info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Remove Pocket Integration from Firefox
111 views
Skip to first unread message
stephen...@gmail.com
Jul 15, 2015, 12:57:30 AM7/15/15
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
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-ons instead of uninstallable integrations, but I don't think they will be reverting this specific integration back into an add-on form.
Well, that seems pretty final. You might want to google "remove pocket from firefox," though; as of today, that returns 867,000 hits.
Thanks for posting my earlier, non-member reply. FF remains my favorite browser, so I'll keep checking to see if this has been cleaned up.
>
> 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-ons instead of uninstallable integrations, but I don't think they will be reverting this specific integration back into an add-on form.
Well, that seems pretty final. You might want to google "remove pocket from firefox," though; as of today, that returns 867,000 hits.
Thanks for posting my earlier, non-member reply. FF remains my favorite browser, so I'll keep checking to see if this has been cleaned up.
Urmika Devi
Jul 17, 2015, 9:48:10 AM7/17/15
to mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
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 their legal email address are responded to by different folks, some of whom were out of the office, hence the delay. They've changed this so that requests will be seen and responded to sooner.
As I mentioned before, Pocket's been a very good partner when it comes to listening to our concerns and improving practices. This allows us to share our core values with other companies, which is a plus for the online community.
Best,
Mika
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 their legal email address are responded to by different folks, some of whom were out of the office, hence the delay. They've changed this so that requests will be seen and responded to sooner.
As I mentioned before, Pocket's been a very good partner when it comes to listening to our concerns and improving practices. This allows us to share our core values with other companies, which is a plus for the online community.
Best,
Mika
Akshay S Dinesh
Jul 17, 2015, 10:21:48 AM7/17/15
to Urmika Devi, mozilla-g...@lists.mozilla.org
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:59 PM, Urmika Devi <ud...@mozilla.com> 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 agreement with them separately. You can contact them at this page: http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/emails/new
Pocket add-on has been removed from addons.mozilla.org [0]
Earlier, if I was releasing a modified firefox version (branded
firewolf) my users could install pocket from amo. But if I've
understood this correctly, this will no longer be possible.
So I'll be forced to enter into an agreement with pocket separately or
ship a firewolf that can never have pocket in it.
Since pocket is already very popular according to the assumptions when
it was included in our code, I wouldn't want my users to miss out on
the pocket add-on. But when I try to go into an agreement with Pocket,
what if they ask me for a huge sum of money or something?
This will effectively become a vendor lock in. What will happens to
other projects, like say IceWeasel?
0: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-it-later/
> (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 agreement with them separately. You can contact them at this page: http://help.getpocket.com/customer/portal/emails/new
Pocket add-on has been removed from addons.mozilla.org [0]
Earlier, if I was releasing a modified firefox version (branded
firewolf) my users could install pocket from amo. But if I've
understood this correctly, this will no longer be possible.
So I'll be forced to enter into an agreement with pocket separately or
ship a firewolf that can never have pocket in it.
Since pocket is already very popular according to the assumptions when
it was included in our code, I wouldn't want my users to miss out on
the pocket add-on. But when I try to go into an agreement with Pocket,
what if they ask me for a huge sum of money or something?
This will effectively become a vendor lock in. What will happens to
other projects, like say IceWeasel?
0: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/read-it-later/
0 new messages