8 ms·
Mobile Operators Announce Commitment to Firefox OS
- slater 14y agoIn list form: * América Móvil * China Unicom * Deutsche Telekom * Etisalat * Hutchison Three Group * KDDI * KT * MegaFon * Qtel * SingTel * Smart * Sprint * Telecom Italia Group * Telefónica * Telenor * TMN * VimpelCom
- timdorr 14y agoDeutsche Telekom is known as T-Mobile here in the US. So, the #3 and #4 networks will support it. I wonder if AT&T or Verizon will chime in soon?
- jbodeen 14y ago5 out of the top 10 mobile providers in the world are on that list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operators http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network_operator...
- OGinparadise 14y agoAny idea why? Too new or maybe because Mozilla is not corporate backed? I thought telcos hated the fact that just Android and iPhone were it
- yareally 14y agolooking at how the galaxy nexus was treated on Verizon, I doubt they have much interest. Verizon would probably be for measures to prevent the bootloader from being unlocked and want control of updates. Mozilla probably doesn't want to agree to those terms either, so I would be surprised if Verizon ever had one. Just my experience with being a long time Verizon user and Android OS hobbyist modder.
- zobzu 14y agoTechnically they could just take FirefoxOS and lock it down if they wanted - Mozilla's approval is not needed
- mintplant 14y agoPerhaps something could be added into the license agreement to prevent such usage?
- antrix 14y agoBut they wouldn't be able to call it FirefoxOS. The source may be open but the brand & trademark certainly aren't.
- yareally 14y agoYeah, I think you're correct. They'd have to remove all Firefox branding/advertising if they went against Mozilla's wishes.
- yareally 14y agoTrue, sans all the Firefox branding and such they could do that without Mozilla's consent. With how Verizon went out of their way to ensure their Galaxy S3 was the only one that prevented users for easily unlocking the bootloader and enabling system writing, I don't foresee a positive future with any open OS on Verizon. I'm probably switching to T-Mobile when my contract is up next year. I enjoy the unlimited LTE dataspeed on Verizon I still have, but I'm not interested in keeping it while paying full price for a phone I don't really want.
- rogerbinns 14y agoDT (non-US) and T-Mobile in the US don't operate as a single unit, so the former committing to Firefox doesn't mean anything in the US. As an example iPhone is available on DT, but not T-Mobile.
- mikeash 14y agoThe iPhone's lack of availability on T-Mobile is actually a technical limitation, because T-Mobile uses a very unusual frequency band for 3G that most phones, including the iPhone, don't support. They are changing over to something more common, and will likely get the iPhone soon because of it. Not to argue with anything you're saying, just pointing out that that particular decision was more technical than anything.
- rogerbinns 14y agoDefinitely a past tense thing, and there isn't anything stopping the sales of iPhones now. Heck they claim there are already ~2 million iPhones on the network already! The "unusual" frequency is also known as AWS bands, and are also used by other carriers and in other countries (only 4 at the moment so not pervasive), although there are now LTE deployments happening in the AWS bands. The frequency retasking that allows a regular GSM iPhone to work is in full swing - http://www.tmonews.com/2013/01/t-mobiles-network-modernization-what-is-it-where-can-i-get-coverage/ http://www.tmonews.com/2013/01/t-mobiles-network-modernizati... - there is even a Twitter account tracking sightings https://twitter.com/UMTS1900 https://twitter.com/UMTS1900 and a map http://airportal.de http://airportal.de When tmobile does start selling the iPhone (rumoured to be a few months out) it will be interesting to see if they piggyback off the parent company or deal with Apple directly. In order to deal with Apple you have comply with minimum order quantities (remember the Sprint $20bn numbers) http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/17/the-iphone-moq/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/17/the-iphone-moq/
- mikeash 14y agoWell, people were using iPhones on T-Mobile from day 1. It always worked, but 3G didn't. So, while "working", data speeds were excruciatingly slow. (I actually went the opposite direction for a little while. I had a Nexus One made for T-Mobile which I used on my AT&T account. It had the same problem in reverse, since it only had T-Mobile's 3G frequencies. The phone itself was decent, but the data speeds were a killer.) Anyway, good to hear that it's happening, and thanks for the links. More competition is good, and I'm sure that a T-Mobile iPhone will help.
- cmelbye 14y agoWhy would they?
- ximeng 14y agoBBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21522713 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21522713) says they will launch in "Brazil, Colombia, Hungary, Mexico, Montenegro, Poland, Serbia, Spain and Venezuela". All middle income countries, with the exception of Spain.
- callahad 14y agoDuring the Q&A, Gary Kovacs (CEO, Mozilla Corp.) mentioned that a USA release would probably happen around 2014, given that the initial launch is designed to deliver "mid to mid-high smartphone capabilities at mid to mid-high feature phone costs."
- bobbles 14y agoAlso "Telstra is welcoming the Mozilla initiative as an opportunity to deliver an innovative mobile Web experience to their customers." No idea why Telstra got their own little sentence, but they're australias traditional monopoly carrier who own all the phone lines.. so them being on board doesn't really give me a positive impression of what this commitment will entail.
- zmmmmm 14y agoMakes it sound like telstra was not happy to be called "committed" but said something nice back in the email reply so they thought it was worth putting in their PR.
- robryan 14y agoNot sure if your comment is negative on Telstra? Despite their faults they do run the best mobile network in Australia.
- damian2000 14y agoSome of their faults IMHO.. - They charge like a wounded bull - They have let the copper network fall into ruin [1] - I have only ever had bad experiences with their customer service - I have contempt for their service technicians [1] http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/11/23/3639761.htm http://www.abc.net.au/technology/articles/2012/11/23/3639761...
- robryan 14y agoYeah, guess I avoid any copper issues by using mobile only and cable internet.
- ash 14y agoI'm excited about Firefox OS and would love it to succeed. But I'm sceptical about this announcement. In this list are Megafon and VimpelCom (AKA Beeline), two of the three leading operators in Russia. But their commitment means nearly nothing in this case. Mobile operators in Russia have little control over their customers' devices. Very few people buy phones and mobile contracts together. That doesn't means operators aren't trying to sell devices tied to mobile contract. But it's still far from common.
- slurgfest 14y agoIn a place where phone sales are not based on contracts, the commitment of the operator is meaningless. On the other hand, it is not really necessary as it would be in the US.
- deepGem 14y agoNot one damn operator from India. What a shame.
- pjmlp 14y agoLets how many of those will feature operator "enhancements".
- beaner 14y agoMaybe someone here will know - is Firefox OS going to be customized by manufacturers like Android, or the same everywhere like Windows? I know it's open source so manufacturers could do whatever they want, but maybe there's some agreement I don't know about which will make them keep the standard ui. Anybody know?
- dreamdu5t 14y agoAs far as I know, the UI is completely HTML/CSS/JS and can be entirely replaced or customized. Sadly that will just cause horrible fragmentation and bad design as it has for Android.
- Blenderkitty 14y agoYeah - I don't see why people are so excited about this. To me, it looks like the Firefox OS will end up being a carriers' vector to try and assert more control over the phone ecosystem again. Without a big player like Apple, Google, or MS to enforce some ground rules, the carriers can just completely screw with any phone. I think this will be a miserable experience for consumers - think about it - why else would carriers be so excited?
- dbaupp 14y agoHopefully Mozilla can assert some control over when a carrier/manufacturer is allowed to call something "Firefox OS" (like they do with Firefox itself) so that there is a core brand which is un-crapware-ified.
- DannyBee 14y agoExcept mozilla has no real experience in marketing. So you are hoping they can build a brand big enough and powerful enough that carriers are willing to cast aside their main goal of differentiation from each other, just so they can call their phone a "firefox os" phone, instead of hiding what it runs and calling it whatever they want. Good luck with that. :)
- 14y ago
- contingencies 14y agoSuck it, Google. This is what you get for being control freaks and abusing all the other players. You cant own everything. You are going to lose the billing, application distribution and DRM battle for sure now. Your burgeoning YouTube-based media empire cum ChromeOS/DRM wet dream is destined for failure. Wake up and smell the roses. You are evil. We hate you.
- aviraldg 14y agoI wish I had the karma to downvote you into oblivion.
- tomrod 14y agoDon't worry, I agree with you.
- GHFigs 14y ago"The majority of our revenue comes from the search functionality in the Firefox browser. Google is the largest source of revenue and in December 2011, we announced that we negotiated a significant and mutually beneficial revenue agreement with Google. This new agreement extends our long term search relationship with Google for at least three additional years." -- http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2011/ http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2011/
- pjscott 14y agoSpecifically, they're getting about $300 million per year from the Big Bad Google.
- bdcravens 14y agoI upvoted you because so many tend to forget this. Any comparisons of Firefox v. Chrome need to bear in mind the fact that development of Firefox is enabled by Google. It's also important to note that the $1B they pay Apple isn't insignificant either: http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-billion-324728/ http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-...
- Apocryphon 14y agoHas/will Ubuntu Mobile, Tizen or any of the other minor players announced anything similar?
- espadrine 14y agoUbuntu: They sure would love to. Their last move was to call out for mobile operators and constructors. If anything, this move will lower their chances (a mobile operator already committed to an endeavor might not risk another). They may get a niche market if their tech is good, however. Tizen: They will announce a market release, but really it depends on partnerships with mobile operators.
- Tomdarkness 14y agoI'm just curious, so don't take this comment to mean or imply anything. What does "commitment" to a mobile OS from a operator actually mean? What do, in this case, Mozilla get from it? As someone outside of the mobile phone industry (Just a simple consumer) I don't see the advantage of having a mobile phone service provider "committing" to your OS. Surely hardware manufacturers are vastly more important as they are the people who are actually going to create devices that can run your OS?
- ximeng 14y agoMobile operators tend to have strong distribution networks in their home countries, so they can help with marketing. They are also likely to have partnerships with local companies of various sorts. Their cooperation is necessary for improved billing systems as mentioned in the article. They also develop custom features and integrations with phones for additional revenue streams.
- nookiemonster 14y agoMobile operators have to certify devices, even if they don't include them in the portfolio. This is a consequence of commitments to a country's spectrum management organizations. If an operator expresses commitment, I would take this is a very important initial step, but not necessarily an indicator of full blown embracement of a platform. Operators will schedule time for a device to go through their certification labs. This means that a device can get approval from the regional spectrum bodies for qualifications that ensure the device doesn't interfere with authorized spectrum devices. Lab certification is not free- the operators are eating a cost. But certainly it's not the same thing as buying pallets of devices and trying to sell them to consumers.
- narag 14y agoI can't answer for sure for all of them. Just a bit of information: president of Telefónica has repeteadly declared that they're not happy with how Google and others profit by using "their" networks without paying. Last time, a year ago if memory serves, he also hinted that they were going to create an app store that will revolutionize Internet. I'm not sure that those declarations had anything to do with FFOS. I don't care anyway. If Telefónica uses their huge physical stores chain and their terminals subside practices to promote FFOS, I'd be happy.
- joelberman 14y agoHow many phone OS do we need? I think the reason we have so many is the same reason we have so many different power connectors and screw heads. Because too many A$$hats are alive.
- ngokevin 14y agoCompetition is good. If you're worried about connectors, it probably has a MicroUSB-b port, and you don't have to get it.
- meaty 14y agoI hope they don't do an Android I.e 18 fragmented broken rarely upgraded OS's with horrible carrier customisation. This is the area that Microsoft with WinPhone 7+ and Apple with iOS have got right.
- rayiner 14y agoBut that's what will happen. This looks destined to be a competitor to Android in the low-end space, allowing carriers and handset manufacturers to customize their offerings to differentiate them from the other cheap offerings.
- currysausage 14y agoIt really amuses me that those Android phone manufacturers seem to believe customers gave a s--t about them trying to differentiate themselves from other brands. Actually, if customers obviously don't care about their horrible disimprovements, it only shows that they don't care at all. Do those managers even use their own gadgets? I believe not. What I don't get is why they don't allow me to put a vanilla Android on the device. Oh, wait: they want me to buy a new phone when a major Android update comes out. Nope, guys, I'm gonna stick with iPhone or Nexus. Too sad the majority of customers likes to be fooled.
- yareally 14y ago> Too sad the majority of customers likes to be fooled. Not really fooled, just ignorant. Google is partially to blame for not marketing and cultivating Android as a brand more and leaving it up to OEMs (who mostly ignore it as a brand to differentiate once again).
- zobzu 14y agoIt has some key advantages update wise, if carriers play the game properly. You can update FFOS in a restartless fashion for most cases.
- DannyBee 14y ago
- st3fan 14y agoThis is frakking awesome. This means that a considerable part of the world will get access to Firefox OS and afforable phones.
- rimantas 14y ago"It takes a one man to lead a horse to a river, but even forty cannot make it drink". Having access does not mean a lot will care.
- anirugu 14y agoStupid care about Sticker. Great men never care about what they use !. Suppose Every great men can be seen with their Apple product. They will tell you how they bought it. Simply they see that it's better then compare to Windows. Simple !. Apple sell without Manual. For example a men look for a Mobile. They will see one and check the spec and finally bought it. Sometime (only few for me) OS matter when the apps they want is available to few platform OS. Suppose I use a Mobile and I need 10 apps and all of them available in Firefox then their is no need to go with Android. IF Firefox make me happy then I will give it a try (example not serious). When Someone really Like Windows 8 phone and they want to bought it. OS never matter (even they are MSFT hatters). I maybe confused with this writing myself but it's quite clear then people will gave it try if they have no actual need or their few requirement can be done on the phone they want to buy.
- slajax 14y agoI'm pretty excited about the possibility of Firefox OS gaining significant traction. If it were up to me Mozilla would be in just about every market online. They are great at keeping people honest. Between this and Identify Mozilla is coming back!
- kevining 14y agoHere's a video if anyone wants to see what one of these devices actually looks like: http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/24/zte-open-hands-on/ http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/24/zte-open-hands-on/
- espadrine 14y agoI feel the coming irony of the days when FirefoxOS will perform better and be faster than Ubuntu phones. (It's already true, but since Ubuntu phones aren't there yet, the comparison is unfair.)
- kevining 14y agoThe low end ubuntu hardware specification is better than what they are showcasing FirefoxOS on at MWC currently. It's hard to guess what the end comparison will be once it's fully production ready. Android and FFOS perform similarly on the same hardware platform for what it's worth - each have their own advantages in some cases.
- jburnat 14y agoI'm torn. On one hand, I really want Firefox to succeed. On the other, the blood of mobile operators is as dark and thick as tar. Can this end well?
- hoi 14y agoTotally irrelevant until operators actually start selling and subsidizing the devices. Operators will support all OS's, it's in their interest to make sure there is competition at the device and OS level. True commitment comes when they start putting marketing dollars behind the real products.
- confluence 14y agoI love watching how incentives drive so many things I see around me. Looks like the operators have just realised that Android is commoditizing their services and turning them into just dumb substitutable commodity data providers.