"How do i remove pocket from the browser? WIll be using chrome until this
is fixed."

"Fuck DRM, Pocket, Hello and all of that bullshit. Fuck Yahoo too."

"Because you integrate Pocket. It hurts the web!!! And Mozilla Foundation
is against this!! WE ARE AGAINST THIS. That's the reason i choose Firefox."

"Please remove pocket and hello from Firefox and make a separate plugin
instead"

"
现在简体中文版的火狐42.0不能用pocket！既没有集成在火狐软件中，又在添加附加组件中被删掉了（无法搜索到），浏览器重装后就没法用pocket了希望能解决！！！"


There are hundreds of other pieces of feedback about Pocket including new
comments left daily and I would encourage Mozilla to really look at whether
this feature serves users and is what they want.

We cannot keep taking risks and making mistakes if we want Firefox to be
around in the future and I am of the opinion this was a mistake and to be
utterly honest I think this feature will be gone in a year or two when
Mozilla realizes it.
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[Eric Shepherd]

Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> There are hundreds of other pieces of feedback about Pocket including new
> comments left daily and I would encourage Mozilla to really look at whether
> this feature serves users and is what they want.
This is quite interesting; I for one find it remarkably convenient. That
said, however, I was already a Pocket user before this integration occurred.


-- 

Eric Shepherd
Senior Technical Writer
Mozilla 
Blog: http://www.bitstampede.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/sheppy
Check my Availability 
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[Angly Cat]

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 10:06:03 AM UTC+6, Eric Shepherd wrote:
> This is quite interesting; I for one find it remarkably convenient. That
> said, however, I was already a Pocket user before this integration occurred.
You're biased, aren't you? Your opinion barely could be extrapolated to all 
Firefox users.
___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

[Francesco Lodolo [:flod]]

I don't think looking at 90 days is fair. Let's look at 7 days, at least 
there's something manageable

https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/?q=pocket&date_start=2015-12-10&selected=7d

9 'pocket' feedback entries, out of 3893 results (I'm counting only 
'Firefox', that's about 39% of the entire 7 days feedback).


1 is completely unrelated (donations), 1 is a 'full-spectrum-rant'. It 
leaves us with 7, and only 4 of them are actually complaining about 
Pocket's integration.


4 out of almost 4k people who took the time to use input to give 
feedback (and we all know that people rarely take the time to give 
positive comments). Would you define this as 'overwhelmingly negative'? 
I don't.


I also expect people to bring up Pocket every time they complain about 
the removal of a feature: "hey, you're removing awesome feature X but 
you ship  like Pocket in the browser?".


And just to be clear: I don't use Pocket, I didn't even know it existed 
before 38.0.5, and I'm really unhappy on how the integration was done 
from a technical point of view (note: you can still disable it from 
about:config, if you know what you're doing). I just learned to deal 
with the fact that my point of view is not that of the majority of 
Firefox users.


Francesco

P.S. the Chinese feedback you reported seems to complain about the fact 
that he can't use Pocket anymore from China





___
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance