&gt; (For me) it&#x27;s mostly a transparency and trust issue. People widely suspected that it was Mozilla looking for another revenue source, they aggressively denied that money is involved.<p>And we still don&#x27;t know that money is involved. ;)
 But I agree the revenue sharing arrangement should have been communicated better &#x2F; earlier.<p>&gt; And now it turns out that there potentially is, but no details are published.<p>It&#x27;s not unusual for contracts with for-profit companies that you&#x27;re not allowed to make the details public. We still don&#x27;t know the exact terms of the old contracts with Google or the new ones with Yahoo, Yandex, Baidu etc.<p>&gt; I actually think that with the way they did the integration, they probably should have received money<p>Like I said, I don&#x27;t think Pocket, the company, is big enough. Mozilla could probably have demanded a six-digit figure for integrating Pocket, but to what end? It&#x27;s too little money to really matter and would have just inspired more &quot;Mozilla is selling out!&quot; rants.<p>&gt; (Otherwise, why not do a generic &quot;read later&quot; button and a way for services to register instead of adding a single, proprietary service).<p>As you can imagine, there were discussions internally about whether there should be a provider-agnostic read-later button and I don&#x27;t think anyone disagreed in principle, nor is that idea dead now. Integrating Pocket first was just the cheapest and quickest way to ship something to users.