7 ms·

Firefox OS challenges the closed mobile ecosystems

74 points by dagingaa 14y ago

islon 14y ago
Is firefox OS more open than android? Why?
- sabret00the 14y ago
  TBF to Mozilla, have you tried to submit a patch to Google? I mean look at the furore that's begun over Google's recent decision to remove the ability of apps to toggle Aeroplane Mode. It blind-sighted developers and Google haven't made a single comment in the bug to justify their decision. At time goes on, there are less and less freedoms available to Android users/developers. I personally don't think Firefox OS has a chance to be a successful alternative. But their presence may encourage Google to be more open in their decision making process.
- notimetorelax 14y ago
  I believe these could be the key statements from the article: Developing native apps today means accepting guidelines and restrictions that potentially limits what services can be developed, and how they should look. ... Firefox OS aims to extend the freedom of the internet into the mobile ecosystem, by allowing anyone to easily create a web app at the same time that they create a web page. In short, Android is an open platform but you can't easily run Android apps somewhere else. Here, I think, they are aiming at providing runtime support on mobile and other platforms. Firefox has big enough market share to pull this through.
  - callahad 14y ago
    The open web is awesome because it's ubiquitous and built on open standards. Native apps are awesome because they can do things that web apps can't. Firefox OS is a vehicle to fix that by building all of the phone's apps out of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and in doing so defining the gap between native apps and the web. The ultimate goal is to bridge that gap with open standards. A great example is the JavaScript vibration API: http://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/ http://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/. It's already landed in Webkit, too! https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010 Mozilla can make sure these sorts of APIs are supported across desktop Firefox, Firefox for Android, and Firefox OS, but we're not trying to do this alone -- the goal is for open, inter-operable standards to win.
- thefreeman 14y ago
  The fact that it runs entirely on web technologies is what they are saying makes it more open. Though I am not sure I fully agree with this because they are using special javascript api's implemented in the OS to access the hardware. Unless Android and iOS devices adopt these javascript API's, you are still in the same boat as developing for any other app eco system.
  - kibwen 14y ago
    AFAICT the special Javascript APIs are implemented in Gecko itself and aren't specific to the OS. As in, if you're using Firefox right now, those same APIs exist in your browser regardless of your platform, though they may be dormant if your hardware doesn't have e.g. hardware support for vibration. Beyond that, Mozilla's also submitting all of these new APIs for standardization, so that any app you build that uses them could potentially function in all browsers.
    - thefreeman 14y ago
      That's true, I forgot you could can run their app environment, aka firefox, on Android. Still won't help iOS though. I understand they are submitting them for standardization, but do you really think Apple is going to implement a standard which competes with their app store?
      - graue 14y ago
        Maybe not in the short run. We'll see. But if Apple decides not to implement an open standard for business reasons, that doesn't make said standard not open.
      - callahad 14y ago
        Well, Mobile Safari uses Webkit, which both Apple and Google are working on (amongst others), and both have been pretty darn good about supporting web standards. Hell, Microsoft's gotten the religion, too. If the APIs are useful, and make it through the W3C, then I'd be surprised if they didn't show up in Webkit, and thus on iOS and Android. The Vibration API made it in, after all: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Firefox OS is developed on GitHub. You can submit a pull request. Android is developed behind closed doors; they do not accept patches, and code dump a couple of times a year. But they don't want/accept any community contributions (and indeed, they don't think anyone outside of Google is smart enough to contribute anyways). Android is open-washing.
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    I'm not going to start a general argument with you, but Android does in fact, accept patches from the community. They certainly think plenty of people are smart enough to contribute (though that was a nice ad-hominen attack on the Android team). Open-washing. Now there is a great phrase. As if there was a "one true definition" of open, and Android was abusing it. Could you let me know who controls this definition? I've been contributing to open source and free software projects for 14+ years now, and they all have had different levels of openness. So I guess half of them were just "open washing"? It's really great that you can speak about this as if there was general agreement in the community on what it means for a project to be open. Instead, from where I sit, there are different people who think it means different things.
    - Argorak 14y ago
      The thing is: android point releases are open source and open. Changes in the codebase that happen during development however, are not. To some, that is enough. Using OSI definitions and everything, Android is open source. What differs is whats "open" to you. For my tastes, Android is not open enough to be "_the_ open mobile OS", it is still developed by a corporate entity that could (potentially) decide to not release the next Android release. For Firefox OS, all development, even before the launch of the OS happens in the open. If the engineering team decides to change something, it is immediately visible. I can see the cards they play. With Android, I cannot. Thats a different level. Still, thats a very personal thing and only of interest for people that want to integrate with a platform and have certain expectations. I wouldn't start a fight over it, although I will immediately buy a Firefox OS device for philosophical reasons only :), with Android, I did not.
RexRollman 14y ago
To me, the problem isn't with the OS, it is with the hardware. Android phone/tablet manufacturers had the chance to create a truely open ecosystem but instead they have opted to copy the Apple method of locking down everything.
- return0 14y ago
  With google controlling the app store, it wasn't like they had much of a choice.
  - holgerhus 14y ago
    well, in Firefox the access to apps on Firefox OS will be open. Still vendors need to implement some integrated system to do it, but any method to constrain the access would not fly with the consumers. At least vendors have the choice, which means consumers have a choice.
    - DeepDuh 14y ago
      "wouldn't fly with the consumers" what do you base this on? Current mobile market certainly doesn't support your thesis.
      - holgerhus 14y ago
        consumers are interested in the best value/experience they expect from purchasing a device. I believe that the open web will provide an environment which will result in a better user experience over time and hence will enable richer experiences.
return0 14y ago
I wish they would implement an (open, as in, non-corporate) social network and single-sign-on system on top of that. It would be a killer combination, making a firefox tablet more easily marketable.
- dagingaa 14y ago
  Persona perhaps? https://login.persona.org/ https://login.persona.org/
  - return0 14y ago
    Is it a part of firefoxOS? It could be a great way to push browserID adoption.
    - dailycavalier 14y ago
      It is part of the Marketplace (bundled app store) in Firefox OS. I don't believe Persona is the main identity system in Firefox OS at the moment, but it's very possible it could be in a future version.
    - callahad 14y ago
      Yep! As I understand it, FxOS will ship with a native implementation the Persona APIs. However, I don't believe the devices require any sort of attached identity until you try to make your first purchase in the Marketplace, so it's not like the unboxing experience will be used to bootstrap Persona.
  - graue 14y ago
    Persona is not a social network, though, just an identity system. But there has been talk of the Persona team potentially cooperating with the Tent (https://tent.io https://tent.io) team. (edited to remove slangy word "rumblings")
    - kibwen 14y ago
      Rumblings?
greggman 14y ago
If it's 100% open what are they doing to prevent fragmentation? Also what has been done to make sure they can update any handset running Firefox OS independent of the manufactures and service providers?
- josefresco 14y ago
  A truly open 'anything' means that fragmentation is neither good nor bad, and implementations of this open thing can exist on an island (unable to upgrade). Truly open might be messy and a little scary for some people but it means that diversity and open access can thrive. Android only goes part way towards this idea while still trying to maintain control and influence over several key (money making) parts (I don't blame them). This hybrid approach to being open however doesn't sit well with all users.
  - greggman 14y ago
    Fragmentation has killed android for developers In china. Instead of one platform to target there are grater than 30 each with their own Apis, quirks, bugs and markets. Instead of spending time making apps you spend time porting. Each modified version also has its own proprietary market. My question is, how will Firefox OS prevent this same problem with a 100% open system
- OlavHN 14y ago
  If you refer to fragmentation as manufacturers slowing down upgrades because they are "differentiating" their Android devices then I believe the web ecosystem already has some experience there dealing with different browsers :) I believe an alternative mobile ecosystem not centrally controlled like iOS and Android, but rather with a standardised core and fragmentation / innovation on top is a very exciting model. It's working great for the web, why is mobile fundamentally any different? It beats having to program every application three times from scratch to reach a full market.
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    > It beats having to program every application three times from scratch to reach a full market. How are you going to counteract the interests of Apple/Google and other established players, who are going to hold onto their turf with all the power the network effect will give them?
fmax30 14y ago
While I do hope success for firefox OS a true Open source OS, I can't help but wonder what is the site using for hosting such a nice dynamic blog on github ?
- statenjason 14y ago
  Looking at the source[1] of the blog. It appears to be built with Jekyll[2]. [1]: https://github.com/comoyo/comoyo.github.com https://github.com/comoyo/comoyo.github.com [2]: http://jekyllrb.com/ http://jekyllrb.com/
  - dagingaa 14y ago
    I can confirm this. We built the little bits ourselves without using something like http://jekyllbootstrap.com/ http://jekyllbootstrap.com/. I kind of regret that now as JekyllBootstrap is more mature. All in all we are very happy with Jekyll (and looking forward to development picking up on it now).

74 points by dagingaa 14y ago

islon 14y ago

Is firefox OS more open than android? Why?

sabret00the 14y ago
TBF to Mozilla, have you tried to submit a patch to Google? I mean look at the furore that's begun over Google's recent decision to remove the ability of apps to toggle Aeroplane Mode. It blind-sighted developers and Google haven't made a single comment in the bug to justify their decision. At time goes on, there are less and less freedoms available to Android users/developers. I personally don't think Firefox OS has a chance to be a successful alternative. But their presence may encourage Google to be more open in their decision making process.
notimetorelax 14y ago
I believe these could be the key statements from the article: Developing native apps today means accepting guidelines and restrictions that potentially limits what services can be developed, and how they should look. ... Firefox OS aims to extend the freedom of the internet into the mobile ecosystem, by allowing anyone to easily create a web app at the same time that they create a web page. In short, Android is an open platform but you can't easily run Android apps somewhere else. Here, I think, they are aiming at providing runtime support on mobile and other platforms. Firefox has big enough market share to pull this through.
- callahad 14y ago
  The open web is awesome because it's ubiquitous and built on open standards. Native apps are awesome because they can do things that web apps can't. Firefox OS is a vehicle to fix that by building all of the phone's apps out of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and in doing so defining the gap between native apps and the web. The ultimate goal is to bridge that gap with open standards. A great example is the JavaScript vibration API: http://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/ http://www.w3.org/TR/vibration/. It's already landed in Webkit, too! https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010 Mozilla can make sure these sorts of APIs are supported across desktop Firefox, Firefox for Android, and Firefox OS, but we're not trying to do this alone -- the goal is for open, inter-operable standards to win.
thefreeman 14y ago
The fact that it runs entirely on web technologies is what they are saying makes it more open. Though I am not sure I fully agree with this because they are using special javascript api's implemented in the OS to access the hardware. Unless Android and iOS devices adopt these javascript API's, you are still in the same boat as developing for any other app eco system.
- kibwen 14y ago
  AFAICT the special Javascript APIs are implemented in Gecko itself and aren't specific to the OS. As in, if you're using Firefox right now, those same APIs exist in your browser regardless of your platform, though they may be dormant if your hardware doesn't have e.g. hardware support for vibration. Beyond that, Mozilla's also submitting all of these new APIs for standardization, so that any app you build that uses them could potentially function in all browsers.
  - thefreeman 14y ago
    That's true, I forgot you could can run their app environment, aka firefox, on Android. Still won't help iOS though. I understand they are submitting them for standardization, but do you really think Apple is going to implement a standard which competes with their app store?
    - graue 14y ago
      Maybe not in the short run. We'll see. But if Apple decides not to implement an open standard for business reasons, that doesn't make said standard not open.
    - callahad 14y ago
      Well, Mobile Safari uses Webkit, which both Apple and Google are working on (amongst others), and both have been pretty darn good about supporting web standards. Hell, Microsoft's gotten the religion, too. If the APIs are useful, and make it through the W3C, then I'd be surprised if they didn't show up in Webkit, and thus on iOS and Android. The Vibration API made it in, after all: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010 https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=72010
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Firefox OS is developed on GitHub. You can submit a pull request. Android is developed behind closed doors; they do not accept patches, and code dump a couple of times a year. But they don't want/accept any community contributions (and indeed, they don't think anyone outside of Google is smart enough to contribute anyways). Android is open-washing.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  I'm not going to start a general argument with you, but Android does in fact, accept patches from the community. They certainly think plenty of people are smart enough to contribute (though that was a nice ad-hominen attack on the Android team). Open-washing. Now there is a great phrase. As if there was a "one true definition" of open, and Android was abusing it. Could you let me know who controls this definition? I've been contributing to open source and free software projects for 14+ years now, and they all have had different levels of openness. So I guess half of them were just "open washing"? It's really great that you can speak about this as if there was general agreement in the community on what it means for a project to be open. Instead, from where I sit, there are different people who think it means different things.
  - Argorak 14y ago
    The thing is: android point releases are open source and open. Changes in the codebase that happen during development however, are not. To some, that is enough. Using OSI definitions and everything, Android is open source. What differs is whats "open" to you. For my tastes, Android is not open enough to be "_the_ open mobile OS", it is still developed by a corporate entity that could (potentially) decide to not release the next Android release. For Firefox OS, all development, even before the launch of the OS happens in the open. If the engineering team decides to change something, it is immediately visible. I can see the cards they play. With Android, I cannot. Thats a different level. Still, thats a very personal thing and only of interest for people that want to integrate with a platform and have certain expectations. I wouldn't start a fight over it, although I will immediately buy a Firefox OS device for philosophical reasons only :), with Android, I did not.

RexRollman 14y ago

To me, the problem isn't with the OS, it is with the hardware. Android phone/tablet manufacturers had the chance to create a truely open ecosystem but instead they have opted to copy the Apple method of locking down everything.

return0 14y ago
With google controlling the app store, it wasn't like they had much of a choice.
- holgerhus 14y ago
  well, in Firefox the access to apps on Firefox OS will be open. Still vendors need to implement some integrated system to do it, but any method to constrain the access would not fly with the consumers. At least vendors have the choice, which means consumers have a choice.
  - DeepDuh 14y ago
    "wouldn't fly with the consumers" what do you base this on? Current mobile market certainly doesn't support your thesis.
    - holgerhus 14y ago
      consumers are interested in the best value/experience they expect from purchasing a device. I believe that the open web will provide an environment which will result in a better user experience over time and hence will enable richer experiences.

return0 14y ago

I wish they would implement an (open, as in, non-corporate) social network and single-sign-on system on top of that. It would be a killer combination, making a firefox tablet more easily marketable.

dagingaa 14y ago
Persona perhaps? https://login.persona.org/ https://login.persona.org/
- return0 14y ago
  Is it a part of firefoxOS? It could be a great way to push browserID adoption.
  - dailycavalier 14y ago
    It is part of the Marketplace (bundled app store) in Firefox OS. I don't believe Persona is the main identity system in Firefox OS at the moment, but it's very possible it could be in a future version.
  - callahad 14y ago
    Yep! As I understand it, FxOS will ship with a native implementation the Persona APIs. However, I don't believe the devices require any sort of attached identity until you try to make your first purchase in the Marketplace, so it's not like the unboxing experience will be used to bootstrap Persona.
- graue 14y ago
  Persona is not a social network, though, just an identity system. But there has been talk of the Persona team potentially cooperating with the Tent (https://tent.io https://tent.io) team. (edited to remove slangy word "rumblings")
  - kibwen 14y ago
    Rumblings?

greggman 14y ago

If it's 100% open what are they doing to prevent fragmentation? Also what has been done to make sure they can update any handset running Firefox OS independent of the manufactures and service providers?

josefresco 14y ago
A truly open 'anything' means that fragmentation is neither good nor bad, and implementations of this open thing can exist on an island (unable to upgrade). Truly open might be messy and a little scary for some people but it means that diversity and open access can thrive. Android only goes part way towards this idea while still trying to maintain control and influence over several key (money making) parts (I don't blame them). This hybrid approach to being open however doesn't sit well with all users.
- greggman 14y ago
  Fragmentation has killed android for developers In china. Instead of one platform to target there are grater than 30 each with their own Apis, quirks, bugs and markets. Instead of spending time making apps you spend time porting. Each modified version also has its own proprietary market. My question is, how will Firefox OS prevent this same problem with a 100% open system
OlavHN 14y ago
If you refer to fragmentation as manufacturers slowing down upgrades because they are "differentiating" their Android devices then I believe the web ecosystem already has some experience there dealing with different browsers :) I believe an alternative mobile ecosystem not centrally controlled like iOS and Android, but rather with a standardised core and fragmentation / innovation on top is a very exciting model. It's working great for the web, why is mobile fundamentally any different? It beats having to program every application three times from scratch to reach a full market.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > It beats having to program every application three times from scratch to reach a full market. How are you going to counteract the interests of Apple/Google and other established players, who are going to hold onto their turf with all the power the network effect will give them?

fmax30 14y ago

While I do hope success for firefox OS a true Open source OS, I can't help but wonder what is the site using for hosting such a nice dynamic blog on github ?

statenjason 14y ago
Looking at the source[1] of the blog. It appears to be built with Jekyll[2]. [1]: https://github.com/comoyo/comoyo.github.com https://github.com/comoyo/comoyo.github.com [2]: http://jekyllrb.com/ http://jekyllrb.com/
- dagingaa 14y ago
  I can confirm this. We built the little bits ourselves without using something like http://jekyllbootstrap.com/ http://jekyllbootstrap.com/. I kind of regret that now as JekyllBootstrap is more mature. All in all we are very happy with Jekyll (and looking forward to development picking up on it now).