Right, I thought pocket was actually one of the Mozilla sponsors, given the default installation in Firefox.
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.