5 ms·

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

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.
      - embolism 13y ago
        No disagreement, however the dissonance is that those who have for so long championed Android, would now have to switch to criticizing it.
        PommeDeTerre 13y ago
        I'd gladly switch to Firefox OS if it were a superior mobile operating system. I'd gladly criticize Android if it couldn't compete with this hypothetical version of Firefox OS that's better. I'm sure many others here are in exactly the same boat. But we can't do that, because Firefox OS is clearly inferior to Android in so many significant ways. Its performance appears to be a problem. Its functionality is quite limited. Its "openness" is overstated. It provides an awful environment for developers, in terms of language support, compared to other mobile OSes. Basically nobody is actually using it yet, so there's little incentive to target it. It appears comparatively hostile toward anyone wishing to merely recoup the cost of creating an app, never mind make a profit. Until Firefox OS gets its act together, it will face criticism and negative comparisons with Android. I hope that people like you are capable of seeing what's truly behind this (that is, the inferiority of Firefox OS compared to Android), rather than misattributing it to "dissonance", or "shilling", or some other nonsensical reason like that.
PanickedOmlette 13y ago
Why are you people downvoting his comment? He expressed his opinion and provided arguments. Granted, I don't agree with him, however, I am not going to downvote just because it says something I don't agree with. :) As for Firefox OS, I am really excited, because more competition == lower prices and more to choose from. Hehehe!
- PommeDeTerre 13y ago
  Competition, especially enough competition to start affecting prices in any meaningful way, doesn't just happen because alternatives merely exist. The alternatives need to be extremely compelling in order to draw users away from very well-established incumbents. From what we've seen so far, it's very doubtful that Firefox OS is capable of doing this. In terms of functionality, it is far behind what other mobile OSes have offered for years. What's worse, what it does offer is already offered by its competitors. It also offers much less flexibility when it comes to how developers can build their apps. It doesn't really compete in terms of cost, as used Android and iOS devices are widely available at very reasonable prices, even in developing nations. Finally, the claims about it being more "open" are specious, at best. It's very difficult to find anything compelling about it. Regardless of what criteria is considered, it just doesn't offer any advantages. Widespread uptake just does not happen when this is the case.
  - tmzt 13y ago
    It could be argued that the alternative for the FirefoxOS devices that have been announced are Android devices with similar hardware, but running either outdated versions of Android or suffering the limitations of running a platform built for newer devices on a device with more limitations. This is a similar position to the one Microsoft is taking with WP7 through the less expense carriers in the US, the speed and responsiveness of WP7 is put up against Android 2.3 on a low capability CPU and GPU. WP7 seems to have been designed to render the "tile" display fast on lower quality graphics hardware. If Mozilla and partners are positioning these devices against entry level devices from companies like Motorola and ZTE in less developed countries they could do well.
mraleph 13y ago
Dart is not JavaScript by far. It has very different semantics in its core, unlike TypeScript or CoffeeScript.
potch 13y ago
> Firefox OS is one of the most obviously-wasteful and doomed efforts we've seen in a long time. You didn't see our orphan-powered fax machine initiative then.

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.
    - embolism 13y ago
      No disagreement, however the dissonance is that those who have for so long championed Android, would now have to switch to criticizing it.
      - PommeDeTerre 13y ago
        I'd gladly switch to Firefox OS if it were a superior mobile operating system. I'd gladly criticize Android if it couldn't compete with this hypothetical version of Firefox OS that's better. I'm sure many others here are in exactly the same boat. But we can't do that, because Firefox OS is clearly inferior to Android in so many significant ways. Its performance appears to be a problem. Its functionality is quite limited. Its "openness" is overstated. It provides an awful environment for developers, in terms of language support, compared to other mobile OSes. Basically nobody is actually using it yet, so there's little incentive to target it. It appears comparatively hostile toward anyone wishing to merely recoup the cost of creating an app, never mind make a profit. Until Firefox OS gets its act together, it will face criticism and negative comparisons with Android. I hope that people like you are capable of seeing what's truly behind this (that is, the inferiority of Firefox OS compared to Android), rather than misattributing it to "dissonance", or "shilling", or some other nonsensical reason like that.

PanickedOmlette 13y ago

Why are you people downvoting his comment? He expressed his opinion and provided arguments. Granted, I don't agree with him, however, I am not going to downvote just because it says something I don't agree with. :) As for Firefox OS, I am really excited, because more competition == lower prices and more to choose from. Hehehe!

PommeDeTerre 13y ago
Competition, especially enough competition to start affecting prices in any meaningful way, doesn't just happen because alternatives merely exist. The alternatives need to be extremely compelling in order to draw users away from very well-established incumbents. From what we've seen so far, it's very doubtful that Firefox OS is capable of doing this. In terms of functionality, it is far behind what other mobile OSes have offered for years. What's worse, what it does offer is already offered by its competitors. It also offers much less flexibility when it comes to how developers can build their apps. It doesn't really compete in terms of cost, as used Android and iOS devices are widely available at very reasonable prices, even in developing nations. Finally, the claims about it being more "open" are specious, at best. It's very difficult to find anything compelling about it. Regardless of what criteria is considered, it just doesn't offer any advantages. Widespread uptake just does not happen when this is the case.
- tmzt 13y ago
  It could be argued that the alternative for the FirefoxOS devices that have been announced are Android devices with similar hardware, but running either outdated versions of Android or suffering the limitations of running a platform built for newer devices on a device with more limitations. This is a similar position to the one Microsoft is taking with WP7 through the less expense carriers in the US, the speed and responsiveness of WP7 is put up against Android 2.3 on a low capability CPU and GPU. WP7 seems to have been designed to render the "tile" display fast on lower quality graphics hardware. If Mozilla and partners are positioning these devices against entry level devices from companies like Motorola and ZTE in less developed countries they could do well.

mraleph 13y ago

Dart is not JavaScript by far. It has very different semantics in its core, unlike TypeScript or CoffeeScript.

potch 13y ago

> Firefox OS is one of the most obviously-wasteful and doomed efforts we've seen in a long time. You didn't see our orphan-powered fax machine initiative then.