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?
I thought that was well enough known from UX research that it shouldn't be a controversial decision?