3 ms·

> [biggest Achievements] Product — Successfully launched 20 devices in over 30 countries, mobilised the Mozilla community to help run launch parties and created

> [biggest Achievements] Product — Successfully launched 20 devices in over 30 countries, mobilised the Mozilla community to help run launch parties and created slick branding and marketing campaigns Therein lies the rub. The products were all mediocre-specced handsets from little known manufacturers. So, right from the outset Firefox OS felt like a down-market 'landfill Android' type product. I'd have bought a Firefox OS phone in a heartbeat, if it felt like an upgrade [or even a sidegrade] from my existing phone. But the specs for the most top of the range model available were actually worse than those of my existing 3+ year old Android model. Sadly, this 'pursuit of mediocrity' sees a lot of OSS projects shoot themselves in the foot.

hutzlibu 10y ago
Yes, OpenSource is only for those, who can't afford better... Seems the premise of many, but if we also accept that, we won't get far. But he knows that: "After realising “open” on its own doesn’t sell, ultimately chose a strategy to compete mainly on price, which is just a race to the bottom. "
- vetinari 10y ago
  One of lessons that Dell learned: do not create low-end laptops with Linux. The Linux users won't be interested in weak hardware and those who want to save the money, will be disappointed, because they do not realize that there's no Windows before the purchase. That's why the project Sputnik used a machine from the higher end of the spectrum - and it was a success.
  - sdflkd 10y ago
    Except for packing the wrong Wi-Fi card in some models.
Apocryphon 10y ago
It seems like to get your mobile OS into the door, you need to have your foot into two doors- competitively priced, cheap phones to snap up underserved demographics (in this case, developing world markets), but also a flagship device to enthrall the upper tier of the market and get name recognition. Seems like Ubuntu Touch is also facing such struggles ticking both boxes (they still don't have a flagship product, especially after the failure of the Ubuntu Edge campaign), and Windows Phone had some impressive Lumia phones with fancy cameras but I don't recall that they ever tried to fight Android on the lower end of the market.
- quanticle 10y ago
  Windows Phone had some impressive Lumia phones with fancy cameras, but I don't recally that they ever tried to fight Android on the lower end of the market. If anything, my impression is of the exact opposite. Windows phone tried to fight Android on low and mid-range handsets and abandoned the high-end to Apple. The later Lumias (the 650s and the 950s) were all in the 3-400 "midrange" that's dominated by Android. Microsoft hasn't put out something that attempts to compete with Apple in quite a long time.
johansch 10y ago
You do have to understand that they also had no realistic chance of pursuing a top-tier device in a top-tier country. HTML-based UI:s (rendered on gecko) just aren't there in terms of performance. Which leads to the question... why the heck did they pursue this in the first place? I would point at Mozilla management incompetency (Mitchell Baker etc). My thoughts: They didn't do any technical/performance feasibility study before embarking on this adventure; rather relied on vaguer terms these people are atuned to (equality, openness, freedom, etc) rather than hard technical facts.
- i80and 10y ago
  > HTML-based UI:s (rendered on gecko) just aren't there in terms of performance I'm actually going to quibble with this. Having ran Firefox OS 2.1 on the original (crappy hardware) Flame, all of the main UI and built-in apps were buttery smooth. I wasn't expecting this, and it kind of blew me away.
  - johansch 10y ago
    I never got my grubby hands on a Firefox OS device. All of the reviews I read were unanimous in their dislike (because of framerate issue, primarily) though. What happened here?
    - i80and 10y ago
      New software. The version of FXOS that came with the Flame (1.0) was... not good at all. 1.1 and 1.2 added some niceties that started to make it usable as a daily driver phone; 1.3 added async pan and made things feel slick; and 2.0+ were just lovely.
      - johansch 10y ago
        So.. the best of the best kind of browser people at Mozilla optimized the HTML/JS/CSS and reached their target after a while. This makes sense with my experience from Opera Software (who also tried to build a browser OS, but way back in 2003-2004 and quickly retreated after it failed): The main issue here is that writing a performant HTML-based UI is a very complex thing. It works great when people who really understand the entire web platform writes the software, but breaks down when regular web devs are supposed to write "HTML apps" for it. Meanwhile, the usual mindless singsong around HTML UIs is amongst the lines of "now 10 (or is it 20 now?) web developers can write mobile UI:s; they don't need to learn native Android or iOS development." My main point here is that the HTML way is a lie. It's easy to make something that looks good; and it's insanely hard to make it perform well.
mwfunk 10y ago
That was their strategy though- if they tried to introduce it as an alternative to iOS and Android, it was guaranteed DOA. They felt they could get it off the ground by introducing it as an alternative in poorer countries first. It might not have been a strategy that worked out in the end, but those were intentional choices, not choices made from ignorance or stupidity. Even though it didn't work out, it was probably much more likely to succeed than if they had gone the 'take on iOS and Android on the high end' strategy first. That would have been akin to the Chromebook Pixel- possibly an impressive product, possibly a product beloved by a very small group of people, but ultimately not something that a meaningfully-sized market existed for.
- Drdrdrq 10y ago
  It would have a much higher chance of success if they didn't strip out Android layer completely but instead combined web apps with Android app on (opensource) Android core. It is very difficult to get initial traction - even Amazon mostly failed, and they build on Android.

hutzlibu 10y ago

Yes, OpenSource is only for those, who can't afford better... Seems the premise of many, but if we also accept that, we won't get far. But he knows that: "After realising “open” on its own doesn’t sell, ultimately chose a strategy to compete mainly on price, which is just a race to the bottom. "

vetinari 10y ago
One of lessons that Dell learned: do not create low-end laptops with Linux. The Linux users won't be interested in weak hardware and those who want to save the money, will be disappointed, because they do not realize that there's no Windows before the purchase. That's why the project Sputnik used a machine from the higher end of the spectrum - and it was a success.
- sdflkd 10y ago
  Except for packing the wrong Wi-Fi card in some models.

Apocryphon 10y ago

It seems like to get your mobile OS into the door, you need to have your foot into two doors- competitively priced, cheap phones to snap up underserved demographics (in this case, developing world markets), but also a flagship device to enthrall the upper tier of the market and get name recognition. Seems like Ubuntu Touch is also facing such struggles ticking both boxes (they still don't have a flagship product, especially after the failure of the Ubuntu Edge campaign), and Windows Phone had some impressive Lumia phones with fancy cameras but I don't recall that they ever tried to fight Android on the lower end of the market.

quanticle 10y ago
Windows Phone had some impressive Lumia phones with fancy cameras, but I don't recally that they ever tried to fight Android on the lower end of the market. If anything, my impression is of the exact opposite. Windows phone tried to fight Android on low and mid-range handsets and abandoned the high-end to Apple. The later Lumias (the 650s and the 950s) were all in the 3-400 "midrange" that's dominated by Android. Microsoft hasn't put out something that attempts to compete with Apple in quite a long time.

johansch 10y ago

You do have to understand that they also had no realistic chance of pursuing a top-tier device in a top-tier country. HTML-based UI:s (rendered on gecko) just aren't there in terms of performance. Which leads to the question... why the heck did they pursue this in the first place? I would point at Mozilla management incompetency (Mitchell Baker etc). My thoughts: They didn't do any technical/performance feasibility study before embarking on this adventure; rather relied on vaguer terms these people are atuned to (equality, openness, freedom, etc) rather than hard technical facts.

i80and 10y ago
> HTML-based UI:s (rendered on gecko) just aren't there in terms of performance I'm actually going to quibble with this. Having ran Firefox OS 2.1 on the original (crappy hardware) Flame, all of the main UI and built-in apps were buttery smooth. I wasn't expecting this, and it kind of blew me away.
- johansch 10y ago
  I never got my grubby hands on a Firefox OS device. All of the reviews I read were unanimous in their dislike (because of framerate issue, primarily) though. What happened here?
  - i80and 10y ago
    New software. The version of FXOS that came with the Flame (1.0) was... not good at all. 1.1 and 1.2 added some niceties that started to make it usable as a daily driver phone; 1.3 added async pan and made things feel slick; and 2.0+ were just lovely.
    - johansch 10y ago
      So.. the best of the best kind of browser people at Mozilla optimized the HTML/JS/CSS and reached their target after a while. This makes sense with my experience from Opera Software (who also tried to build a browser OS, but way back in 2003-2004 and quickly retreated after it failed): The main issue here is that writing a performant HTML-based UI is a very complex thing. It works great when people who really understand the entire web platform writes the software, but breaks down when regular web devs are supposed to write "HTML apps" for it. Meanwhile, the usual mindless singsong around HTML UIs is amongst the lines of "now 10 (or is it 20 now?) web developers can write mobile UI:s; they don't need to learn native Android or iOS development." My main point here is that the HTML way is a lie. It's easy to make something that looks good; and it's insanely hard to make it perform well.

mwfunk 10y ago

That was their strategy though- if they tried to introduce it as an alternative to iOS and Android, it was guaranteed DOA. They felt they could get it off the ground by introducing it as an alternative in poorer countries first. It might not have been a strategy that worked out in the end, but those were intentional choices, not choices made from ignorance or stupidity. Even though it didn't work out, it was probably much more likely to succeed than if they had gone the 'take on iOS and Android on the high end' strategy first. That would have been akin to the Chromebook Pixel- possibly an impressive product, possibly a product beloved by a very small group of people, but ultimately not something that a meaningfully-sized market existed for.

Drdrdrq 10y ago
It would have a much higher chance of success if they didn't strip out Android layer completely but instead combined web apps with Android app on (opensource) Android core. It is very difficult to get initial traction - even Amazon mostly failed, and they build on Android.