4 ms·
Oh, hello PommeDeTerre. Haven't we had roughly the same conversation last week on another thread? > Firefox OS will need to successfully compete against BlackB
by Yoric 13y ago
Oh, hello PommeDeTerre. Haven't we had roughly the same conversation last week on another thread?
> Firefox OS will need to successfully compete against BlackBerry OS, Windows Mobile, [...]
Yes, a new product needs to compete with existing products. That goes without saying.
> And how exactly is it "different"?
Frankly? Try it, you'll see. For me, it's different insofar as I can write a small game and self-publish it in a few hours. I don't have to pay anyone, I don't have to wait for anybody's permission (compare with iOS), I don't have to download a SDK, and my users will be able to run/install the self-published app immediately (compare with Android). Oh, and of course, my students can do the same, which is a big deal to me.
It's different insofar as an application written for FirefoxOS will also work on Android (and hopefully on iOS) and, in many cases, on your Desktop/Laptop. By opposition to what you seem to believe, this is not a design flaw. This is called not locking in your users. It's the kind of thing that Mozilla does.
It's different insofar as much of the development is done by the community of users. Not a privately-held company that decides what is best for us in terms of features or performance or privacy.
Oh, I almost forgot: it's different insofar as said company does not own all my private data by default.
> It's hard to see how it'll compete on vague notions of "openness" that most consumers really could not care any less about [...]
In the US, maybe. In India or Africa (or parts of China or Russia or Turkey ...), for instance? Not so. People care a lot about having a phone that they can use, which means first and foremost a phone that works in their language, even if that language is not a big commercial target. That's what openness is about, not about people like us squabbling on some high tech news aggregator.
> It can't even really compete on price, given the existence of Android.
Of course it can. On low-powered phones, FirefoxOS tends to outperform Android by a large margin. This means that you can have the same experience with cheaper phones.
Caveat: I'm a Mozillian.
- rimantas 13y ago> Caveat: I'm a Mozillian. Oh. If your view resembles that of the most of mozillians then I think Firfox OS is already doomed. What you wrote might appeal to some developers, but it means little to users. And I am not sure how many developers are interested in platform in which users are not interested. Looks like when Blake Ross left Mozilla so did understanding the user.
- Ygg2 13y ago> then I think Firfox OS is already doomed. Perhaps it is. We'll see how it will play out. It's hard to say at this point. Going for <$100 phones seems like a smart move. The user they are targeting is one that wants a smartphone and wants it cheap. They are also targeting developers in with their OS and API. Android 1.0 wasn't that impressive when it shipped either. But look where it is now.
- alsocasey 13y agoWindows desktop dominance was once (long ago) secured using much the same approach: make it easy for developers to develop and self publish on your platform.
- bad_user 13y ago> What you wrote might appeal to some developers, but it means little to users If you look throughout history, the operating systems that succeeded where the operating systems preferred by developers. Whether this is mixing causality with correlation, we can't really be sure, since the marketplace is in general weird, however it's safe to assume that popularity amongst users is related to popularity amongst developers. 1) Exhibit A: Windows versus OS/2 (remember IBM's OS/2 ?) 2) Exhibit B: "The Return of the Mac", by Paul Graham - http://paulgraham.com/mac.html http://paulgraham.com/mac.html 3) Exhibit C: Symbian in 2007 had 70% of the market-share or even more
- glogla 13y agoI'm curious about this: > Of course it can. On low-powered phones, FirefoxOS tends to outperform Android by a large margin. This means that you can have the same experience with cheaper phones. I don't want to imply you're lying or something, but is there something to support this claim? For example, I have Huawei Ascend G300 here (1)(, and apparently I can install FFOS on it. Is it going to be faster than CyanogenMod 10.1? (1): Pretty popular model here in Eastern Europe -- of course, iPhones are way more popular because they cost about 150% of median monthly wage and thus are a great way to show you're rich.
- Yoric 13y ago> I don't want to imply you're lying or something, but is there something to support this claim? I can only speak from my personal experience, sorry. Maybe someone else has benchmarks to back the claim.
- glogla 13y agoFor the record, I tested it [1] and it was reasonably fast, about as fast as android on the same device. It felt faster than stock android but slower than highly optimized unofficial android the community worked on for about a year, which is to be expected. The phone is pretty laggy even with that android, though, for example, it takes photo in about four seconds after you press the button. [1]: http://www.modaco.com/topic/359564-b2g-firefox-os-for-the-huawei-ascend-g300-rom-last-updated-0612/page__st__100#entry2139945 http://www.modaco.com/topic/359564-b2g-firefox-os-for-the-hu...