6 ms·

I know that Mozilla aren't on the same realm of level of revenue as Apple or Google, and that they can't spend a fortune on marketing. However, that must've be

by jwarren 13y ago

I know that Mozilla aren't on the same realm of level of revenue as Apple or Google, and that they can't spend a fortune on marketing. However, that must've been one of the least inspiring product demo videos I've ever watched. It does nothing on selling me on the virtues of the phone, just running through some extraordinarily anonymous features. I realise it's extremely affordable, but that hardware looks like it does almost nothing well. While I want to develop mobile apps, I don't particularly want to develop for this device, despite the HTML/CSS/JS support fitting neatly in my skillset. The app store is probably the most curious thing, but that's hidden away and quickly glossed over. If this starts reaching developing nations, with mobile internet etc, then I could see the benefit, and that's something that I'd love to engage with. At the moment it just seems like a weird brand exercise.

PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Firefox OS is one of the most obviously-wasteful and doomed efforts we've seen in a long time. There is no compelling reason to use it, or for it to even exist. It offers no tangible benefits that we can't get elsewhere. What it does offer is pretty lousy. The only two arguments we see used to support its existence are both badly flawed: 1) Devices running it are "affordable". Maybe this is true in some absolute sense, but relative to other mobile OSes and devices this "affordability" comes at a very steep cost in terms of usability and practicality. Used Android and iOS devices can also be acquired quite cheaply these days (even in poorer nations), but unlike Firefox OS and its devices these used devices are comparatively powerful and much more practical to use. 2) It's "open". This argument is academic at best. We can already use HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and other so-called "open" technologies on Android, iOS, BlackBerry OS, and many other of the less-common mobile OSes. Android and some of the other mobile OSes are already open source software, so it's not like Firefox OS has any advantage in that sense, as well. The whole reliance on JavaScript makes Firefox OS even less-open, in my opinion. When it comes to using Android or iOS, for instance, at least we have the option of using mature, non-JavaScript languages. No, I don't really consider CoffeeScript, TypeScript or Dart to be anything but JavaScript with a prettier syntax and/or slightly better type checking. The effort put into Firefox OS would have been much better spent fixing desktop Firefox, or Firefox running on existing mobile devices. Even putting it toward Thunderbird would've been useful. But it has instead been wasted on an eighth-in-line mobile OS with limited capabilities and a severe lack of usability compared to its competitors.
- pestaa 13y ago
  This is one of the worst comments I've seen around here lately. It makes lots and lots of assumptions, doesn't back them up, and then jumps to stupid conclusions. A platform being open is not merely academic. It makes future open source software exponentionally better just like it did in the past decades. In fact, if this gets mainstream it will be the first to be truly open. Android has an open source license, but Google has never been really open about it. http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/55247-android-not-so-open-open-source http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/55247-... And why does relying on a publicly specified language with vibrant ecosystem make the platform less open? You argued that by using proprietary languages? Though I completely agree JS needs to mature... a lot. I trust Mozilla's vision that they're doing the right thing to move the web forward by putting efforts into desktop or mobile or whatever they find worthwhile.
  - rednukleus 13y ago
    There is a shocking amount of anti-hacker sentiment on this forum. There are so many people here that are desperate to make money out of the big new closed ecosystems that they are only too eager to badmouth open alternatives at every turn.
    - embolism 13y ago
      Some of it may be dissonance - people (especially in the open source community) have been proclaiming Android as open for so long that anything that challenges that idea must be denied.
      - nullc 13y ago
        Though there is no need for dissonance. Openness comes in degrees: Android is pretty open compared to IOS. Firefox OS seems more open than Android. The FSF would point out something like that the Firefox OS devices still use binary blob video drivers. Without the basic hardware/software ecosystem that android has supported it isn't clear that Firefox OS could (so easily) exist. Modern smartphones have substantially reduced platform openeness and freedom compared to the desktops of old, but the ratchet doesn't only click one way.

by jwarren 13y ago

PommeDeTerre 13y ago

Firefox OS is one of the most obviously-wasteful and doomed efforts we've seen in a long time. There is no compelling reason to use it, or for it to even exist. It offers no tangible benefits that we can't get elsewhere. What it does offer is pretty lousy. The only two arguments we see used to support its existence are both badly flawed: 1) Devices running it are "affordable". Maybe this is true in some absolute sense, but relative to other mobile OSes and devices this "affordability" comes at a very steep cost in terms of usability and practicality. Used Android and iOS devices can also be acquired quite cheaply these days (even in poorer nations), but unlike Firefox OS and its devices these used devices are comparatively powerful and much more practical to use. 2) It's "open". This argument is academic at best. We can already use HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and other so-called "open" technologies on Android, iOS, BlackBerry OS, and many other of the less-common mobile OSes. Android and some of the other mobile OSes are already open source software, so it's not like Firefox OS has any advantage in that sense, as well. The whole reliance on JavaScript makes Firefox OS even less-open, in my opinion. When it comes to using Android or iOS, for instance, at least we have the option of using mature, non-JavaScript languages. No, I don't really consider CoffeeScript, TypeScript or Dart to be anything but JavaScript with a prettier syntax and/or slightly better type checking. The effort put into Firefox OS would have been much better spent fixing desktop Firefox, or Firefox running on existing mobile devices. Even putting it toward Thunderbird would've been useful. But it has instead been wasted on an eighth-in-line mobile OS with limited capabilities and a severe lack of usability compared to its competitors.

pestaa 13y ago
This is one of the worst comments I've seen around here lately. It makes lots and lots of assumptions, doesn't back them up, and then jumps to stupid conclusions. A platform being open is not merely academic. It makes future open source software exponentionally better just like it did in the past decades. In fact, if this gets mainstream it will be the first to be truly open. Android has an open source license, but Google has never been really open about it. http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/55247-android-not-so-open-open-source http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/55247-... And why does relying on a publicly specified language with vibrant ecosystem make the platform less open? You argued that by using proprietary languages? Though I completely agree JS needs to mature... a lot. I trust Mozilla's vision that they're doing the right thing to move the web forward by putting efforts into desktop or mobile or whatever they find worthwhile.
- rednukleus 13y ago
  There is a shocking amount of anti-hacker sentiment on this forum. There are so many people here that are desperate to make money out of the big new closed ecosystems that they are only too eager to badmouth open alternatives at every turn.
  - embolism 13y ago
    Some of it may be dissonance - people (especially in the open source community) have been proclaiming Android as open for so long that anything that challenges that idea must be denied.
    - nullc 13y ago
      Though there is no need for dissonance. Openness comes in degrees: Android is pretty open compared to IOS. Firefox OS seems more open than Android. The FSF would point out something like that the Firefox OS devices still use binary blob video drivers. Without the basic hardware/software ecosystem that android has supported it isn't clear that Firefox OS could (so easily) exist. Modern smartphones have substantially reduced platform openeness and freedom compared to the desktops of old, but the ratchet doesn't only click one way.