←back to thread

Mozilla to shut down Pocket and Fakespot

(support.mozilla.org)
1222 points phantomathkg | 8 comments | 22 May 25 16:30 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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 #
3. 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 #
4. skrtskrt ◴[22 May 25 20:57 UTC] No.44066899[source]▶
It was officially announced late February/early March I believe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43302073
5. skrtskrt ◴[22 May 25 20:59 UTC] No.44066930[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 #
6. fkfyshroglk ◴[22 May 25 22:21 UTC] No.44067787[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.
7. fkfyshroglk ◴[23 May 25 03:24 UTC] No.44069582{3}[source]▶
I thought that electron == chrome
8. 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.