Almost all users of any popular browser are not tech savvy like you and I and other people here on Hacker News. They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them.
The Firefox design team did studies on this, seeing how real users interact with the feature. The results are that bundling it in the browser makes it useful to a lot of people, overall making the browser experience better for them. That's really all this comes down to - the data shows users are happier, overall, with it present by default.
Some users don't like it, like the author of this article, but more users do like it.
I don't get why you're being downvoted. If Firefox is a tool for the Mozilla Foundation to achieve their goals, then yes, it must absolutely be a product that anyone (not just experts) would be willing to use.
> They would not enable an opt-in feature because it would sound complex and confusing to them.
This sounds like an excuse that could justify withholding just about any choice from users. Why not have a first-run splash page with something like "Pocket is a really cool service that runs best when it's part of your Firefox. May we turn it on? [yes] [no] Don't worry, you can always change your mind later! [Read more about what Pocket does.]"
The real decision isn't made based on a guess like "it would sound complex". It is made by doing a user study - a test of actual users. That data guides the decision, and the data here showed users benefited more, on average, by bundling it, rather than having it be something the user needs to authorize and/or install.
I wasn't involved in the study on this. I watched a presentation summarizing the study.
User research isn't my field, but my understanding is that the study asked a random sample of people if they noticed the feature, if they found it useful, how they used it, and so forth.
This is a terrible reason: "We can't offer users a choice, because if we do that, most of them will decline! We know they want the feature, despite what they say, so we just won't offer a choice!"
Firefox has always been the browser that, in contrast to the competition, doesn't try to decide what's best for me. I really appreciate that. Even with this change Firefox is still the best about that, but it is not a move in the right direction.
Talking about UX studies here probably isn't relevant as the issue here is very much about inclusion of a closed source 3rd party data collection service included by default to an open source browser provided by a non-profit with a mission to protect users from, among other things, that very thing.
With that said, much of the UX research you are talking about deals with a users first use of a program. The entire program not the addition of one additional feature over time. Also, the more relevant research is that many, many users just click "no" unless they are lead to believe they will lose functionality they currently have. If we were to actually follow the current UX trends from research pocket(or pretty much any features) would never get added to Firefox at all past it's core use of browsing the web.
Talking about UX studies here probably isn't relevant
Of course it is, if the question is why it was bundled by default, rather than leaving it in the add-on store.
Also, the more relevant research is that many, many users just click "no" unless they are lead to believe they will lose functionality they currently have.
That is an argument in favor of increasing adoption of a feature most users would decline if they were presented with the choice. If that is truly considered appropriate behavior by Mozilla at this point, I think we're getting to the time for me to turn in my Firefox OS phone and switch over the Chrome(as I have been doing this week).
Either way, my issue(and I'm sure the issue to most people against it) is that Pocket is a closed platform. I was okay with the binary blobs since not having them would have significantly degraded the browsing experience for users, but including by default things like Pocket makes the moral distance between Mozilla and Google, Apple etc a small enough gap to me that I'm not sure I'm going to be sticking with Mozilla's products long term.
That is an argument in favor of increasing adoption of a feature most users would decline if they were presented with the choice.
But the question is when the choice is asked, right? If you would have the time to explain the Pocket feature to a normal users, don't you think most would say "OK, saving articles might be useful, keep it in"?
The problem is that you don't usually get the time to explain the feature well enough, and if there's no time, the user will click it away ASAP (and be annoyed).
Is there a specific reason you chose to ignore my repeated statements of what I believe is the real and most important issue with the addition and only address UX?
Maybe I didn't word my question correctly. I was wondering why you actively chose to repeatedly ignore my issue with including a closed platform by default. I repeatedly stated that this was my main issue and that the UX was an aside to what I felt was the issue that needed to be addressed.
Why did you feel it necessary to ignore that issue completely over several comments directly addressing it?
The Firefox design team did studies on this, seeing how real users interact with the feature. The results are that bundling it in the browser makes it useful to a lot of people, overall making the browser experience better for them. That's really all this comes down to - the data shows users are happier, overall, with it present by default.
Some users don't like it, like the author of this article, but more users do like it.