You don't really seem to be trying to fairly describe the problem.

With Pocket, Mozilla forced it on everyone, then two years later they bought the service, then many years later they eventually killed it for everyone. They didn't even try the approach of making it an opt-in extension that users could install if they desired. The unoffensive strategy was obvious all along, and they just didn't choose that route. The concerns of Mozilla partnering with and promoting a proprietary service were easily anticipated, and the solution (buying Pocket) was clearly an option since they did that step eventually.

Yes, Mozilla may be in a hard place trying to diversify and find success with their other ventures. But they're clearly making plenty of unforced errors along the way.

▲ throwup238 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

That unforced error was particularly egregious considering that tab containers and Facebook containers are optional addons that are well integrated into the browser.

▲ troyvit 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> With Pocket, Mozilla forced it on everyone,

It was ridiculously easy to turn off. Making a fairly non-obtrusive service opt-out instead of opt-in is not forcing it on everyone.

▲ wtallis 6 days ago | parent [-]

They literally forced every user to either accept the invasion of the proprietary service, or have to take extra steps to disable it on each of their devices. Neither of those is actually a reasonable, respectful way to treat your users.

▲ jrflowers 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I just never used Pocket. I don’t think I had to change my habits or settings to do so.

▲ wtallis 6 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, living with the nuisance of the advertising and UI clutter is an option, as I said. But the fact that they were relatively minor nuisances compared to eg. Windows 11's BS doesn't change the fact that they were still unwelcome and unnecessary and disrespectful.

I don't think there's anything radical about my stance that a new toolbar button showing up—with advertising calling attention to it—integrating a proprietary service into my open-source browser is inappropriate behavior on Mozilla's part.

▲ plorg 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I found it unnecessary and annoying, but there was a toggle for it in the settings, it wasn't even hard to find.

▲ moogly 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Sure, living with the nuisance of the advertising and UI clutter is an option

    about:config<enter>
    extensions.pocket.enabled

set to `false`.

That's how hard that used to be.

▲

wtallis 6 days ago | parent [-]

Anything requiring messing with about:config is an unreasonable way to treat non-technical users. And the point I've already made that you're ignoring is that the complexity of the workaround is not the problem—the necessity of taking action to disable Pocket is what was most concerning about what Mozilla did.

	▲	II2II 6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I simply removed it from the toolbar, same as I did with the Firefox sync icon. Out of sight, out of mind. Granted, they were much more pushy about other features and services. Much less pushy than other vendors and it was, in some respects, understandable. (How do you convince people your product is relevant if they think it does less than the competition because they aren't aware of what's there?)
	▲	moogly 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I found no value in Pocket and it was annoying to have to disable it once per machine but you didn't have to "live with it" as claimed. That's just ridiculously overdramatic.

▲ kevin_thibedeau 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How much are you paying, again?

▲

endgame 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's not an argument when the Mozilla Foundation makes it structurally impossible to fund Firefox.

▲

wtallis 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Price is irrelevant. Mozilla's behavior with Pocket was at odds with Mozilla's stated goals and values.

▲

safety1st 6 days ago | parent [-]

The broader discussion but especially this little exchange reminds me of a similar situation with Ubuntu.

At one point they were the darling of the desktop Linux space and much beloved by an online community of highly principled people who didn't pay them anything.

Those same people then utterly blasted them when they tried a few monetization/promotion features that fell flat, like the Amazon lens in Unity. I had no love for that lens but it was easy to remove.

Shuttleworth gave a fairly telling interview afterwards which basically amounted to "Fuck these guys, you can never make them happy."

Canonical proceeded to focus on the server side where there's more money, fewer loud freeloaders, and now they're somewhat more evil.

There is also a whole strain of thought in SaaS which says don't ever have a free version because those guys always end up being the biggest complainers.

I think you have to accept that no company is going to get it 100% perfect and if you're too loud, annoying, and you're not giving them anything in return, they may just take their ball and go home.

Being the company that does the right thing is arguably not worth it, the devil's advocate argument is, some guy online is going to ride you even harder because you said you were trying to do the right thing, so better to stay quiet, or even cultivate an air of vague evil instead, then they won't bother.

Perhaps also related: the idea that riots are stupid, because rioters are inevitably protesting someone/something that's far away, even as they set fire to local businesses owned by members of their own community.

▲

belorn 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Ubuntu freeloaded on Debian so its fairly reasonable to consider the ubuntu skin to not be worth having if the result is advertisements being pushed onto users.

Companies that want to freeload on a free software community will always have a hard time. They may be praised in the beginning if they bring fresh and new energy, but trust is only going to work for so long until the "monetization features" starts being pushed. Historically that only works if the company reforms the original in such a way that it essentially is a completely different thing. Ubuntu today is still just a skin over Debian that users can easily replace.

Accidentally the best thing Ubuntu brought to Debian was the release schedule, which the Debian community adapted. Without that advantage there isn't much point to Ubuntu unless Canonical continuously pour a lot of money and developer time for free into the ecosystem. A lot of people commented at the time that such a thing wasn't sustainable.

▲

account42 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If no company can make a fully free and user respecting browser then Mozilla the foundation should dissolve Mozilla the corporation because it doesn't fit into the state goals of the foundation.

▲

matwood 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> There is also a whole strain of thought in SaaS which says don't ever have a free version because those guys always end up being the biggest complainers.

Not just free, but also cheap. I have found the less someone pays the higher the likelihood they are a problem customer.

	▲	safety1st 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Look at them all downvoting us for saying it. It's like a force of nature, the reaction to comments about it proves that it's true - the complainers sure enough come onto the free forum and blast down comments about it :) I like free stuff as much as the next guy but I think this is just some fundamental aspect of psychology, like you don't value something as much if you didn't pay for it. Within our business we see this all the time, customers who pay a lot tend to be satisfied and limit their criticism to the things that really matter, customers who pay a little or are just proposal shopping will take up a huge amount of time and have a lot of minor complaints. I have heard about this at many other businesses

▲

rendaw 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Full price!