Bugzilla is not for discussion of product decisions. Please use Governance or input, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mozilla.governance https://input.mozilla.org/feedback
If I'm not wrong, Pocket can be disabled with the customizable UI (hamburger menu -> customize, drag the icon out)
@Tyler: What is a "product decision", and how does it differ from feature requests and bug reports in a way that it is not suitable for the bugtracker? @manishearth: The button is just hidden with this, but the corresponding code not properly disabled. Given that Pocket integration is open-source, there is IMO no difference for the user. -- How will the inclusion of Pocket affect the "reading list" feature Fennec currently has, and the "reading mode" Firefox and Fennec have?
Pocket is just a bunch of API calls. Firefox UI code is lazy loaded. Put those two together, and yes, Pocket code is effectively "disabled". It will cause no extra baggage until viewed.
Tucker, who filed this bug, has moved this conversation to the mozilla.governance list: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/i_IindFDxxgJ
Yes. Thanks Tyler; I wasn't aware of the governance list.
(In reply to Manish Goregaokar [:manishearth] from comment #3) > If I'm not wrong, Pocket can be disabled with the customizable UI (hamburger > menu -> customize, drag the icon out) It can be disabled in about:config, but for example the new Reader view has a mandatory Pocket icon which doesn't go away even if you disable it in about:config.
(In reply to Jon D from comment #9) > This needs to be reopened and acted on ASAP. This Pocket bundleware is > unacceptable. This bug will remain closed until something is worked out on the associated email thread. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.governance/2PYq2w8tejs/i_IindFDxxgJ
I genuinely like firefox pocket only thing I want to be changed that it should ask me if I want firefox pocket to work in privet browsing mode
ATTN: Pocket removal instructions are located at the following URL: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/disable-pocket-firefox For anyone who comes across this bug looking for removal instructions, please refer to the link above.
(In reply to Mark Schmidt (:marksc) from comment #13) > ATTN: Pocket removal instructions are located at the following URL: > https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/disable-pocket-firefox > > For anyone who comes across this bug looking for removal instructions, > please refer to the link above. ATTN: At this point in time instructions above only remove Pocket button from toolbar. Everything else still remains in Firefox. It is very different from what this bug is requesting.
(In reply to mxxcon from comment #14) >ATTN: At this point in time instructions above only remove Pocket button from toolbar. Everything else still remains in Firefox. 1171569 was filed last week to take care of this. (In reply to mxxcon from comment #14) > It is very different from what this bug is requesting. While true, I have reason to believe many people are coming across this bug while looking for the removal instructions available here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/disable-pocket-firefox
Very disappointing that Firefox is going down the bloatware road of integrating non-core components of a browser that are well served by add-ons.
I did not ask for and do not want Pocket integration with Firefox. I want to completely and permanently remove Pocket from Firefox. Please stop adding this kind of unwanted functionality unless it includes the means to completely remove it. I want Mozilla to stop adding unwanted functionality, such as Pocket and Hello, to Firefox. Instead, the hundreds of millions of dollars Mozilla makes from Firefox should be devoted to eliminating slow performance and crashes. No functionality that can be provided by a plugin should be baked into Firefox itself. Doing so removes user choice.
I assume this "integration" helps fund Mozilla development. If so, I think we'd understand that this is just one of the harsh realities of life. If Not, please allow removal of bookmark pocket.icon and other junk.
You already can. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/learn-more-about-the-design-of-new-firefox#w_an-easy-to-discover-customization-interface Features are lazy loaded so if you remove the icon this way the feature will have zero impact on your browser performance and it will be like it used to be. According to some employees elsewhere, money was not involved.
That didn't remove it from the bookmark dropdown list. (I did exit all windows and restart.) BUT in the process I deleted so many icons, I just did a Restore Defaults and it's gone. Restore defaults did restore hello, but not pocket & removed pocket from bookmarks. This may really be a bug from FF's point of view. Thanks for the tip, that didn't work, but did in the end. I'll see if i can duplicate on another system. I smell a science project.
(In reply to nosmo.king from comment #21) > That didn't remove it from the bookmark dropdown list. (I did exit all > windows and restart.) BUT in the process I deleted so many icons, I just > did a Restore Defaults and it's gone. Restore defaults did restore hello, > but not pocket & removed pocket from bookmarks. This may really be a bug > from FF's point of view. > > Thanks for the tip, that didn't work, but did in the end. I'll see if i can > duplicate on another system. I smell a science project. My problem appears to be caused by setting browser.toolbarbuttons.introduced.pocket-button;false When I simply remove pocket from the icon bar it is also removed from the bookmark dropdown. If you set the toolbarbuttons like I did following some random advice on the web, you can remove pocket from the icon bar, but the bookmark icon will remain. I set back to true and all is fine. (I did set browser.pocket.enabled;false, which removes it from the pool of menu options, so it won't be restored w/ defaults.)
> ATTN: Pocket removal instructions are located at the following URL: Mark, this may be a nit-pick but cuts to the heart of the complaint people have about this default: those instructions are not *removal* instructions, they're instructions on how to *disable* the feature.
> Mark, this may be a nit-pick but cuts to the heart of the complaint people > have about this default: those instructions are not *removal* instructions, > they're instructions on how to *disable* the feature. Given the way Firefox is designed, there is practically no difference. Disabling it makes it have zero overhead.
> Given the way Firefox is designed, there is practically no difference. Disabling it makes it have zero > overhead. That's true, but I don't think it's the resource overhead that is causing people to complain.
> That's true, but I don't think it's the resource overhead that is causing > people to complain. Then this feature is no worse than search integration. An enabled-by-default feature that only sends data to a third party service if you use it.
(In reply to Manish Goregaokar [:manishearth] from comment #28) > Then this feature is no worse than search integration. An enabled-by-default > feature that only sends data to a third party service if you use it. To tell the truth, despite some users just being hostile about this integration, there are some real issues with it. For example, there are several ambiguities in Pocket(tm) ToS applicability that neither Mozilla (in the discussion thread that can be accessed by the URL in this bug description), neither Read It Later, Inc. (yet ignoring my e-mails regarding these issues to them) care to clarify. Moreover, some mozillians (who I believe aren't directly related to this integration at any level) were trolling in that thread, being aggressive or assuring us with nothing but their words that there's no problems at all (which is actually against common sense). You can read the thread or I could summarize those ambiguities (of which I'm aware of) for you, if that'll make any difference.
> Then this feature is no worse than search integration. An enabled-by-default > feature that only sends data to a third party service if you use it. That's kinda ridicuolous statement considering the ToS. Mozilla: be nice. be free (as in beer, as in speech)
> That's kinda ridicuolous statement considering the ToS. > > Mozilla: be nice. be free (as in beer, as in speech) The Pocket ToS doesn't say anything about the button, only about what happens when you use the feature. Google also has a ToS. Yahoo also has a ToS. Please point out what portion of the Pocket ToS is different from these other third party integrations.
(In reply to Manish Goregaokar [:manishearth] from comment #31) > The Pocket ToS doesn't say anything about the button, only about what > happens when you use the feature. Or does it? It seems that you've never read Pocket(tm) ToS. Let me quote a part of the first paragraph of the last version of Pocket(tm) ToS (which were posted May 28, 2014): > By installing the Pocket™ application, visiting our website or installing or using any of the Pocket Technologies, you are accepting these terms of service. I'm referring to the part about "installing" and "any of the Pocket Technologies". Can you prove that the button (and so-called "Pocket Marks") doesn't count as "installed Pocket Technologies"? This is an ambiguity here. Pocket registered logo (or the code from ) can easily be a part of so-called "Pocket Technologies" (whatever that is). And that logo in pre-installed in our browsers. You can't argue with that.
Multiple Vulnerabilities in Pocket https://www.gnu.gl/blog/Posts/multiple-vulnerabilities-in-pocket/
ertymail: Pretty unrelated to this bug report as any software has issues. Thanks for your understanding.
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #35) > ertymail: Pretty unrelated to this bug report as any software has issues. Not all issues are security vulnerabilities of that gravity. Ticket 1185393 is a duplicate of this one. Tucker, I do not see why you call this issue a bug.
Will this be fixed by bug 1215694?
Solving issue 1215694 would fix this one, since the report is a duplicate (expect for the fact that ticket 1215694 requests a specific solution).
Please see comment 2
Comment 39 has been hidden. It may be flaming, but it does not merely repeat Description. Tyler, why did you mark this as INVALID?
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #41) > Tyler, why did you mark this as INVALID? See bug 1172126 comment 2, as also pointed out in comment 40 (right above your comment).
(In reply to Andre Klapper from comment #42) > (In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #41) > > Tyler, why did you mark this as INVALID? > > See bug 1172126 comment 2, as also pointed out in comment 40 (right above > your comment). Comment 2 does not describe any invalidity, it merely discusses the purpose of Bugzilla and requests a contribution from the reporter. Please let Tyler answer for himself. I have requested a change narrower than that requested here in ticket 1245340.
(In reply to Filipus Klutiero from comment #43) > Comment 2 does not describe any invalidity, it merely discusses the purpose > of Bugzilla and requests a contribution from the reporter. It clearly describes why the bug was closed. > Please let Tyler answer for himself. Please don't make passive-aggressive demands in bugs. > I have requested a change narrower than that requested here in ticket > 1245340. I've closed that too. Please see comment 2 for the appropriate way to voice your concerns about this feature - bugzilla isn't it.
please use Governance or Input for further discussion about removing pocket integration. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/mozilla.governance https://input.mozilla.org/feedback