On 10/06/15 19:28, [email protected] wrote: > Yes that is true. Equally it could be argued that We may Sync > Bookmarks in Firefox without any need to integrate Pocket.
Between copies of Firefox, yes. But Pocket's feature set gives you a great deal more than that. If this was all it was, I agree that Sync would serve the purpose. > What I do not understand is why a perfectly good usable addon has to > be removed from *some* Firefox builds in order to integrate Pocket. > Who made that decision and on what grounds was it made ? What is > wrong with allowing the user to choose integrate or addon ? Because for 99.99% of users that would be a case of pressing the "Whatever" button. Having both active would clearly be bad UX. So what you are really asking is "why don't Pocket continue to maintain the Firefox addon so it can be used as an alternative to the integrated version, to provide the same functionality". That question rather answers itself, I think. > Why do we prevent the free choice to use the old style Pocket in only > some Firefox builds. (Or are we heading towards a situation where the > Old Pocket is removed as an option for all Firefox users.) AIUI, the Pocket team don't plan to continue to maintain the addon version. Gerv _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
