3 ms·

Why did Mozilla not push harder for its own ecosystem where it owns the OS (ie. a compelling Linux alternative to Windows, Android, and Apple?).

FredFS456 3y ago
They tried with Firefox OS a while back https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
I've often wondered why companies like Red Hat, Canonical, or SUSE have no presence in mobile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance
- toyg 3y ago
  Canonical tried pretty hard. The reality is that you're going to fight with the two richest companies on Earth, on a field where commercial relationships with OEMs (phone manufacturers) matter more than anything else - and OEMs like to talk with big, reliable companies, not scrappy startups. Your competitors have a 15/20-year head-start, in a field where such head-starts are practically unsurmountable. Your OS will be judged on its first few releases, which means you better have it on a beefy flagship phone; except no decent OEM is going to bet their flagship on your unproven OS, so they're going to give you a second- or third-rate model instead, which will make your OS feel slow and glitchy. Oh, and you can't make any real money from the whole effort, because otherwise they will go Android.
  - user_7832 3y ago
    In the light of all this, the success of a company like framework honestly seems even more impressive.
  - chasil 3y ago
    Would Firefox OS have a difficult task in securing a 7nm production run of processors from TSMC (or Samsung, or even SMIC in smaller quantity) to be assembled by Foxconn? China domestic devices use Android without Play, and iOS is now discouraged for government workers. Is the bar for Firefox OS still quite so high?
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
      I wish the OS wasn't so tightly coupled with the hardware. Mozilla shouldn't need to secure a 7nm production run of processors and produce a whole device. I should be able to grab a phone that I like and install an OS that I like. I think that we have been robbed of so many possibilities. Perhaps we are slowly getting there. Historically, phones were never used in this way nor were they expensive or powerful enough for users to demand it.
      - chasil 3y ago
        A similar situation has emerged with UEFI. Gone are the days of BIOS booting and easy bootloader upgrades to GRUB. On modern Windows, getting out of secure boot is much more difficult, and most will opt for a WSL variant. Neither Apple nor Google would ever tolerate even that.
bobmaxup 3y ago
An article on the topic: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/why-the-death-of-the-firefox-phone-matters/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/why-the-death-of-the-firefo...
toyg 3y ago
Because they made all the mistakes that anyone trying to bootstrap a indie mobile OS tends to make. Someone should take the "here's why your antispam plan won't work" form, and turn it into "here's why your non-Google/Apple mobile OS will never get traction".
- jwells89 3y ago
  Those mistakes chiefly being starting at the low end and not doing anything to make the platform particularly more interesting than what was already out there. Users don’t talk about budget devices and developers don’t talk about mediocre platforms, and so the positive dev-user feedback loop needed to kickstart a platform never materialized. I think a third totally new platform could be established even today, but it’s going to take smart planning and flawless execution to make happen.
- Turskarama 3y ago
  Mobile OS's have the worst case of the chicken and egg problem. Nobody will buy a device with your OS unless there's apps for it, and nobody will make apps for it unless there's users. How do you solve this problem? Mozilla is too small to do it, and even Microsoft has seemingly given up.

FredFS456 3y ago

They tried with Firefox OS a while back https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

I've often wondered why companies like Red Hat, Canonical, or SUSE have no presence in mobile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance

toyg 3y ago
Canonical tried pretty hard. The reality is that you're going to fight with the two richest companies on Earth, on a field where commercial relationships with OEMs (phone manufacturers) matter more than anything else - and OEMs like to talk with big, reliable companies, not scrappy startups. Your competitors have a 15/20-year head-start, in a field where such head-starts are practically unsurmountable. Your OS will be judged on its first few releases, which means you better have it on a beefy flagship phone; except no decent OEM is going to bet their flagship on your unproven OS, so they're going to give you a second- or third-rate model instead, which will make your OS feel slow and glitchy. Oh, and you can't make any real money from the whole effort, because otherwise they will go Android.
- user_7832 3y ago
  In the light of all this, the success of a company like framework honestly seems even more impressive.
- chasil 3y ago
  Would Firefox OS have a difficult task in securing a 7nm production run of processors from TSMC (or Samsung, or even SMIC in smaller quantity) to be assembled by Foxconn? China domestic devices use Android without Play, and iOS is now discouraged for government workers. Is the bar for Firefox OS still quite so high?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    I wish the OS wasn't so tightly coupled with the hardware. Mozilla shouldn't need to secure a 7nm production run of processors and produce a whole device. I should be able to grab a phone that I like and install an OS that I like. I think that we have been robbed of so many possibilities. Perhaps we are slowly getting there. Historically, phones were never used in this way nor were they expensive or powerful enough for users to demand it.
    - chasil 3y ago
      A similar situation has emerged with UEFI. Gone are the days of BIOS booting and easy bootloader upgrades to GRUB. On modern Windows, getting out of secure boot is much more difficult, and most will opt for a WSL variant. Neither Apple nor Google would ever tolerate even that.

bobmaxup 3y ago

An article on the topic: https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/why-the-death-of-the-firefox-phone-matters/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/why-the-death-of-the-firefo...

toyg 3y ago

Because they made all the mistakes that anyone trying to bootstrap a indie mobile OS tends to make. Someone should take the "here's why your antispam plan won't work" form, and turn it into "here's why your non-Google/Apple mobile OS will never get traction".

jwells89 3y ago
Those mistakes chiefly being starting at the low end and not doing anything to make the platform particularly more interesting than what was already out there. Users don’t talk about budget devices and developers don’t talk about mediocre platforms, and so the positive dev-user feedback loop needed to kickstart a platform never materialized. I think a third totally new platform could be established even today, but it’s going to take smart planning and flawless execution to make happen.
Turskarama 3y ago
Mobile OS's have the worst case of the chicken and egg problem. Nobody will buy a device with your OS unless there's apps for it, and nobody will make apps for it unless there's users. How do you solve this problem? Mozilla is too small to do it, and even Microsoft has seemingly given up.