Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Well, if you are suggesting that Pocket is so essential to Firefox as the major search engines out there, then there is a bigger governance problem here. But ask yourself why most of the open source projects have actually switched to DuckDuckGo while Firefox continues to stick with Google or whoeve

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:39 AM, wrote: > I was very surprised to be looking through my Pocket bookmarks to find > advertising there. I was totally unaware that this was a non-open source for > profit application that was bundled with Firefox. > > I don't know about you, but I believe that a n

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I was very surprised to be looking through my Pocket bookmarks to find advertising there. I was totally unaware that this was a non-open source for profit application that was bundled with Firefox. I don't know about you, but I believe that a non-profit organization has no business including ad

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 4/15/16 12:19 AM, Laurențiu Nicola wrote: When I last looked into this, the plan seemed to be to change Pocket into a "super-extension" that's not visible in the UI, cannot be disabled and which can be updated at any time, without any notification to the user and outside of the release cycl

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

When I last looked into this, the plan seemed to be to change Pocket into a "super-extension" that's not visible in the UI, cannot be disabled and which can be updated at any time, without any notification to the user and outside of the release cycle of Firefox. Is this correct? ___

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:12 AM, Ian Bicking wrote: > > I understand your objection to Pocket, but what is the objection to Hello? I've seen objections to Hello on multiple occasions, though not as often as Pocket. I think the "powered by Telefonica" description is the issue. AIUI Telefonica (or

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Sorry, that's my fault. Was meaning to remove hello but got distracted and didn't notice when I posted ___ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 7:36 PM, wrote: > Pocket and Hello are completely against what Firefox stands for. I am not > against the features, I am against the implementation. Forcing a single > provider for a feature is forcing a monopoly onto the users. > I understand your objection to Pocket, bu

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I agree, Firefox (the technology) has been made first to stand for our manifesto principles. Putting user first shouldn't be short termed by putting technology first. We can make numbers say anything one's which (with hypotheses, representation, axiom, ...) but we should keep our way going forward

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Pocket and Hello are completely against what Firefox stands for. I am not against the features, I am against the implementation. Forcing a single provider for a feature is forcing a monopoly onto the users. I used to donate to Firefox, but not this year. Fed up of the spam of lies where I'm tol

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 17/12/15 21:08, 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. That's not correct; this was so much on the roadmap that a team was busy buildi

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Indeed, the people who use Input are not representative of Firefox users in general. Heartbeat is a much more accurate tool for general sentiment since it's not as obviously self-selected. Those who remember Gregg's speech from Whistler know that Input denotes passion and not necessarily sentiment

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 7:56:43 AM UTC-7, hugoosval...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 6:59:56 PM UTC-3, tucker@gmail.com wrote: > > (Pasted from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1172126. There > > are some comments on Hacker News at > > https://news.ycombinator

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I personally would just like to thank David for being candid about the situation. While I agree with Benjamin that someone probably knew I also have been in large enough organizations to understand that it is very likely that David did indeed not know. Thank you David for letting us know what yo

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Hi Benjamin, I'm going to assume the issue of Mozilla "doing it for the money" is now settled, based on your change of subject. That's a subject worth addressing on governance, and the reason I chimed in on the thread. Product feature discussions are another story, so I'm going to suggest you tak

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I'd be careful about trying to claim any sort of statistical validity for the feedback button. It is hidden in a menu most users will never see, much less use; by definition the people who find and use it are not representative. The only valid data you'll get on Pocket is by actually measuring use.

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Il 18/12/15 09:04, Angly Cat ha scritto: This is not how statistics works. To get a representative statistical sampling, you should be widening time range, not narrowing it. Pocket was shipped with Firefox 38.0.5 at 2nd of June, more than 6 month ago. So basically we should look at all feedback

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 1:37:22 PM UTC+6, Francesco Lodolo [:flod] wrote: > 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 This is not how statistics work

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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 a

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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. Th

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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 P

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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. Bef

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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 r

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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 17/1

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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 a

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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 (whi

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 12/15/15 11:03, Ian Bicking wrote: People on this thread may want to know that work is in place (and almost landed) to move Pocket to an add-on: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694 By my understanding, Pocket is being moved to a "system add-on" -- which I would probably ca

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Denelle recently talked to Wired and supposedly told them Mozilla's pocket feature is also a revenue sharing deal: http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when-the-web-needs-it-the-most/ Chad Weiner has previously in defending the feature said there was no money involved. On Tue, Dec 15

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

First time I hear about that. Internal info is still that there is *no* revenue. On 15/12/15 18:31, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: > Denelle recently talked to Wired and supposedly told them Mozilla's > pocket feature is also a revenue sharing deal: > http://www.wired.com/2015/12/mozilla-is-flailing-when

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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 b

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

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. That's a breach of trust to the users and Mozillians to publicly not state t

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

People on this thread may want to know that work is in place (and almost landed) to move Pocket to an add-on: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1215694 -- Ian Bicking | Engineering Manager | Hello | Mozilla ___ governance mailing list governa

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Nothing to add except I agree that Pocket should not be integrated into Firefox. ___ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

You don't have to complain on Google Groups. The mailing list is powered by GNU Mailman and other free software. Google Groups is only used as a web frontend, but you can also browse the archives elsewhere, for example on Gmane: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mozilla.governance. However, I agre

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Please don't include proprietary service integration in Firefox core. Things like this and Encrypted Media Extensions should be Firefox extensions, presumably bundled with the browser but completely removable. The reading list feature worked great, I want it back. Pocket is visually ugly, and ju

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 11:36:09 AM UTC-5, d...@kanzi.co.uk wrote: > Hi Mika, > Please can you clarify: "If you would like to distribute Pocket using Mozilla > code you've modified, you would have to enter into an agreement with them > separately". > Does this mean that if you distribute the

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Saturday, 6 June 2015 05:57:14 UTC+2, manis...@gmail.com wrote: > The rationale behind Pocket was "We're working on a 'save' feature anyway, > why duplicate the work of something that already exists?". Intentions are > important; the intention protects us from the slippery slope argument you'

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 7:30:08 PM UTC+1, Urmika Devi wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is Mika from Mozilla's legal team. Some concerns have been raised here > around the scope and application of Pocket's ToS and Privacy Policy in > connection with Firefox. I'm writing to provide more infor

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 11:55 AM, wrote: > > +1 for removal of Pocket from Firefox. > > I'm switching to a different browser until this is resolved. Out of curiosity: which browser are you switching to? Thanks. Nick ___ governance mailing list govern

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 5:59:56 PM UTC-4, tucker@gmail.com wrote: > (Pasted from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1172126. There are > some comments on Hacker News at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809). +1 for removal of Pocket from Firefox. I'm switching to a diffe

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 2:04:52 PM UTC-5, Angly Cat wrote: > > It sounds like some people have contacted Pocket with more questions but > > not heard back a response, if that's the case, I'll certainly reach out and > > let them know. > > Please do. I wrote to Pocket(tm) twice. Has anyone

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I was shocked today to see that Pocket was hard-coded into Firefox. It has a stench to it, much like Ubuntu adding Amazon suggestions to search. Should be Add-on territory. Since there are so many options out there it shows favoritism, which I don't think is fair to other services. Firefox shou

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Urmika Devi wrote: > (3) Our relationship with Pocket allows us to integrate their service in > official branded versions of Firefox released by us. If you would like to > distribute Pocket using Mozilla code you've modified, you would have to enter > into an a

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Hi everyone, This is Mika from legal again. Just wanted to follow-up that we spoke with Pocket. They've actually been very diligent with user requests: for around 779 Firefox-related emails that came into their support, the average response time was less than 24 hours. Emails that went to t

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:37:44 PM UTC-4, B Galliart wrote: > > I agree that it still provides an additional level of comfort when something > is put in the add-ons list and can be truly removed. That will hopefully be > considered with future integrations such that they become bundled add

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 12:30:08 AM UTC+6, Urmika Devi wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is Mika from Mozilla's legal team. Some concerns have been raised here > around the scope and application of Pocket's ToS and Privacy Policy in > connection with Firefox. I'm writing to provide more in

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Hi everyone, This is Mika from Mozilla's legal team. Some concerns have been raised here around the scope and application of Pocket's ToS and Privacy Policy in connection with Firefox. I'm writing to provide more information. Firefox users are not automatically subject to Pocket's ToS. Poc

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 5:05:47 PM UTC+6, tbel...@gmail.com wrote: > It really seems that with all of the questions about the TOS and proprietary > technology, Mozilla Manefesto number 04 comes into play here, and 08 has been > completely ignored. > > Remove it for now, get the answers to

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I've been reading this thread for more than a week now, and I decided to throw my tuppenny bit in. * The original start was posted June 5th. * There was a Bugzilla report posted on July 2nd, about the fact that the API is using undocumented (aka proprietary) calls. This has not been claimed

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:11:20 AM UTC-5, quantumpart...@gmail.com wrote: > I don't usually get involved in these sorts of discussions, but I have to > voice my objection to this decision. There was no consultation that I could > tell. I only started using Pocket a few months ago, so I didn'

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Still no "more formal reply"... I'm kinda on tenterhooks here, wondering if I'll have to switch (after, OMG, 16 years) to SRWare Iron or something. I wonder if EFF will switch for TorBrowser? RMS must be biting his feet over this. ___ governance mail

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 10:59:56 PM UTC+1, tucker@gmail.com wrote: > (Pasted from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1172126. There are > some comments on Hacker News at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809). > > Mozilla's recent integration with Pocket, a proprietary thi

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I don't usually get involved in these sorts of discussions, but I have to voice my objection to this decision. There was no consultation that I could tell. I only started using Pocket a few months ago, so I didn't really notice when the icon moved on my toolbar. But now it's no longer a removabl

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I can't believe this crap is still being bundled with Firefox with this much "dicussion" as to whether this should be bundled or not. The simple answer is: REMOVE POCKET FROM FIREFOX. If I want Pocket I'll install an extension like everything else. I am tired of waiting so as of today, I'm remo

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 07/07/2015 06:44, B Galliart wrote: I have a hard time believing people see the concerns as legitimate in a world where "advocacy" is just marked hidden and disregarded. I considered responding to this point earlier and didn't, because I didn't want to fan the flames of this thread. Seeing

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 07/07/15 14:28, Angly Cat wrote: > I'm sorry, Gerv, but I don't buy it. "Selling the service" (aka > "sub-licensing") is indeed included in "commercial use" activity > variations, but "commercial use" is not limited to just > "sub-licensing". Unless it defined explicitly in Pocket(tm) ToS, I > s

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 6:08:25 PM UTC+6, Gervase Markham wrote: > "Commercial use" in this context basically means "selling the service". > It does not mean "using it as an individual user in the course of your > business". Disclaimer: once again I'm confused by your wording, Gerv. (It's like

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 06/07/15 17:59, Angly Cat wrote: > Disclaimer: I'm a bit confused with your wording. Therefore disregard > my message if "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using Pocket in a > commercial environment" means "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using > Firefox (except integrated Pocket) in commercial way" r

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:26:34 PM UTC-5, Mike Connor wrote: > On 6 July 2015 at 19:34, B Galliart wrote: > > > > > (1) Mike Connor's post in this thread on June 17th makes it clear the > > Mozilla Foundation's "master goal" puts Mozilla Manifesto Principle #9 as > > the only priority and thro

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

This thread hasn't been going anywhere productive for a while. Posts are getting longer, and carry increasing amounts of heavily stretched assertions and what feel like attacks on the integrity and good faith of those involved. I think Gerv has an action to follow up on issues with the Pocket TOS,

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:59:35 AM UTC-5, Angly Cat wrote: > Disclaimer: I'm a bit confused with your wording. Therefore disregard my > message if "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using Pocket in a commercial > environment" means "Pocket TOS do not prevent you using Firefox (except > integrat

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 10:23:22 PM UTC+6, Gervase Markham wrote: > You can accept my assurance that the Pocket TOS do not prevent you using > Pocket in a commercial environment; or you can wait for what I hope will > be a more formal reply to the points raised in this thread in a few days. > >

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 03/07/15 01:55, B Galliart wrote: > To date, no one from the Mozilla Foundation has been able to explain > a practical method to legally use this integration commercially (as > required by the Open Source Definition #6). You can accept my assurance that the Pocket TOS do not prevent you using

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4:52:58 AM UTC-5, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: > On 27/06/15 09:50, B Galliart wrote: > > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 2:01:40 AM UTC-5, David Rajchenbach-Teller > > wrote: > >> On 26/06/15 22:51, B Galliart wrote: > >>> - Why is a private/undocumented API needed a

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 27/06/15 09:50, B Galliart wrote: > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 2:01:40 AM UTC-5, David Rajchenbach-Teller > wrote: >> On 26/06/15 22:51, B Galliart wrote: >>> - Why is a private/undocumented API needed and used? >> >> At a quick glance, it seems pretty well documented: >> http://getpocket.co

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Friday, June 5, 2015 at 2:59:56 PM UTC-7, tucker@gmail.com wrote: > (Pasted from https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1172126. There are > some comments on Hacker News at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9667809). > > Mozilla's recent integration with Pocket, a proprietary thir

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 2:01:40 AM UTC-5, David Rajchenbach-Teller wrote: > On 26/06/15 22:51, B Galliart wrote: > > - Why is a private/undocumented API needed and used? > > At a quick glance, it seems pretty well documented: > http://getpocket.com/developer/docs/overview Great, can you pro

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 26/06/15 22:51, B Galliart wrote: > - Why is a private/undocumented API needed and used? At a quick glance, it seems pretty well documented: http://getpocket.com/developer/docs/overview > - Why is the only server currently compatible with the Firefox integration of > Pocket available only for

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Friday, June 26, 2015 at 10:04:19 AM UTC-5, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 22/06/15 22:46, B Galliart wrote: > > However, lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Pocket decides > > it want a web site popularity/rank feature. Something similar to > > Google PageRank or Alexa add-ons. As part

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 25/06/2015 03:14, Ryan Kelly wrote: > On 24/06/2015 06:52, Angly Cat wrote: >> I think that you, Ryan, acting as a mozillian, are being too aggressive > > In which case, it seems I'm failing badly at two things that are very > important to me: > > 1) Communicating my thoughts and questions

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 22/06/15 22:46, B Galliart wrote: > However, lets say, just for the sake of argument, that Pocket decides > it want a web site popularity/rank feature. Something similar to > Google PageRank or Alexa add-ons. As part of this (again for the > sake of argument), the Pocket integration links into

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 1:39:38 AM UTC-5, Ryan Kelly wrote: > > Seriously? Wow, I am having a hard time figuring out how to respond to this. > I directly challenged you to explain how the Pocket Terms of Service are > supposedly activated at install time, how they supposedly apply to ever

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 24/06/2015 06:52, Angly Cat wrote: > I think that you, Ryan, acting as a mozillian, are being too aggressive In which case, it seems I'm failing badly at two things that are very important to me: 1) Communicating my thoughts and questions clearly 2) Not coming off as a jerk Sorry. I wi

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 24/06/15 08:21, Majken Connor wrote: > We might also wait to see what Gerv comes back with. As I say to my kids, > there's no point arguing about it, look it up. Gerv is currently "looking > it up" or at least trying to. Everything in between is conjecture and will > become irrelevant once we he

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

We might also wait to see what Gerv comes back with. As I say to my kids, there's no point arguing about it, look it up. Gerv is currently "looking it up" or at least trying to. Everything in between is conjecture and will become irrelevant once we hear from him. It would be nice, though, to hear

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:39:38 PM UTC+6, Ryan Kelly wrote: > I directly challenged you to explain how the Pocket Terms of Service are > supposedly activated at install time, how they supposedly apply to every > Firefox user regardless of whether they interacted with the Pocket > button at

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 23/06/2015 18:52, B Galliart wrote: > As a 15+ mozillian, you should remember this isn't this first time a > commercial product has been integrated/used in the open source browser. It > used to be that it wouldn't even compile without Motif. One key difference > was 100% of the Motif calls

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:52 PM, B Galliart wrote: > > (2) Chrome will play back h.264 via the HTML5 video tag regardless of if > the platform/OS supports it. Cisco has made clear with it's OpenH264 > project it is willing to help open source projects do the same. Why not > just throw that into

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Tuesday, June 23, 2015 at 1:15:59 AM UTC-5, Daniel Glazman wrote: > Let me bring a dinosaur's point of view (more than 15 years old > mozillian), a FOSS developer's point of view (BlueGriffon) and a user's > point of view: It is nice to find another long term mozillian. Most people don't consi

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 18/06/2015 18:39, Fred Wenzel wrote: > I'll mention that "voting with your feet" doesn't have to mean choosing a > different browser in this context. Merely not using Pocket will suffice. > > You can, after all, right click that button and choose to remove it from > the menu bar without ever h

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 9:39:55 PM UTC-5, Ryan Kelly wrote: > I don't have any deep thoughts on what the Pocket(TM) Terms of Service > do or do not define. I'm sure there are things downstream of ToS > agreement that it would be great to get clarification on. > > My question is simply: by wha

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 19/06/2015 14:00, B Galliart wrote: > On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-5, Ryan Kelly wrote: >> On 18/06/2015 13:56, B Galliart wrote: >> >> "Firefox is now a pocket application" is IMHO a completely unreasonable >> conclusion to jump to, unless one is deliberately looking for gotch

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 11:39:35 AM UTC-5, Fred Wenzel wrote: > I'll mention that "voting with your feet" doesn't have to mean choosing a > different browser in this context. Merely not using Pocket will suffice. > > You can, after all, right click that button and choose to remove it from >

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On 17/06/15 21:12, Majken Connor wrote: > Mike just gave about partnerships vs open. Also there seems to be an open > question of what the ToS actually mean for Firefox users. I am attempting to get more clarity on this specific question. Gerv ___ gov

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 11:52:37 PM UTC-5, Ryan Kelly wrote: > On 18/06/2015 13:56, B Galliart wrote: > > You claim Pocket(TM) being integrated into the core of Firefox to be > > pre-installed is justified because "the master goal requires Mozilla to > > attract and retain users." As such

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Gijs, I really appreciate the reply. And I'd echo Christopher Carpenter — from my recollection, having read every post in this thread, you are indeed the first to directly address these questions with any suggestion of authority, which is really all that some of us have been asking for (thoug

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I'll mention that "voting with your feet" doesn't have to mean choosing a different browser in this context. Merely not using Pocket will suffice. You can, after all, right click that button and choose to remove it from the menu bar without ever having sent so much as a single byte towards Pocket'

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

It is reduction to the absurd, but that is my point. Getting more users is great, if it doesn't destroy what made your product interesting in the first place. As to voting with my feet: I'd much rather vote with my voice before it gets that far. But if Mozilla isn't interested, eventually feet are

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Let's not get to reductio ad absurdum please. Improving products effectively involves research, testing, and measuring engagement. If a new feature is popular and significantly improves user satisfaction and retention, we're doing good things. Users get to vote with their feet here, if we build

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I am sympathetic to your position, but every time people use 'market research' to justify changes, or talk about how a user increase proves they were right, I feel the need to point out a simple fact. The Daily Mail is one of the most popular websites in the world, with a huge user base. Does

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I am sympathetic to your position, but every time people use 'market research' to justify changes, or talk about how a user increase proves they were right, I feel the need to point out a simple fact. The Daily Mail is one of the most popular websites in the world, with a huge user base. Does

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I am sympathetic to your position, but every time people use 'market research' to justify changes, or talk about how a user increase proves they were right, I feel the need to point out a simple fact. The Daily Mail is one of the most popular websites in the world, with a huge user base. Does

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

While I personally want a browser that is fast, small, reliable and trustworthy, we have market research that shows us that you and I are a minority. More precisely, we have market numbers that shows that users want a Pocket-like feature and are not going to bother checking if there are add-ons tha

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

Dear Mozilla Governance, I already posted my thoughts about the pocket integration itself. Per Gijs, which from my memory is the only person who has directly addressed the questions he did despite his assertion that that wasn't true, it sounds like Mozilla is going forward with one of the paths

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

> You can't ship software without considering engineering constraints. You > can't ship usable software without some degree of UX/UI care and user > research. You can't compete in a market with multi-billion-budgeted > competitors without doing market research and staying focused on > building

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

I too think adding Pocket, Hello and whatever else Mozilla may be planning is a terrible idea. Firefox is a web browser, and one that's supposed to put the user first, treat them right without letting greedy corporate ideas get in the way. If I want voice/cam chat, I will use a dedicated client

Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox

As a Mozilla engineer who worked on / reviewed some of the pocket and reader mode stuff: On 18/06/2015 07:44, Dan Stillman wrote: - Is the plan actually to open this feature up with a documented API and in a way that doesn't privilege a single proprietary service? This is certainly what I've

  1   2   3   >