This is weird. Has Mozilla acquired any startups in the past? Feels weird to me for a browser non-profit to own a web app product.
I know there's wallabag, but i always felt it was too hefty for self-hosting on, say, a small digital ocean vps. I've been using Shaarli [https://github.com/shaarli/Shaarli] because its so lean, and easy/quick to set up...though admittedly it is also lean on features (which i'm cool with, but others might want more). My hope is that pocket - once made to be self-hostable - is easy and lean to self-host on a small vps.
...Though even if its not as lean and easy to set up, the fact that pocket will now/soon be added to the open source world is always a win!
In their defense, it won't be the first time they've gotten into operating a service -- there's Sync, for instance. So if they see expanding FF's bookmarking abilities as a key strategic differentiator, buying an existing read-it-later service they're already familiar with could be a simpler/cheaper way of getting there than building one from scratch.
https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/11/28/mozilla-invests-in-...
Is there corroboration that Mozilla had/has revenue sharing with Pocket and Telefonica? I've always trusted Mozilla, this suggests that trust has been badly misplaced.
I can't help but feel that I'm being suckered somewhere here - who from Mozilla is benefiting personally out of this acquisition and why are they being allowed to steer the ship?
It's 14 months since that blog post, I realise it's not news to some, but it's really disappointing to me.
>Chad Weiner, Mozilla's director of project management told PC World in an email back then that "there [was] no monetary benefit to Mozilla from the integration" and that Pocket "didn't pay for placement in the browser". (ibid) //
vs.
>Although the company emphasizes that Pocket and Telefonica didn’t pay for placement in the Firefox browser, Mozilla Corp. chief legal and business officer Denelle Dixon-Thayer told WIRED that Mozilla has revenue sharing arrangements with both companies. (Wired, as quoted ibid) //
They seem directly conflicting statements to me barring a monumental coincidence. Even if it were considered not contradictory, per se, then it's highly misleading. If I say "I wasn't paid to write this car review" and it turns out I get a cut of sales of the cars ... pretty fraud-y.
Now it makes at least some sense.