Most active commenters
  • skrtskrt(3)
  • fkfyshroglk(3)

←back to thread

Mozilla to shut down Pocket and Fakespot

(support.mozilla.org)
1222 points phantomathkg | 21 comments | 22 May 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
segphault ◴[22 May 25 17:45 UTC] No.44064599[source]▶
I was a user for so long that I was on it before it even rebranded as Pocket. I finally gave up on it last year, mostly due to frustration with the terrible 2023 redesign of the mobile app. When Mozilla made the unfathomable decision to become an internet advertising company, I figured it was just a matter of time before they had to put Pocket out to pasture. A product that's designed to strip ads from content for readability doesn't align with their new direction.

I'd probably be applauding the decision to shut this down if I thought they were doing it to free up resources to increase their focus on the browser, but Mozilla seems to be institutionally committed to chasing its own demise, so I'm sure they will instead focus on AI integration and other stuff that nobody asked for.

Meanwhile, Firefox is still missing proper support for a bunch of modern web features like view transitions and CSS anchor points that are available in every other browser.

replies(20): >>44064677 #>>44065070 #>>44065265 #>>44065461 #>>44065781 #>>44065800 #>>44066084 #>>44066430 #>>44066456 #>>44066470 #>>44067023 #>>44067313 #>>44067943 #>>44067953 #>>44068655 #>>44069372 #>>44069898 #>>44070277 #>>44071607 #>>44074502 #
somethingor ◴[22 May 25 18:23 UTC] No.44065070[source]▶
> every other browser

You can just say Chromium

replies(2): >>44065210 #>>44067294 #
zymhan ◴[22 May 25 18:35 UTC] No.44065210[source]▶
Safari exists, and is quite popular.
replies(3): >>44065243 #>>44065637 #>>44065785 #
1. thayne ◴[22 May 25 18:38 UTC] No.44065243[source]▶
Safari only exist on Apple devices, and generally had even less features than Firefox.
replies(8): >>44065331 #>>44065333 #>>44065424 #>>44065471 #>>44065489 #>>44065836 #>>44066644 #>>44066647 #
2. skrtskrt ◴[22 May 25 18:46 UTC] No.44065331[source]▶
Kagi is starting to build their Orion browser which is WebKit-based for Linux as of this year. I never do anything close enough to the browser engine to know, but apparently devs like WebKit a lot?
replies(3): >>44066560 #>>44066753 #>>44071921 #
3. skywhopper ◴[22 May 25 18:46 UTC] No.44065333[source]▶
Not sure how this contradicts the fact that Safari is quite popular.
4. homebrewer ◴[22 May 25 18:54 UTC] No.44065424[source]▶
Going purely by (mis)feature count, I'd say they're pretty similar:

https://caniuse.com/?compare=chrome+136,safari+18.5,firefox+...

5. fkfyshroglk ◴[22 May 25 18:59 UTC] No.44065471[source]▶
Sure, but fewer (sic) features is mostly a better state of affairs, and apple devices are mostly what matter if you're catering to rich westerners (as most products on this forum try to do).

To me, chromium only matters so much as I am forced to care by being employed. It offers very little to me outside of being necessary to enable the "blur" background on my video chats and offers a very shitty corporate UX.

replies(1): >>44066403 #
6. IIsi50MHz ◴[22 May 25 19:00 UTC] No.44065489[source]▶
However, WebKit exists elsewhere.

On mobile, I somewhat like Sleipnir browser for various configurable UI niceties unrelated to WebKit. I like the way it displays tabs as a scrolling strip of buttons, instead of making me open a "manage tabs" UI.

I configured a different user-agent string[1] to make some sites happy or to get some sites to neither force a dumbed-down "mobile view" nor spam demands that I use their mobile apps.

It has a small selection of plugins/extensions, mostly written by users.

Occasionally, a captcha will get stuck in a loop, so I'll have to try Opera[2] or Firefox. Or a Google site will sometimes refuse logins.

. o O ( I don't bother with Sleipnir on desktop, because it's buggy, quixotic, and nothing like the mobile version. )

[1] There's an optional UI button for switching UA string among Sleipnir's desktop or mobile ones, or your own custom string.

[2] The only mobile browser I've tried that can always convince a site to load is desktop view. Some Google sites try Very HardTM to force a mobile experience.

7. lxgr ◴[22 May 25 19:30 UTC] No.44065836[source]▶
Apple devices make up over half of all visitors in some markets/segments.

Update: Downvoted for facts, stay classy, HN!

replies(1): >>44066791 #
8. nickthegreek ◴[22 May 25 20:17 UTC] No.44066403[source]▶
you can blur the background now at OS level on macOS from the menu bar.
9. toyg ◴[22 May 25 20:30 UTC] No.44066560[source]▶
Devs like WebKit because it's easy to integrate in non-browsers.
replies(2): >>44066930 #>>44067787 #
10. 0x0 ◴[22 May 25 20:36 UTC] No.44066644[source]▶
> Safari only exist on Apple devices

Webkit, at least, builds on a lot more platforms than you think. Take a look at https://build.webkit.org/#/builders

I'm seeing at least three other MAJOR platforms:

  • GTK-Linux-64-bit-Release-Build
  • PlayStation-Release-Build
  • Windows-64-bit-Release-Build
replies(2): >>44067646 #>>44067804 #
11. SSLy ◴[22 May 25 20:36 UTC] No.44066647[source]▶
WebKit also exists on Linux, albeit not as good as on Darwin.
12. thesuitonym ◴[22 May 25 20:45 UTC] No.44066753[source]▶
Since when? I don't see any mention on the blog, and the FAQ still says they're not targeting anything other than MacOS. https://help.kagi.com/orion/faq/faq.html#other_os_support
replies(1): >>44066899 #
13. thayne ◴[22 May 25 20:48 UTC] No.44066791[source]▶
So what? For many people, having to buy new hardware to use it means it isn't a viable alternative browser.
replies(1): >>44066989 #
14. skrtskrt ◴[22 May 25 20:57 UTC] No.44066899{3}[source]▶
It was officially announced late February/early March I believe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43302073
15. skrtskrt ◴[22 May 25 20:59 UTC] No.44066930{3}[source]▶
Like for desktop apps? I guess this differs fundamentally from Chromium in that... you do not run the "entire" browser like in Electron?
replies(1): >>44069582 #
16. lxgr ◴[22 May 25 21:04 UTC] No.44066989{3}[source]▶
My point was more that it's hard to ignore as a publisher due to its user base, less that it's a viable alternative as a user.
17. epolanski ◴[22 May 25 22:05 UTC] No.44067646[source]▶
WebKit 100% exists on Windows and Linux, Microsoft builds it under the playwright project.

I use it occasionally, only for debugging purposes though.

18. fkfyshroglk ◴[22 May 25 22:21 UTC] No.44067787{3}[source]▶
...is there a better reason to like webkit? Chromium certainly doesn't make effort to seem appealing to developers outside of its association with WebKit.
19. creatonez ◴[22 May 25 22:23 UTC] No.44067804[source]▶
And just a tip, if you don't have any Apple devices but need to test a bug/inconsistency being reported by Safari users, you can usually use GNOME Web (Epiphany) and the same behavior will usually manifest, since it is a true Webkit browser. It also includes the Web Inspector with the exact same interface as Safari. And it's not super outdated or anything like that, it tracks Webkit quite well nowadays.

It's a bit ironic that Webkit started as KHTML, a component of KDE, but eventually made its way to GNOME when a Gecko-based Epiphany became hard to maintain.

20. fkfyshroglk ◴[23 May 25 03:24 UTC] No.44069582{4}[source]▶
I thought that electron == chrome
21. alabastervlog ◴[23 May 25 11:40 UTC] No.44071921[source]▶
I used a really low-end system for a while some time back, running Linux, and WebKit-based browsers were the only ones with a mainstream (so: actually renders correctly for practically all sites) engine that was usable with even one tab open (I could do 2-3 as long as none of the pages were “webapps”)

This indicates some kind of fundamentally better design, to me. Probably related to why Safari’s by far the most respectful to battery life, of the big three browsers.