14 ms·

Mozilla: The problem is mobile, not money

61 points by aphtab 14y ago

binarymax 14y ago
Mozilla can't bring its full browser technology to iOS, Windows Phone, and Windows RT Does this give other people the willies, or only me? Its scary that 2 of the 3 big players in mobile effectively lock out so much. In so many ways, the mobile wars are much more significant than the browser wars. Having a machine that is completely locked down and only runs 'authorized' software is chilling indeed.
- bad_user 14y ago
  I've been saying it ever since the iTunes App Store launched and have been saying it again when Windows Phone launched - I'm not interested in platforms that won't allow me to run Firefox. Of course, you'll see yet again opinions trying to rationalize it as being "in the name of user experience" and "safety". But then, a couple of years from now, when those people finally realize what a big mistake this was, they won't blame it on themselves.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    When you run around shouting the sky is falling, you can't expect most people to take you seriously. Apple is winning (profit wise) because they just have a simpler experience. IMO, they are doing everything right except adding an "advanced" mode that people who really know what they're doing can use. But I know why they don't do that: because a lot more people will think they know what they're doing than actually do. If they start turning into the locked down 1984 world you're worried about, someone else will come out with an alternative, show why it's better and most people will move over there. No one cares about moral ranting. Show people a tangible, relevant benefit to them (that is, tangible like "cheaper" not abstract like "you're more free!") and they'll buy in. Brow beating has never been an effective way to affect change.
    - bad_user 14y ago
      There are lots of tangible benefits of openness, problem is most concrete examples do not resonate with most people, because people in general have different needs, even though those same people will run into the same problems at some point, so it's inevitable that discussions end up filled with anecdotes and philosophy, not to mention that coming up with comprehensive case-studies from our history is time consuming and soul sucking, so people that understand the issue just go on with their lives. But here, I'll give you an example - 1 and a half year ago I was literally stocked by 2 people that thought I owed them money. And so I was receiving lots of SMS messages and phone calls with threats, because that's all they could do - but it was annoying to me to have my phone ring several times per day. Then my phone number ended up on some kind of marketing list and I started receiving daily messages with special offers. So I had a problem and an iPhone 3GS (received as a gift) and being a smartphone I expected from it to solve it, because otherwise my phone number was becoming unusable and I didn't want to change it (hey, I've got a nice, memorable number). I wanted to completely block SMS messages and phone calls for certain numbers. And I'm not referring just to make my phone silent when receiving stuff from certain phone numbers - but also a cleanup of the logs. And after all, my smartphone is primarily a phone, where a phone is a device used for communications - I don't care how smart it is, if it's not smart about the most basic functionality it should provide. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Apple was actively blocking such apps from its App Store. So I jail-broke it and installed something from the Cydia store, which was a painful process. Then Apple released a major update to iOS that I wanted, so I updated the device, but my previous method for jail-breaking it wasn't working anymore. THE ONLY REASON people put up with this is because they don't know a smartphone could solve this for them, otherwise spamming through phone calls and SMS messages is a really common problem. Out of frustration I went out of my way and got a Galaxy S device. There were several apps on Android Marketplace (now Google Play) that dealt with blocking SMS and phone calls. Several were not working on my device, because the APIs for doing that are not public and so dealing with it is hard. But I found one that worked extremely well. Even in the case of Android's Marketplace also blocking such apps, it's extremely easy on Android to install apps from third-party sources, not mentioning the ease with which you can develop for it, without setup fees or bogus certificates. And I've been blocking unwanted SMS messages and phone calls ever since. Now, some day Apple will finally wake up and provide this functionality. I'm sure that it will be polished and better than all the alternatives. However, it will be several years too late for me. And if a smartphone can't provide such basic functionality that should be a no-brainer in this age of spam, then for me it's just a shiny and expensive piece of crap. And remember when they blocked Google Voice from their store because "it duplicated existing functionality?". I also own an iPad. It was a gift (for some reason people like giving me Apple products, thinking that I love them). I also have a 3G plan for it, that I got separately, so this device is not subsidized or bought from my mobile carrier. Imagine my surprise when I found out that I couldn't do tethering with my otherwise expensive 3G plan and expensive device, yet my 1 year and a half Android could - and an iPad could do better tethering because of its bigger battery. And get this ... the functionality is available, but it depends on the settings the mobile carrier are wiring to your device. So they are basically controlling your device, deciding for you what you can and cannot do. So now I'm dreaming of a Nexus tablet as my next device, because while the iPad is useful for browsing and stuff, I don't really "own" it and there's so much more it could do. And I have no doubt about it, the sky is going to fall, because the writing is on the wall. Considering our increased dependency on smart technology, if you don't "own" your devices (or your data, or the software you depend on), the service providers are owning you. You may not notice it right now, but remember that old anecdote about how you should boil a frog alive - slowly, otherwise it jumps out. And the blame will fall partly on us, the developers that supported these closed platforms. Because we helped them grow. People also like to point out how Android is more popular because it gets promoted more by carriers - isn't it funny how openness is good for everybody, including carriers and phone makers?
- wmf 14y ago
  It also hurts the Web in general, because phones with old OSes can't upgrade their browser.
  - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
    Luckily, because it's open, Android has no such problems. Only 2.7% of all Android devices run the current version, but I'm sure that every Android user has an up to date third party browser they use exclusively. http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
    - cpeterso 14y ago
      [citation needed]
    - untog 14y ago
      You think that almost every Android user uses a third party browser? Seriously?
      - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
        No, I do not. Sarcasm tags were implied. Most Android phones have an outdated OS and will never receive updates to the current version of Android. It is also known that most users never switch from the default browser on their phone or computer. And sadly, before Android 4.0, the default browser was pretty crummy.
- paupino_masano 14y ago
  I think this misses the point. I'm not sure about Windows phone, but iOS has Chrome and Opera already. While they are not default browsers, they still have an offering available for download. I think when he says they can't, I think it is more about their code base/engine requirements than anything else.
  - tl 14y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but iOS does not have Chrome or Opera because the only browser allowed is Safari/UIWebView. It has an app called "Chrome" that runs UIWebView and has features like tab/bookmark sharing.
    - paupino_masano 14y ago
      Yeah, you're right: it appears it is just a skin: https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/faq https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/faq Perhaps the idea was to get something out there for presence and then create a full rendering engine later? But then again, both Chrome and Safari are WebKit and Firefox is Gecko so I'm not sure how that changes things.
      - georgemcbay 14y ago
        The core issue is actually JavaScript as I mentioned in another post. I doubt Google thinks this will ever change and they assume they'll never be able to deliver full Chrome on iOS. They provide the Chrome they do provide because one of the nice features of Chrome is universal syncing (of bookmarks, etc) between all your Chrome-running devices that you are signed into. While Chrome on iOS isn't really Chrome, it does sync in to this so that your bookmarks, etc, work there just like on any real Chrome browser.
        rohitnair 14y ago
        Firefox had a similar offering called Firefox Home on iOS which would sync bookmarks, history and even open tabs. It worked/works really well and I still use it. Mozilla, however, recently retired the app and made the source available on github[1]. The fact that Firefox currently has virtually no support on iOS is really frustrating for Firefox users in the Apple ecosystem. [1] - https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2012/08/31/retiring-firefox-home/ https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2012/08/31/retiring-firefo...
- yawn 14y ago
  It's the main reason that I have switched to Android. I like the idea of "App Stores", but I hate the idea of "App Store Only". The mobile App Store success has lead to the invasion of the desktop, and I worry about openness in the future.
- azakai 14y ago
  > Mozilla can't bring its full browser technology to iOS, Windows Phone, and Windows RT Does this give other people the willies, or only me? Its scary that 2 of the 3 big players in mobile effectively lock out so much. Windows is not a big player in mobile, despite the media attention it receives in the US. The only major players are Android and iOS. So it's 1 out of 2, not 2 out of 3.
- jrl 14y ago
  Yes, it's worse than Microsoft's dominance of PCs in the 1990s. Back then, at least you could install whatever software you wanted in your machine. Now it's completely locked down in the iPhone and Windows Phone. What happened to the hacker culture that defended users' and programmers' rights? We should be making more noise about this problem.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    People have installed linux on iPhones. They just need to keep pushing that branch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yO2KQHkt4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yO2KQHkt4A But no, they go off and make their own OS instead of pushing the free one that's there.
- gte910h 14y ago
  Honestly, no? My refrigerator, toaster, TV appliances, and washing machine are all relatively locked down as well. Android is a MAJOR player still (at least in install base, they're proving less popular as far as dollars spent in the first world). The fact Mozilla is writing their own OS instead of supporting Android is silly. Their OS will not end up running on apple phones, and if it could, the'd get more bang for their buck porting android to apple/winRT hardware.
  - lambda 14y ago
    > My refrigerator, toaster, TV appliances, and washing machine are all relatively locked down as well Yes, but you don't generally install new software on those. They might as well have everything implemented in hardware. The concern is that Apple and Microsoft are retaining a monopoly on the ability to install new software on your machine. They can install new software (or give you permission to), but no one else can. It's not that much of a problem if something isn't extensible at all; it's the drastic imbalance of power, in which they hold all of the cards, that is the problem Android is much better, but it's still not perfect. It's based on Java and Google's own APIs, which they fully control. Google controls the play store, and many carriers sell locked phones that prevent you from installing your own software outside of the play store, as well as limiting what software you can install from there. So, Mozilla does support Android, by releasing their browser on it. But they also believe that they can do better; create something that's more open, more hackable, more accessible than Android. Can they? I'm not sure. There are lots of frustrating things about the Web platform as well, I don't know if it's going to be better than Android's Java based platform. And Mozilla doesn't have the same resources as Google, so may not be able to deliver Nexus-style phones and tablets. But I do appreciate that they're putting in the effort, to try and innovate and provide an alternative experience.
    - gte910h 14y ago
      >Google controls the play store, and many carriers sell locked phones that prevent you from installing your own software outside of the play store Which is exactly what's going to happen if Moz makes an OS. Additionally, I'm pretty sure you can always sideload an APK even on the locked phones (may be wrong there). Don't buy those phones. Buy a nexus if software freedom is what you want. Me personally? I think the iOS strictures make a store I like more than a control I despise (and jailbreaking is both legal and pervasive for those who want a bit more there). I kinda like (as a consumer) there aren't monthly subscription apps, even if it makes certain concepts not viable. As a developer, I feel pain every time X can't release Y and they really really really want to. I'll take that for not having to worry about malware(yet: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Android-Malware-Antivirus-Protection-Scan,18709.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Android-Malware-Antivirus-P...) and a couple other pieces of chrome consistency. Firefox for me should be dumping buckets of cash into performance instead of this sort of project. It feels like the dumpy stepsister to chrome these days (and yes, I do download new versions from time to time).
tmister 14y ago
I think Mozilla have made a big mistake by not complaining about bundling Safari in iOS devices. It looked jokingly funny when they attacked Microsoft for IE bundling Windows8 RT when they had 0% market share. Now look at the market, Android have almost 70% of market share and iOS took other. So where does Firefox stands now? This situation forced Mozila to write a new mobile OS which I think does not stand a chance against other big contenders. In 3/4 years I think Firefox will be like what Opera is currently right now, small niche market share. I am sadly saying this as die-hard Firefox user. This is what you get when you compromise openness.
- bad_user 14y ago
  I use Firefox on my Android.
  - tmister 14y ago
    But it is not default. Does a normal user have an urge to change the default browser even it performs worse than non-default browser http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/12o9oy/why_is_chromes_performance_for_android_so_poor/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/12o9oy/why_is_chrom... ?
    - bad_user 14y ago
      Was Firefox ever the default on anything?
      - doesnt_know 14y ago
        Well, it's the default in a number of desktop GNU/Linux distributions, but that's not really the point he was making. I assume most people install Firefox because it's better then the default browser experience. The argument in the parent comment is that this isn't the case so those that would normally go out of their way to install it have no reason to do so. e: Or maybe I read it incorrectly? Firefox is a better mobile experience? If that's the case, I'm not really sure what the parent comment's argument is.
winstonian 14y ago
Their expenses are nuts. Over $100 million?! What's going on there?
- thirdtruck 14y ago
  Comparing that with the profits from a single opening weekend of iPhone sales (a much larger number), I think we're getting a pretty good deal.
  - nolok 14y ago
    This makes no sense, those two things have nothing in common, might as well compare their annual expenses to apples and oranges sales in the year.
    - kibwen 14y ago
      I couldn't find global stats, but at 2.72 billion[1] and 3 billion[2] USD respectively, the apple and orange industries have revenues far in excess of Mozilla's. [1] http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/fruits/apples/commodity-apples http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/fruits/apples/com... [2] http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=23 http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=23
    - thirdtruck 14y ago
      I do consider it a better comparison than the original, at least, which reduced to "$100 million" vs. "undefined".
  - gte910h 14y ago
    Hardware sales are vastly different than software sales. Revenue is much higher in hardware based sales due to cost of materials.
- polshaw 14y ago
  Shame they didn't link to their annual reports or something../s. Turns out aggressively developing one of the world's most popular browsers, a mobile browser and a mobile OS costs a lot of money. $100m for software development, $20m for admin and $17m for branding/marketing. They are non profit so there is no point in keeping money in a box. You might perhaps hope they got a little more done for that kind of money (conservatively 800 full time devs.. main gripe would be a faster JS engine), but i guess large organisations aren't too efficient. http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundation%20and%20Subsidiaries%202011%20Audited%20Financial%20Statement.pdf http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundatio...
programminggeek 14y ago
The thing is Mozilla exists to promote the open web and open source and yet you have Android which is open source and WebKit which is open source both basically supplanting Mozilla on mobile and people act surprised somehow. FirefoxOS is interesting, but gosh, why would a company push a Firefox phone when there's already Android?
- jrl 14y ago
  FirefoxOS might make the mobile web better. It will give web developers more access to the device's hardware, unlike a website running stock Android browser. Everybody has been saying it for years, native apps can do more than web apps in iOS and Android. I wish that FirefoxOS changed that, similarly to how Chrome pushed HTML5 on the desktop.

61 points by aphtab 14y ago

Mozilla can't bring its full browser technology to iOS, Windows Phone, and Windows RT Does this give other people the willies, or only me? Its scary that 2 of the 3 big players in mobile effectively lock out so much. In so many ways, the mobile wars are much more significant than the browser wars. Having a machine that is completely locked down and only runs 'authorized' software is chilling indeed.

bad_user 14y ago
I've been saying it ever since the iTunes App Store launched and have been saying it again when Windows Phone launched - I'm not interested in platforms that won't allow me to run Firefox. Of course, you'll see yet again opinions trying to rationalize it as being "in the name of user experience" and "safety". But then, a couple of years from now, when those people finally realize what a big mistake this was, they won't blame it on themselves.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  When you run around shouting the sky is falling, you can't expect most people to take you seriously. Apple is winning (profit wise) because they just have a simpler experience. IMO, they are doing everything right except adding an "advanced" mode that people who really know what they're doing can use. But I know why they don't do that: because a lot more people will think they know what they're doing than actually do. If they start turning into the locked down 1984 world you're worried about, someone else will come out with an alternative, show why it's better and most people will move over there. No one cares about moral ranting. Show people a tangible, relevant benefit to them (that is, tangible like "cheaper" not abstract like "you're more free!") and they'll buy in. Brow beating has never been an effective way to affect change.
  - bad_user 14y ago
    There are lots of tangible benefits of openness, problem is most concrete examples do not resonate with most people, because people in general have different needs, even though those same people will run into the same problems at some point, so it's inevitable that discussions end up filled with anecdotes and philosophy, not to mention that coming up with comprehensive case-studies from our history is time consuming and soul sucking, so people that understand the issue just go on with their lives. But here, I'll give you an example - 1 and a half year ago I was literally stocked by 2 people that thought I owed them money. And so I was receiving lots of SMS messages and phone calls with threats, because that's all they could do - but it was annoying to me to have my phone ring several times per day. Then my phone number ended up on some kind of marketing list and I started receiving daily messages with special offers. So I had a problem and an iPhone 3GS (received as a gift) and being a smartphone I expected from it to solve it, because otherwise my phone number was becoming unusable and I didn't want to change it (hey, I've got a nice, memorable number). I wanted to completely block SMS messages and phone calls for certain numbers. And I'm not referring just to make my phone silent when receiving stuff from certain phone numbers - but also a cleanup of the logs. And after all, my smartphone is primarily a phone, where a phone is a device used for communications - I don't care how smart it is, if it's not smart about the most basic functionality it should provide. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Apple was actively blocking such apps from its App Store. So I jail-broke it and installed something from the Cydia store, which was a painful process. Then Apple released a major update to iOS that I wanted, so I updated the device, but my previous method for jail-breaking it wasn't working anymore. THE ONLY REASON people put up with this is because they don't know a smartphone could solve this for them, otherwise spamming through phone calls and SMS messages is a really common problem. Out of frustration I went out of my way and got a Galaxy S device. There were several apps on Android Marketplace (now Google Play) that dealt with blocking SMS and phone calls. Several were not working on my device, because the APIs for doing that are not public and so dealing with it is hard. But I found one that worked extremely well. Even in the case of Android's Marketplace also blocking such apps, it's extremely easy on Android to install apps from third-party sources, not mentioning the ease with which you can develop for it, without setup fees or bogus certificates. And I've been blocking unwanted SMS messages and phone calls ever since. Now, some day Apple will finally wake up and provide this functionality. I'm sure that it will be polished and better than all the alternatives. However, it will be several years too late for me. And if a smartphone can't provide such basic functionality that should be a no-brainer in this age of spam, then for me it's just a shiny and expensive piece of crap. And remember when they blocked Google Voice from their store because "it duplicated existing functionality?". I also own an iPad. It was a gift (for some reason people like giving me Apple products, thinking that I love them). I also have a 3G plan for it, that I got separately, so this device is not subsidized or bought from my mobile carrier. Imagine my surprise when I found out that I couldn't do tethering with my otherwise expensive 3G plan and expensive device, yet my 1 year and a half Android could - and an iPad could do better tethering because of its bigger battery. And get this ... the functionality is available, but it depends on the settings the mobile carrier are wiring to your device. So they are basically controlling your device, deciding for you what you can and cannot do. So now I'm dreaming of a Nexus tablet as my next device, because while the iPad is useful for browsing and stuff, I don't really "own" it and there's so much more it could do. And I have no doubt about it, the sky is going to fall, because the writing is on the wall. Considering our increased dependency on smart technology, if you don't "own" your devices (or your data, or the software you depend on), the service providers are owning you. You may not notice it right now, but remember that old anecdote about how you should boil a frog alive - slowly, otherwise it jumps out. And the blame will fall partly on us, the developers that supported these closed platforms. Because we helped them grow. People also like to point out how Android is more popular because it gets promoted more by carriers - isn't it funny how openness is good for everybody, including carriers and phone makers?
wmf 14y ago
It also hurts the Web in general, because phones with old OSes can't upgrade their browser.
- Samuel_Michon 14y ago
  Luckily, because it's open, Android has no such problems. Only 2.7% of all Android devices run the current version, but I'm sure that every Android user has an up to date third party browser they use exclusively. http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html http://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html
  - cpeterso 14y ago
    [citation needed]
  - untog 14y ago
    You think that almost every Android user uses a third party browser? Seriously?
    - Samuel_Michon 14y ago
      No, I do not. Sarcasm tags were implied. Most Android phones have an outdated OS and will never receive updates to the current version of Android. It is also known that most users never switch from the default browser on their phone or computer. And sadly, before Android 4.0, the default browser was pretty crummy.
paupino_masano 14y ago
I think this misses the point. I'm not sure about Windows phone, but iOS has Chrome and Opera already. While they are not default browsers, they still have an offering available for download. I think when he says they can't, I think it is more about their code base/engine requirements than anything else.
- tl 14y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but iOS does not have Chrome or Opera because the only browser allowed is Safari/UIWebView. It has an app called "Chrome" that runs UIWebView and has features like tab/bookmark sharing.
  - paupino_masano 14y ago
    Yeah, you're right: it appears it is just a skin: https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/faq https://developers.google.com/chrome/mobile/docs/faq Perhaps the idea was to get something out there for presence and then create a full rendering engine later? But then again, both Chrome and Safari are WebKit and Firefox is Gecko so I'm not sure how that changes things.
    - georgemcbay 14y ago
      The core issue is actually JavaScript as I mentioned in another post. I doubt Google thinks this will ever change and they assume they'll never be able to deliver full Chrome on iOS. They provide the Chrome they do provide because one of the nice features of Chrome is universal syncing (of bookmarks, etc) between all your Chrome-running devices that you are signed into. While Chrome on iOS isn't really Chrome, it does sync in to this so that your bookmarks, etc, work there just like on any real Chrome browser.
      - rohitnair 14y ago
        Firefox had a similar offering called Firefox Home on iOS which would sync bookmarks, history and even open tabs. It worked/works really well and I still use it. Mozilla, however, recently retired the app and made the source available on github[1]. The fact that Firefox currently has virtually no support on iOS is really frustrating for Firefox users in the Apple ecosystem. [1] - https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2012/08/31/retiring-firefox-home/ https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2012/08/31/retiring-firefo...
yawn 14y ago
It's the main reason that I have switched to Android. I like the idea of "App Stores", but I hate the idea of "App Store Only". The mobile App Store success has lead to the invasion of the desktop, and I worry about openness in the future.
azakai 14y ago
> Mozilla can't bring its full browser technology to iOS, Windows Phone, and Windows RT Does this give other people the willies, or only me? Its scary that 2 of the 3 big players in mobile effectively lock out so much. Windows is not a big player in mobile, despite the media attention it receives in the US. The only major players are Android and iOS. So it's 1 out of 2, not 2 out of 3.
jrl 14y ago
Yes, it's worse than Microsoft's dominance of PCs in the 1990s. Back then, at least you could install whatever software you wanted in your machine. Now it's completely locked down in the iPhone and Windows Phone. What happened to the hacker culture that defended users' and programmers' rights? We should be making more noise about this problem.
- gte910h 14y ago
  People have installed linux on iPhones. They just need to keep pushing that branch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yO2KQHkt4A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yO2KQHkt4A But no, they go off and make their own OS instead of pushing the free one that's there.
gte910h 14y ago
Honestly, no? My refrigerator, toaster, TV appliances, and washing machine are all relatively locked down as well. Android is a MAJOR player still (at least in install base, they're proving less popular as far as dollars spent in the first world). The fact Mozilla is writing their own OS instead of supporting Android is silly. Their OS will not end up running on apple phones, and if it could, the'd get more bang for their buck porting android to apple/winRT hardware.
- lambda 14y ago
  > My refrigerator, toaster, TV appliances, and washing machine are all relatively locked down as well Yes, but you don't generally install new software on those. They might as well have everything implemented in hardware. The concern is that Apple and Microsoft are retaining a monopoly on the ability to install new software on your machine. They can install new software (or give you permission to), but no one else can. It's not that much of a problem if something isn't extensible at all; it's the drastic imbalance of power, in which they hold all of the cards, that is the problem Android is much better, but it's still not perfect. It's based on Java and Google's own APIs, which they fully control. Google controls the play store, and many carriers sell locked phones that prevent you from installing your own software outside of the play store, as well as limiting what software you can install from there. So, Mozilla does support Android, by releasing their browser on it. But they also believe that they can do better; create something that's more open, more hackable, more accessible than Android. Can they? I'm not sure. There are lots of frustrating things about the Web platform as well, I don't know if it's going to be better than Android's Java based platform. And Mozilla doesn't have the same resources as Google, so may not be able to deliver Nexus-style phones and tablets. But I do appreciate that they're putting in the effort, to try and innovate and provide an alternative experience.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    >Google controls the play store, and many carriers sell locked phones that prevent you from installing your own software outside of the play store Which is exactly what's going to happen if Moz makes an OS. Additionally, I'm pretty sure you can always sideload an APK even on the locked phones (may be wrong there). Don't buy those phones. Buy a nexus if software freedom is what you want. Me personally? I think the iOS strictures make a store I like more than a control I despise (and jailbreaking is both legal and pervasive for those who want a bit more there). I kinda like (as a consumer) there aren't monthly subscription apps, even if it makes certain concepts not viable. As a developer, I feel pain every time X can't release Y and they really really really want to. I'll take that for not having to worry about malware(yet: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Android-Malware-Antivirus-Protection-Scan,18709.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Android-Malware-Antivirus-P...) and a couple other pieces of chrome consistency. Firefox for me should be dumping buckets of cash into performance instead of this sort of project. It feels like the dumpy stepsister to chrome these days (and yes, I do download new versions from time to time).

tmister 14y ago

I think Mozilla have made a big mistake by not complaining about bundling Safari in iOS devices. It looked jokingly funny when they attacked Microsoft for IE bundling Windows8 RT when they had 0% market share. Now look at the market, Android have almost 70% of market share and iOS took other. So where does Firefox stands now? This situation forced Mozila to write a new mobile OS which I think does not stand a chance against other big contenders. In 3/4 years I think Firefox will be like what Opera is currently right now, small niche market share. I am sadly saying this as die-hard Firefox user. This is what you get when you compromise openness.

bad_user 14y ago
I use Firefox on my Android.
- tmister 14y ago
  But it is not default. Does a normal user have an urge to change the default browser even it performs worse than non-default browser http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/12o9oy/why_is_chromes_performance_for_android_so_poor/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/12o9oy/why_is_chrom... ?
  - bad_user 14y ago
    Was Firefox ever the default on anything?
    - doesnt_know 14y ago
      Well, it's the default in a number of desktop GNU/Linux distributions, but that's not really the point he was making. I assume most people install Firefox because it's better then the default browser experience. The argument in the parent comment is that this isn't the case so those that would normally go out of their way to install it have no reason to do so. e: Or maybe I read it incorrectly? Firefox is a better mobile experience? If that's the case, I'm not really sure what the parent comment's argument is.

winstonian 14y ago

Their expenses are nuts. Over $100 million?! What's going on there?

thirdtruck 14y ago
Comparing that with the profits from a single opening weekend of iPhone sales (a much larger number), I think we're getting a pretty good deal.
- nolok 14y ago
  This makes no sense, those two things have nothing in common, might as well compare their annual expenses to apples and oranges sales in the year.
  - kibwen 14y ago
    I couldn't find global stats, but at 2.72 billion[1] and 3 billion[2] USD respectively, the apple and orange industries have revenues far in excess of Mozilla's. [1] http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/fruits/apples/commodity-apples http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/fruits/apples/com... [2] http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=23 http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/default.aspx?indid=23
  - thirdtruck 14y ago
    I do consider it a better comparison than the original, at least, which reduced to "$100 million" vs. "undefined".
- gte910h 14y ago
  Hardware sales are vastly different than software sales. Revenue is much higher in hardware based sales due to cost of materials.
polshaw 14y ago
Shame they didn't link to their annual reports or something../s. Turns out aggressively developing one of the world's most popular browsers, a mobile browser and a mobile OS costs a lot of money. $100m for software development, $20m for admin and $17m for branding/marketing. They are non profit so there is no point in keeping money in a box. You might perhaps hope they got a little more done for that kind of money (conservatively 800 full time devs.. main gripe would be a faster JS engine), but i guess large organisations aren't too efficient. http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundation%20and%20Subsidiaries%202011%20Audited%20Financial%20Statement.pdf http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundatio...

programminggeek 14y ago

The thing is Mozilla exists to promote the open web and open source and yet you have Android which is open source and WebKit which is open source both basically supplanting Mozilla on mobile and people act surprised somehow. FirefoxOS is interesting, but gosh, why would a company push a Firefox phone when there's already Android?

jrl 14y ago
FirefoxOS might make the mobile web better. It will give web developers more access to the device's hardware, unlike a website running stock Android browser. Everybody has been saying it for years, native apps can do more than web apps in iOS and Android. I wish that FirefoxOS changed that, similarly to how Chrome pushed HTML5 on the desktop.