
Firefox, you're supposed to be in my pocket, not the other way around - programmernews3
http://dustri.org/b/firefox-youre-supposed-to-be-in-my-pocket-not-the-other-way-around.html
======
cddotdotslash
Everyone saying "oh, just right click and remove it; it's so easy" is entirely
missing the point. The simple fact is, Mozilla took a third-party, proprietary
service and bundled it into the browser. If this becomes the new norm, imagine
downloading Firefox v53 and having six different services installed (all
consuming memory, collecting personal data, etc.) all because some research
studies they collected said "people like this." Sure, every subset of the
population is going to like different services. When I download Chrome, I
install PushBullet, Disconnect, the Chromecast extension, and Ublock. But that
doesn't mean that every other users wants or even needs those same things. The
entire purposes of add-ons is that they can be... added onto the default
experience. Mozilla has now begun changing the default. While they may claim
this was done "purely for the benefit of users," it sure smells like it was
done for money.

EDIT: for anyone who doesn't think it wasn't about money, please explain why
it is so difficult to remove, why I have to open about:config to "disable"
(not remove) it, and why it wasn't just added as an add-on (which already
existed)?

~~~
JohnTHaller
The service integration code is entirely open source and isn't executed even
once unless you choose to use it.

Just for comparison, Chrome has chunks of closed source code, including the
binary blob that is downloaded on first run to enable listening for "OK
Google". This add-on is pre-installed. And it's pre-installed to make Google
more money.

~~~
cddotdotslash
It's not an add-on; it's a default, difficult-to-remove-entirely integration
into the browser. Surely that must have taken more engineering work than to
simply ship it as a default add-on, which is why people are questioning the
motives behind it. How about instead of installing extra, third-party services
into the browser that people may or may not want, Mozilla improves the add-on
search experience to direct users to add-ons they may like? Or the first boot
experience?

And I think comparing Firefox to Chrome is just legitimizing the argument;
Firefox markets itself essentially as the opposite of most of the things
Google does. "It's okay because Chrome does it" doesn't make me feel very good
about Firefox.

~~~
JohnTHaller
It's a feature that folks had been asking for in Firefox and was originally
planned a while back. The resources to do the actual service side were better
used elsewhere, though.

I only referenced Chrome because the post I responded to specifically
mentioned Chrome for comparison.

------
JadeNB
I think what I don't get is why this is _so_ important that it has to be
bundled in the browser. I have always viewed Firefox as being fiercely, at
times absurdly, about the idea of providing a minimal browser on top of which
users can use extensions to build whatever customised experience they want.
Sure, integrating Pocket allows Mozilla to (in the quote linked by meesterdude
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876221](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876221)
)) "provide this feature to our users in the best way possible", but the same
argument could be made for tons of extensions; I think that they haven't made
the case that _this_ one is so important that it needs to be integrated. (Is
the extension functionality, which can provide amazing services like
Greasemonkey, really so limited that Pocket and Mozilla couldn't work together
to write an extension that provides an indistinguishable experience?)

~~~
zobzu
because:

1/ its a source of revenue and get VP's bonuses for diversifying mozilla's
revenues

2/ its a test to see how people like if mozilla starts incorporating 3rd party
cloud services in the user-agent

(doesnt actually sound evil put like that does it?)

result:

1/ some few people get paid a few hundred thousand/year

2/ mozilla alienates people, loses market share

3/ said vps will leave when mozilla can't pay them bonuses no more

(I think that's sadly close to the truth)

~~~
throwaway2048
i dont know about you, but that sounds pretty damn evil to me.

~~~
sliverstorm
I don't like the change but it's not like revenue is evil.

~~~
bostik
Putting focus on short term revenue can hurt long and medium term revenue, and
thus degrade the value of the company. Of course if you're already hunting for
the next gig in another company, then the short term bonuses may be the only
things that matter.

I cannot find the source but I think it was Rushkoff who used a wonderful
phrase: _extracting wealth by destroying value._

It highlights the underlying problem better than anything I can come up with.

------
meesterdude
mozilla's response: [http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-
firefo...](http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/09/mozilla-responds-to-firefox-user-
backlash-over-pocket-integration/)

> Pocket has been a popular Firefox add-on for a long time and we’ve seen that
> users love to save interesting Web content to easily revisit it later, so it
> was an easy choice to offer Pocket as a service in Firefox and we’ve gotten
> lots of positive feedback about the integration from users.

> All the code related to this integration within Firefox is open source and
> Pocket has licensed all the Firefox integration code under the MPLv2
> license. On top of that, Pocket asked Mozilla for input on how to improve
> their policy, based on early comments from Mozillians. After that
> discussion, Pocket updated their privacy policy in early May to explain more
> precisely how they handle data. You can read Pocket’s privacy policy here.

> Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide
> this feature to our users in the best way possible. To disable Pocket, you
> can remove it from your toolbar or menu. If Pocket is removed from the
> toolbar or menu, then the feature is effectively disabled, though you can
> still find it again by accessing it in the Customize Panel. You can find
> detailed instructions here.

~~~
anonymousab
> Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide
> this feature to our users in the best way possible

That's sounds weird. Why wouldn't they just make it opt-in on the "you've been
updated" page? Or just bundle the extension?

~~~
azakai
Almost all users of any popular browser are not tech savvy like you and I and
other people here on Hacker News. They would not enable an opt-in feature
because it would sound complex and confusing to them.

The Firefox design team did studies on this, seeing how real users interact
with the feature. The results are that bundling it in the browser makes it
useful to a lot of people, overall making the browser experience better for
them. That's really all this comes down to - the data shows users are happier,
overall, with it present by default.

Some users don't like it, like the author of this article, but more users do
like it.

~~~
holri
I could not find happiness of users as a top principle in the Mozilla
Manifesto [1]. What I did find is

"Individuals’ security and privacy on the Internet are fundamental and must
not be treated as optional."

"Free and open source software promotes the development of the Internet as a
public resource"

So their speak and actions are very different, like shady politicians.

Actions speak louder than words.

[1] [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/about/manifesto/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/)

~~~
brighteyes
Firefox has to succeed in the market in order to achieve its goals. User
happiness matters a lot for market share.

~~~
rockdoe
I don't get why you're being downvoted. If Firefox is a tool for the Mozilla
Foundation to achieve their goals, then yes, it must absolutely be a product
that _anyone_ (not just experts) would be willing to use.

------
rockdoe
I find it interesting that he considers Firefox getting H264 support as "the
browser getting worse and worse".

I don't like patented codecs either but there's no argument that making
Firefox actually work with pretty much any video website out there is making
it better, especially as they fought tooth and nail and only caved in when it
was a foregone conclusion that H264 won out.

It's easy to see why Mozilla doesn't listen to people like him.

(And the tl;dr doesn't seem to agree with what's actually in the documents
either)

~~~
throwaway7767
> I find it interesting that he considers Firefox getting H264 support as "the
> browser getting worse and worse".

The issue, at least for me, is that the browser now downloads binary blobs
behind my back. Therefore it is no longer an open-source browser, unless I
patch it and build my own version to disable this stuff. Firefox being open-
source was one of the big selling points originally.

Of course it's very convenient that video just works. User-experience wise
it's just better. Noone is arguing that.

> It's easy to see why Mozilla doesn't listen to people like him.

Yes. It's completely understandable, the market for people who don't care
about these issues is much larger. The reason many people are annoyed is
because the free-software tech crowd used to be the target consumer for
mozilla, that's the group that built the brand and the goodwill around it. Now
they're turning around and using that goodwill to get new markets, while
saying "screw you" to the people who built the brand for them.

All the power to them, it's just sad for us old users watching this ship burn.
I'm hoping a new project will spring up that picks up the torch and focuses on
being an open-source, privacy-preserving browser.

~~~
rockdoe
_The issue, at least for me, is that the browser now downloads binary blobs
behind my back... Firefox being open-source was one of the big selling points
originally._

OpenH264 _IS_ open source. Firefox downloads a pre-built binary (that happens
to have a patent license included), just like it'll do if you update, for
example, Debian Iceweasel.

 _The reason many people are annoyed is because the free-software tech crowd
used to be the target consumer for mozilla_

It still is, but only the people who are willing to be reasonable and listen
to arguments. Demanding that a browser in 2015 does not support H264 is not
realistic.

I mean, there's people arguing here that the current Sync system is a sell-out
because it uses passwords instead of the old randomly generated keys.

If I see that, and the H264 argument, then I think there's two kinds of "open
source communities": the ones that try to build usable products and a big
circklejerk that is happy to have a solution only for themselves. If you
follow the discussions about ANY kind of open source project that tries to
help the mainstream, you'll often see the same pattern. (GNOME and systemd are
some easy examples)

~~~
throwaway7767
> OpenH264 IS open source. Firefox downloads a pre-built binary (that happens
> to have a patent license included), just like it'll do if you update, for
> example, Debian Iceweasel.

Sure, I can download the source. And I can patch firefox to restrict the auto-
downloading and instead use a locally bundled version. But at that point I'm
forking firefox to get a full-featured version built from source.

I can see arguments either way, but a lot of people, myself included, would
not consider this fully open-source code.

Again, I am in no way claiming that the majority of people have a problem with
this. But there is a group of tech people, who have historically been very
pro-mozilla, who are now more on the fence or actively dislike moves like
this.

> It still is, but only the people who are willing to be reasonable and listen
> to arguments. Demanding that a browser in 2015 does not support H264 is not
> realistic.

I would prefer you respond to the arguments made rather than resorting to
strawmen. Nowhere in my post did I demand that H264 not be supported. I voiced
an objection to the way it was included. You are free to disagree. If H264
really needed to be supported, I would have preferred this be done through
exposing the OS video codecs, leaving firefox out of the whole thing.

> I mean, there's people arguing here that the current Sync system is a sell-
> out because it uses passwords instead of the old randomly generated keys.

And were any of those people me? Please, stop with the strawmen. This has
nothing to do with the H264 discussion.

> If I see that, and the H264 argument, then I think there's two kinds of
> "open source communities": the ones that try to build usable products and a
> big circklejerk that is happy to have a solution only for themselves. If you
> follow the discussions about ANY kind of open source project that tries to
> help the mainstream, you'll often see the same pattern. (GNOME and systemd
> are some easy examples)

Just like we have different makes of car, most of them targeting the average
consumer and some of them targeting niches and people who enjoy driving for
its own sake. What's the problem, exactly, with making a product for a niche
market? Why can't we have a browser made for techies?

When did scratching ones own itch become a bad thing in the open source
community? For the record, I have contributed to browser development in the
past, both mozilla and other projects. All of those contributions were to
solve issues _for me_. Others have benefited from that. That's how a large
chunk of the open source code we use every day got started.

~~~
emn13
By your definition of open source, I know of no compiled application that's
fully open source. If you want to change it, you're going to need to fork it.
If that's not intrinsic to source code in principle, it is in practice.

As to the H264 situation - how is using closed source and patented
implementations better than using open-source but patented implementations?

I don't think anybody is happy with H264; but blaming mozilla is
counterproductive. They clearly aren't calling the shots on this; and they
tried their utmost to prevent it from happening by supporting numerous
unencumbered alternatives. However, companies such as Apple and Microsoft
refused to participate, and web developers chose to support H264 over the free
alternatives. And lets be honest - there's no free alternative with comparable
quality. And realizing _that_ , mozilla supports the very interesting
[https://xiph.org/daala/](https://xiph.org/daala/) \- but that's clearly far
from ready.

What else could they have done to avoid H264 dominance? Failing to implement
it would simply have hastened firefoxes decline, as despite FF's onetime
significant market share, sites never adopted H264 alternatives to any large
extent.

If you want to blame somebody, blame webdevs for that (but again... it's not
like there was a good alternative).

~~~
throwaway7767
> By your definition of open source, I know of no compiled application that's
> fully open source. If you want to change it, you're going to need to fork
> it. If that's not intrinsic to source code in principle, it is in practice.

By far most open source software, when built without changes, will produce a
fully working binary that does not grab and run binary blobs at runtime. All
that software would meet my criteria for acceptance.

> As to the H264 situation - how is using closed source and patented
> implementations better than using open-source but patented implementations?

If the work is deferred to the OS, it's not mozilla's problem. It is then up
to the user to choose a platform with the desired codecs, which may be open or
closed. People on platforms that already contain and expose closed-source
codecs are unlikely to be concerned about these issues.

The rest of your comment, I agree with. I know mozilla fought hard to get a
free codec included in the standard. That was very good, I'm certainly not
trying to demonise mozilla here.

My problem here is only with the technical solution implemented after that
fight was lost. And I worry about the precedent being set that mozilla is okay
with the browser downloading and running precompiled binaries from the
internet at runtime, without an explicit request from the user with a big,
scary warning. That's mozilla's prerogative, they decide to go with the larger
market and I totally understand that. It doesn't make it any less sad to
watch, though.

~~~
Dylan16807
>By far most open source software, when built without changes, will produce a
fully working binary that does not grab and run binary blobs at runtime. All
that software would meet my criteria for acceptance.

Huh? We're not talking about whether the main part of firefox is open source.
We're talking about whether the H264 plugin is open source.

Look at firefox as your apt-get and the H264 plugin as something that you can
either download a compiled binary of or compile yourself.

Is the only objection that it does it at 'runtime'? If you consider first boot
part of the install process then that problem solves itself.

I really don't understand what the problem is.

------
foiboitoi
I want Pocket & Telefonica removed. Or at the very least implement something
fair like the Search Engine toolbar (in the case for WebRTC video). Except
Pocket, why on earth isn't that still just an extension.

Why force it on people who don't want it AND withhold the ability to
permanently remove it? What's wrong with them?

~~~
GrantSolar
Chrome has google accounts to synchronise recently viewed pages across
devices. This is just Mozilla's response. There is already a popular
extension, so why re-invent the wheel?

~~~
sp332
Firefox already has sync built-in. I think this is supposed to be an
improvement over the current bookmarks system. Mozilla realized that Pocket
was already doing that better than they were, so they just integrated it
instead of reinventing it poorly.

~~~
wtbob
> I think this is supposed to be an improvement over the current bookmarks
> system.

The old secure Sync was great, absolutely great. I could see all of my
bookmarks and history from all of my machines, and it was all well-secured.
There was nothing wrong with it.

~~~
bzbarsky
The main thing wrong with it was that most people couldn't figure out how to
use it and hence didn't use it.

This is a common problem with well-secured things (see encrypted email, signed
email), unfortunately, which has proven very difficult to solve.

------
sergiotapia
What browser can I use that respects privacy? Mozilla was the last bastion of
privacy. The final pillar to lean on. What happened?

I miss the early 2000's of the web where everything was the wild west and was
untouched by the advertising cancer.

~~~
lmm
Konqueror. The browser that was open-source from day 1 (back when Mozilla was
still Netscape), that wrote their own first-class rendering engine with a tiny
fraction of the money or developers that Mozilla has. I often wonder how
history might've been different if they'd got the money and attention that
Mozilla did.

~~~
rockdoe
They did?

KHTML became WebKit. I'm sure many of the original authors moved along with
it. And WebKit is far more popular than Gecko.

~~~
lmm
I guess, but that's ten years later than the time period I was thinking about.

------
burnte
Right click the toolbar, select CUSTOMIZE. Drag the Pocket button off the
toolbar. Click "Exit Customize". No more Pocket.

I, too, don't care for it, but I'm not going to pretend that the inclusion of
a new button that doesn't do anything if you don't use it is like injecting
malware into my browser.

~~~
ekianjo
Why is this opt-out and not opt-in, seriously ?

~~~
azakai
It's opt-out because if it were opt-in, far fewer people would benefit from
it.

The Firefox design team conducted user research experiments, and found that a
significant amount of people like the feature (far more than dislike it). Most
of those users are not techies, and would never even hear about an addon, so
including it in the browser is the most realistic way to reach them.

~~~
JadeNB
Wouldn't "decide on first run" (i.e., the user is queried if, say,
`browser.pocket.firstRun` is set to `true`) address both issues (of users who
don't want to be opted in automatically, and of users who wouldn't discover it
if it were opt-in only)?

~~~
jlebar
Applying the "make it an option" tactic to all questions of UI is how one ends
up with a preference menu like Eclipse's. It's a tradeoff, and "I'm on the
losing end of the tradeoff" doesn't mean the wrong decision was made.

~~~
JadeNB
I think that the second sentence mischaracterises my argument (I haven't said
anything, though my opinion is probably clear, about whether this is the right
or wrong decision); but I appreciate the first sentence. I have been arguing
the drawbacks of one extreme of the trade-off (bundle everything!), but it's
worthwhile to observe, as you did, that the other extreme (prompt for
everything!) is equally silly—so that really, I think, what we're all debating
is what is the appropriate point in the middle, not at which end we should
live.

------
nchelluri
According to an article I found, the way to disable it via about:config is to
set browser.pocket.enabled = false

A comment on the post said to restart FF to get the change working. After I
did that, the icon left my FF toolbar.

[http://lifehacker.com/disable-pocket-integration-in-
firefox-...](http://lifehacker.com/disable-pocket-integration-in-firefox-to-
save-memory-1704470743)

~~~
raesene5
Unfortunately what I've found is that it re-appears when you upgrade Firefox,
which is annoying.

~~~
rockdoe
You should file a bug. That's absolutely unacceptable. (And I didn't see this
happen, so I suspect it wasn't intended)

------
hysan
For everyone saying "Customize" this and opt-out/in that. Why not just have
Pocket be a pre-installed add-on? That sounds like a compromise that would
satisfy both camps and fit in with the Firefox philosophy.

~~~
JadeNB
I think this is a very good point, and I agree! For what it's worth, in the
response quoted by meesterdude
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876221](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876221)),
Mozilla said:

> Directly integrating Pocket into the browser was a choice we made to provide
> this feature to our users in the best way possible.

I don't know _why_ (or whether) this direct integration makes such a
difference compared to providing it as an extension, or even what is 'best'
about it (fastest? Easiest? Most consistent?), but that's what they said.

EDIT: On the other hand, mburns
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876467](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9876467))
quotes another reply where Mozilla seem to agree with you.

------
Animats
Mozilla employment billboard, 101 near SF: "Work for mankind, not for the
man".

Mozilla reality: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

------
matthewbauer
Is Mozilla getting anything from this? I know in the old days almost all of
Mozilla's income came from money Google gave them to set Google as the default
search. I suppose you could look at this as a similar thing, the difference is
you could easily remove Google as the default if you wanted to.

~~~
justcommenting
Their new suitor is Yahoo, but since we're on the subject of Firefox defaults
and funding, this reminds me that Firefox's "Show Cookies..." UI has been
broken for years.

And that Mozilla refuses to merge many of Mike Perry's privacy and security-
enhancing patches for Tor Browser Bundle because they make advertisers' lives
more difficult.

I could trivially list at least a dozen default Firefox preferences that could
readily be explained by conflicts of interest, rather than common sense or
Mozilla's commitment to user privacy or their increasingly-touted (and I'm
guessing, unpublished) user studies.

It would be interesting to study which Firefox 'features' get prioritized or
broken or fixed via paid staff time on a given time horizon and plot that
against deals Mozilla makes with 3rd parties.

~~~
asddubs
>And that Mozilla refuses to merge many of Mike Perry's privacy and security-
enhancing patches for Tor Browser Bundle because they make advertisers' lives
more difficult.

Source? I'd like to read more about this

------
nacs
There's a (currently) 178 response thread for this bundleware in the Mozilla
"governance" forum:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PY...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/i_IindFDxxgJ)

------
Animats
On top of this, Firefox for Android now demands access to your contacts list.
The browser itself has no need for your contacts list. But Mozilla Sync and
Pocket do.

~~~
Animats
Actually, it's access to "Your accounts" that Firefox for Android now wants.
That's for "Sync", or so they say.

A browser shouldn't have access to your accounts. That opens up a big attack
surface.

------
bdcravens
I use Pocket, and am pretty happy with it. However, this bundling may cause me
to eye it more critically now.

------
phantom_oracle
This is what happens when you have a tightly-coupled "NPO" that needs to use
_creative_ means to fund their organization.

Mozilla is not exactly light-weight anymore and they have major expenses these
days, which means they either need to go cap-in-hat and beg YaGoogFace or tell
users that user-interest is still core, whilst integrating "sponsored" plugins
deep into the browser.

This is no different to getting "free" software on MS back in the 2000s, at
the expense of having to install that shitty ask.com toolbar.

Privacy and security really seems to be becoming more of a fallacy on the
internet now.

~~~
Manishearth
No.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla...](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/38aorv/psa_mozilla_is_not_benefiting_from_the_pocket/)

~~~
vultour
So Mozilla said that isn't the case. The NSA also said they aren't spying on
American people. You really believe everything you see?

~~~
Manishearth
IIRC Mozilla needs to open up their sources of revenue at the end of the year
anyway because of nonprofitness or whatever (at least, they do do it), so
they'd have to disclose it later.

~~~
rockdoe
[https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/annualreport/2013/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/foundation/annualreport/2013/)

There's some lag in those appearing, though.

------
slowmovintarget
Interesting that it's disabled by default in the Developer's Edition.

~~~
gruez
Makes sense. Developers aren't receptive forced addons.

------
endtime
I know it's beside the point, but Pocket is actually a great product and I
actively use it in Chrome and Android.

------
shmerl
Does Mozilla make any money on it? Why would they bundle a non FOSS service
into the browser, enabled by default with that?

~~~
rockdoe
Like Google or Yahoo search you mean?

Probably because people find it useful.

~~~
pessimizer
> Like Google or Yahoo search you mean?

Including those has provided most of Firefox's revenue, so they're the worst
possible examples.

~~~
rockdoe
No, they're great examples: most people find search useful and don't object to
it, even if it brings Mozilla revenue and if it has privacy implications.

------
omouse
If you don't like Pocket, get more people to use the Sync feature instead or
help build out Sync to do what Pocket does.

To get to free/open source sometimes you have to start with proprietary
software and progressively move over.

~~~
ams6110
I don't want either one.

~~~
pessimizer
That's not allowed. You must want one, because Chrome has one. You must want
everything that Chrome has; that's why you use Firefox.

------
addicted
This is making a mountain of a molehill. Pocket like functionality is an
integrated and expected feature of every browser today. Mozilla decided that
instead of making the effort to reimplement this (efforts which are better
redirected towards stuff like finally completing per tab processes), they
would integrate the most popular extension that was being used for this
functionality.

Pocket does not immediately gain any info about the user until the user
explicitly opts in.

Mozilla certainly needs to be more transparent about how these companies are
selected, and the way this information is first presented to the user. And
they have acknowledged they did it poorly with both Telefonica and Pocket, and
are looking to improve. But it is in no way an abandonment of their core
principles by any stretch of the imagination.

~~~
sjun
Can you point out which other major browsers integrate a feature like Pocket?

~~~
girvo
Safari's Reading List, no?

~~~
leonatan
Neither Safari nor IE's reading mode sends or shares any data with a third
party entity. If you know differently, please share to the contrary.

------
tgb
I have a Pocket account and use their bookmarklet when I want to save
something for later reading on my tablet or phone. That should be reasonably
private (apart from what I obviously send to them), correct?

------
joshmn
Time for an open-source pocket clone.

I'll start the API.

~~~
zobzu
interestingly - firefox nightly for android has a "reading list" and no pocket

which is .. basically pocket on top of firefox sync... also has a nicer
integration and its pretty simple.. i dont even..

~~~
brighteyes
As said in other threads, firefox/mozilla decided to stop developing their own
in-house similar feature, and to collaborate with the existing and apparently
better pocket.

------
eveningcoffee
Wth Mozilla.org??? Do we have to create a fork due to your jerky moves? Better
get rid of stuff like this.

------
vacri
Is this the modern form of the drive-by-installed toolbar?

~~~
notatoad
No, this is the modern form of the old free version of opera, back when opera
was paid software, and they had banner ads embedded in the browser ui.

------
hiou
When I first heard about this all I could think was "Wow, Mozilla must be
having some really serious money concerns right now"

I've been a huge Mozilla fan for a long time(I'm typing this on my Firefox OS
phone) but this is all starting to feel really hopeless.

~~~
rockdoe
As has been pointed out dozens of times in this thread, Mozilla didn't get any
money from the integration. Although indirectly they of course save
engineering salaries from not building the feature themselves.

------
gorgak
ever since an ad appeared on my firefox ive been looking for something else.
tried vivaldi but its based on google code, and i dont support google either.
hard to know where to turn next.

------
ChildOfChaos
Honestly who cares... this is not important to your life. People are always
looking at reasons to be angry. Grow up.

~~~
ryanolsonx
It is very important to the open web. People expect more from Firefox because
they state what they stand for. See here [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/about/manifesto/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/).
Integrating a proprietary service into Firefox is contrary to this.

------
nefitty
Firefox < Opera < Chrome, in terms of performance and business choices...

