3 ms·

> By focusing on low-end phones and not Nexus- or Galaxy-class handsets, they lost sight of the fact that smartphones are aspirational devices. Yeah, I remembe

by amyjess 10y ago

> By focusing on low-end phones and not Nexus- or Galaxy-class handsets, they lost sight of the fact that smartphones are aspirational devices. Yeah, I remember when Firefox OS first came out, and when I heard of Mozilla's strategy of starting in the third world and then moving up, I knew Firefox OS was doomed. Why? Because it reminded me of something I heard about car platforms, years ago. Back in 2002, GM introduced a pair of cars in the European market both based on the same platform: the Vauxhall Vectra and the Saab 9-3 (not the first generation of either nameplate, but the first to share a platform). GM made sure to introduce the Saab first. Why? Because Saab was a premium brand and Vauxhall wasn't. GM knew that "Saab built on Vauxhall technology" wouldn't fly -- people would see it as Saab degrading themselves by raiding a mid-level car for parts. On the other hand, "Vauxhall built on Saab technology" would go over very well -- people would see it as Vauxhall incorporating elements of a premium car. The moral of the story is: you don't release a budget model and work your way up; you release a premium model and then bring it downmarket to cultivate the image of bringing luxury technology to the masses.

kriro 10y ago
I think completely separating them and not marketing them as X build on Y would be the better move. At least according to positioning theory from marketing.
arthurfm 10y ago
> it reminded me of something I heard about car platforms, years ago. Back in 2002, GM introduced a pair of cars in the European market both based on the same platform: the Vauxhall Vectra and the Saab 9-3. Your comment actually reminded me of an old Top Gear episode [1][2] where they described how Saab were instructed by GM to change only the body and the badges of a Vauxhall Cavalier when producing the Saab 900, but they ignored them and modified so much that the two cars only shared 1/3rd of the parts [2, 03:59]. The same thing happened again with the Vauxhall Vectra and the Saab 9-3, but to an even greater extent. It certainly sounds like Saab didn't want to be associated with GM or Vauxhall or use any of their inferior technology or parts. [1] http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-part-12-series-18-episode-5 http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-p... [2] http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-part-22-series-18-episode-5 http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-p...
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
On the other hand, you look at what ARM is doing to x86. 80% as good for 20% of the cost wins. You just have to be willing to accept selling for 20% of the cost. The problem Mozilla has is that their hardware is not going to be any better/cheaper than somebody else's because it is somebody else's, and they can't undercut Android on price because Android is free. What might have been an interesting strategy is to create a Firefox-branded version of Android that ships Mozilla equivalents to the Google apps.

by amyjess 10y ago

kriro 10y ago

I think completely separating them and not marketing them as X build on Y would be the better move. At least according to positioning theory from marketing.

arthurfm 10y ago

> it reminded me of something I heard about car platforms, years ago. Back in 2002, GM introduced a pair of cars in the European market both based on the same platform: the Vauxhall Vectra and the Saab 9-3. Your comment actually reminded me of an old Top Gear episode [1][2] where they described how Saab were instructed by GM to change only the body and the badges of a Vauxhall Cavalier when producing the Saab 900, but they ignored them and modified so much that the two cars only shared 1/3rd of the parts [2, 03:59]. The same thing happened again with the Vauxhall Vectra and the Saab 9-3, but to an even greater extent. It certainly sounds like Saab didn't want to be associated with GM or Vauxhall or use any of their inferior technology or parts. [1] http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-part-12-series-18-episode-5 http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-p... [2] http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-part-22-series-18-episode-5 http://www.topgear.com/videos/jeremy-clarkson/tribute-saab-p...

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

On the other hand, you look at what ARM is doing to x86. 80% as good for 20% of the cost wins. You just have to be willing to accept selling for 20% of the cost. The problem Mozilla has is that their hardware is not going to be any better/cheaper than somebody else's because it is somebody else's, and they can't undercut Android on price because Android is free. What might have been an interesting strategy is to create a Firefox-branded version of Android that ships Mozilla equivalents to the Google apps.