3 ms·

I think you are wrong on both points: - low end devices were the only ones we could start from to get official support from chipset vendors and other partners (

I think you are wrong on both points: - low end devices were the only ones we could start from to get official support from chipset vendors and other partners (because they segment their market). And you need that to get eg. performance fixes in their graphics drivers. On the exact same devices performance was on par with Android overall. - I don't understand how "Rust UI" would have helped with anything, since the whole UI (including the system UI) was web based. Breaking out of the web platform is the opposite of what FxOS aimed at.

nicoburns 1y ago
> Breaking out of the web platform is the opposite of what FxOS aimed at. I think this is part of what Mozilla missed: the key value proposition of FxOS wasn't that it was web-based specifically: it was that it was open in the way that Linux and the web are but Chrome and Android aren't (one might also compare RISC V vs ARM). The promise was that it could bring this openness to graphical operating system (mobile/desktop) environments and installable app development.
ndiddy 1y ago
Honestly I think the whole Firefox OS idea was a major mistake, especially if the points the article makes about how the project changed Mozilla organizationally are true. Trying to make a new mobile platform in 2014, when iOS and Android were already entrenched, was never going to work out. Even if the performance was on-par with Android, why would anyone buy a Firefox OS phone over an equivalent Android phone with a far larger library of apps? The right time to try a new smartphone platform would have been at least 5 years earlier.
- fabrice_d 1y ago
  The project started in 2011 and shipped first in 2013.