Firefox, you're supposed to be in my pocket, not the other way around

Re:Firefox, you're supposed to be in my pocket, not the othe... by JadeNB on Monday July 13, 2015 @12:23AM (#9876380)

> Studies show the best decision here is to bundle it by default.

I believe that there are meanings of 'best' for which this is true, but they aren't, I think, necessarily the right ones. In this case, it seems like 'best' is "best for widespread adoption of Pocket".

OK, so let's buy that widespread adoption of Pocket is a good goal because more users like it than don't. I'm sure there are lots of add-ons with this property, but we don't add them all on—so what is so special about this one, beyond just that it tested well, and moreover what is so fundamental about it that it has to be integrated at the browser, rather than extension, level?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox, you're supposed to be in my pocket, not the othe... by azakai on Monday July 13, 2015 @12:31AM (#9876408)

This might also be good for Pocket, but I don't think that had anything to do with Firefox's decision. Why would it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox, you're supposed to be in my pocket, not the othe... by JadeNB on Monday July 13, 2015 @12:44AM (#9876461)

I think that I was unclear. When I said "best for widespread adoption of Pocket", I meant just that: Mozilla have decided, after gathering data, that Pocket is a service that is good for users, and they want as many people as possible to use it. I did not mean to suggest that this was an attempt by Mozilla to promote Pocket for Pocket's sake.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Firefox, you're supposed to be in my pocket, not the othe... by azakai on Monday July 13, 2015 @12:47AM (#9876470)

Oh ok, sorry for misunderstanding you before.

[ Parent | on HN ]