3 ms·

I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". To ensure the survival of that platform, they're g

I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a native alternative to the HTML5/JS or whatever non-native APIs they're providing. Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, but non-native stuff is a long ways from the battery life and performance metrics that native apps can provide. The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". Mozilla's purpose is to advance the open web. Firefox OS is a means to that end, promoting a platform with that name independent of its actual nature is not an end to itself. > To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a pragmatic alternative to the HTML5/JS APIs. The entire premise of Firefox OS, and the only reason that offering it is consistent with Mozilla's organizational purpose, is that Mozilla believes that this is false. > Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, That would be, IMO, a very big success in advancing Mozilla's mission, though probably less than they hope Firefox OS can provide. > This "all web" viewpoint you seem to be sold on is not sufficiently pragmatic. I'm not "sold" on it; I suspect that Firefox OS may well be premature. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that a conventional mobile OS of the type you suggest Firefox should be, with native development along with web technologies, is completely useless for the purpose for which Mozilla exists. > The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job. So? Firefox OS doesn't have to be suitable for every job for it to survive, or for it to advance Mozilla's purposes.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. So I'll just leave with this comment: A platform needs content to survive, and customers are clearly demanding content that currently requires native SDKs on other platforms. Therefore, I believe that Mozilla to have a platform that is commercially interesting must be pragmatic and accept that for the good of the platform, they will need some sort of native SDK. Even if that native SDK is severely limited in scope. With that said, I will readily admit that Mozilla has made amazing progress. But I also strongly believe that is not yet sufficient to eliminate the need for native SDKs.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose". Mozilla's purpose is to advance the open web. Firefox OS is a means to that end, promoting a platform with that name independent of its actual nature is not an end to itself. > To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a pragmatic alternative to the HTML5/JS APIs. The entire premise of Firefox OS, and the only reason that offering it is consistent with Mozilla's organizational purpose, is that Mozilla believes that this is false. > Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, That would be, IMO, a very big success in advancing Mozilla's mission, though probably less than they hope Firefox OS can provide. > This "all web" viewpoint you seem to be sold on is not sufficiently pragmatic. I'm not "sold" on it; I suspect that Firefox OS may well be premature. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that a conventional mobile OS of the type you suggest Firefox should be, with native development along with web technologies, is completely useless for the purpose for which Mozilla exists. > The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job. So? Firefox OS doesn't have to be suitable for every job for it to survive, or for it to advance Mozilla's purposes.

binarycrusader 13y ago
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. So I'll just leave with this comment: A platform needs content to survive, and customers are clearly demanding content that currently requires native SDKs on other platforms. Therefore, I believe that Mozilla to have a platform that is commercially interesting must be pragmatic and accept that for the good of the platform, they will need some sort of native SDK. Even if that native SDK is severely limited in scope. With that said, I will readily admit that Mozilla has made amazing progress. But I also strongly believe that is not yet sufficient to eliminate the need for native SDKs.