6 ms·

Mozilla’s Firefox OS Gets First Update, Heads for Second Phase of Launches

127 points by keviv 13y ago

programminggeek 13y ago
I have no idea if Firefox OS is going to take off or not, but I am looking forward for it to do well. I am not saying that as someone who thinks HTML5 is the best way to build apps, because it really isn't. I just like seeing Android having a great competitor that is open source and not driven by a huge company like Samsung. Also, this will keep Mozilla alive and relevant for at least another decade. That's a good thing and a very big deal IMO. Also, I love the look of the devices so far.
- frank_boyd 13y ago
  > someone who thinks HTML5 is the best way to build apps, because it really isn't. > I just like seeing Android having a great competitor that is open source and not driven by a huge company like Samsung You're basically looking for Ubuntu Touch, http://www.ubuntu.com/phone http://www.ubuntu.com/phone (official launch towards the end of this month, and your best bet would be a Galaxy Nexus)
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    The only issue with Ubuntu Touch is that no one knows how much traction it will get, or if it will continue to be developed. Firefox OS already has traction, devices are already in the wild, and likely will have staying power (Mozilla seems to get alot of their projects and standards out there).
- badman_ting 13y ago
  Someone who would know told me that the sales numbers in places where the devices have been released are above what they were even hoping for, though they did not get more specific than that. Take that bit of third-hand hearsay for whatever you think it's worth.
- rhelmer 13y ago
  Are you asserting that HTML/CSS/JS is not at all viable/desirable for making apps, or just not your personal preference? I'd like to know what you feel is best if the latter (and what you feel stops the former - having a standardized high-level platform has advantages!)
  - programminggeek 13y ago
    I've built HTML/CSS/JS mobile apps with phonegap and while it's fun as a developer, the user experience is just not as good as building a proper native app. If you care about user experience, build using what is native to the platform. This is why most web devs don't build web apps using Flash or Java applets anymore. Those aren't native to the platform and don't provide the best possible user experience. HTML/JS as "native" apps to a platform can absolutely work and be awesome, but it really comes down to what "native" on a given platform means. On Android it's Java, on iOS it's Obj-C, on Windows it's C#, on a web browser or Firefox OS it's HTML/JS.
    - rhelmer 13y ago
      Thanks, I appreciate the details. There definitely is a "happy path" for each platform, where tools/docs/developer support and getting into the marketplaces and so forth is much simpler and well-understood - things can get dicey when you stray from that.
  - zanny 13y ago
    Using a document markup as your application structural layout, in an environment built around either static links or argument supplemented static links, with the concepts of forward and backward through a chain of pieces of content, I think is a really poor way to design applications. For a better UX and developer experience, that still uses JS, just look at QML. Declarative, application focused, and scriptable in JS. Easy to create one UI that transitions to other layouts, but the elements are first, not the text within them.
- aray 13y ago
  The open source comment has me puzzled. Where does it differ from Android in that regard? Edit: I may have misread, I agree it is good to have more open source mobile OSes :)
  - rhelmer 13y ago
    The development process is arguably more open - everything happens in public repositories, many different individuals and companies are involved at all stages, etc. Android does parts of the development in a private tree, see http://source.android.com/faqs.html http://source.android.com/faqs.html Android itself is definitely open-source in a technical sense though, and they share a ton of useful changes back to the kernel and userspace apps that Firefox OS and many other projects use and contribute to as well.
  - soapdog 13y ago
    There is one pretty big difference. Android is developed by google behind closed doors and then released to the world once they think it is ready. You don't get to see the code or influence it during development. Firefox OS is developed in the open, all the code is on github and you can join the lists and participate on the process.
RRRA 13y ago
It really needs a VoIP, SSH and jabber client!
- thallian 13y ago
  For Jabber there is loqui: http://loqui.im/ http://loqui.im/ It already works pretty good on my peak :) (although I am not using it that much) According to the author it should get a new release next Tuesday 15.10.2013: https://github.com/waalt/loqui/issues/54 https://github.com/waalt/loqui/issues/54
  - agwa 13y ago
    What's the battery life like when using loqui? When not implemented well, XMPP clients can be a real drain on battery because of the polling and other frequent protocol messages.
    - thallian 13y ago
      I can't really say. Until it completely broke my connectivity I was using the nightly builds and there were sometimes other problems with the battery life (like wireless not really sleeping) so it's not easy to say if the drains were caused by loqui or other stuff. On the newest 1.2 image I have no data connectivity and can only use it with wifi. As that is normally in places where I have a stationary desktop with a client I am not really using it at the moment.
    - zobzu 13y ago
      I think they just implemented the push api (1.2?) without push anything like this will drain battery. so the clients will be decent battery wise (on par with android I suppose) 1.2 onwards i guess..
  - RRRA 13y ago
    I'm confused by their page mentioning SSL, is this a normal xmpp client or some form of cloud proxy to my actual server?
reidrac 13y ago
I'd love to get FFOS updates in my ZTE Open because 1.0.1 feels more like a dev preview than an end user product, to the point that it is almost useless as a smartphone. I can see the potential, but I'm not buying a new device just for that.
- kurt_ 13y ago
  I second you, mine is buggy (some times I cannot respond to a call) and missing needed feature for me (like a notification when new email arrive)
  - daleharvey 13y ago
    I just noticed today the email app has periodic sync on a current build, so hopefully it is on 1.2 (or 1.3)
- untog 13y ago
  Yeah, I'm really surprised they started selling devices as consumer-ready so early. They're great as dev test devices, but I wouldn't want to use one day-to-day.
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    If you bought the original G1 with Android on it (mine is still hiding in the back of my desk), it's not much different. You have to start somewhere.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    they mainly sold it as a replacement to feature phones, not to high-end smartphones. in that regard, it makes sense. that people try to replace their high-end smartphones with it, looks pretty promising if anything (and even if it falls a bit short for now) whats great is that anyone can improve it and they'll take the fixes. Unlike Android/Google, which refuse any external code [except some from samsung apparently] (yay openbullshit..)
- BrianEatWorld 13y ago
amenod 13y ago
I was really looking forward to checking FFOS out. But this article puts so much emphasis on carriers that I am a bit alarmed - I hope Mozilla manages to keep the FFOS open.
- yeukhon 13y ago
  You can't have a smartphone without the support from carrier. Mozilla has to deal with carriers issue and this is why they really can't make FFOS available in North America yet (beside the fact that FFOS is still in early stage...) You have to compromise with carriers and manufacturers without compromising user's privacy (FFOS tries its best to protect user's privacy, but certainly you can't do everything right?) Sometimes you have to choose certain hardware and certain price. Mozilla is a giant but it doesn't ahve the resource Google does. So when it comes to negation, it depends on how much users Mozilla FFOs has. The source code itself is open. Well the master copy. In the future there will be forks and I think Mozilla will keep its best effort to make sure phones running forks meet the standard (they are making such process, validation process to ensure Mozilla's standard is met before the build is released).
MildlySerious 13y ago
The biggest deal about FFOS so far is that I don't own a phone with this yet. This propably doesn't matter for most end users, but I think the big delay between countries where it gets available is pretty bad in terms of marketing.
- rhelmer 13y ago
  Think of FirefoxOS as a MVP - it created partnerships and an actual device, and proved there was a market in several countries underserved by current smartphones. The article is about the very first iteration on top of this. I disagree that this is bad in terms of marketing - it would be the equivalent of trying to sell a MVP to a huge enterprise company before getting any users/traction/market validation - except in this case it'd be putting a phone in the hands of consumers who are used to more advanced features and a more mature ecosystem.
andreastt 13y ago
I think the most important thing Firefox OS can do, even if it's not a financial success, is to bring Mozilla – and in extension everyone who cares about openness – to the discussion table. This can, if played right, become a very effective tactic at standardizing things on the phone/device platform. It's a fact that the web is playing a more important part on phones, and no-one has quite yet been able to figure out how to integrate it well in a native environment. Rethinking the phone environment with the browser sandbox as a toolkit is a very interesting, but also bold approach. So whether Firefox OS takes off or not is really of secondary interest to me. I'm just happy that people who care about curating and caring for the web are making their voices heard.

127 points by keviv 13y ago

I have no idea if Firefox OS is going to take off or not, but I am looking forward for it to do well. I am not saying that as someone who thinks HTML5 is the best way to build apps, because it really isn't. I just like seeing Android having a great competitor that is open source and not driven by a huge company like Samsung. Also, this will keep Mozilla alive and relevant for at least another decade. That's a good thing and a very big deal IMO. Also, I love the look of the devices so far.

frank_boyd 13y ago
> someone who thinks HTML5 is the best way to build apps, because it really isn't. > I just like seeing Android having a great competitor that is open source and not driven by a huge company like Samsung You're basically looking for Ubuntu Touch, http://www.ubuntu.com/phone http://www.ubuntu.com/phone (official launch towards the end of this month, and your best bet would be a Galaxy Nexus)
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  The only issue with Ubuntu Touch is that no one knows how much traction it will get, or if it will continue to be developed. Firefox OS already has traction, devices are already in the wild, and likely will have staying power (Mozilla seems to get alot of their projects and standards out there).
badman_ting 13y ago
Someone who would know told me that the sales numbers in places where the devices have been released are above what they were even hoping for, though they did not get more specific than that. Take that bit of third-hand hearsay for whatever you think it's worth.
rhelmer 13y ago
Are you asserting that HTML/CSS/JS is not at all viable/desirable for making apps, or just not your personal preference? I'd like to know what you feel is best if the latter (and what you feel stops the former - having a standardized high-level platform has advantages!)
- programminggeek 13y ago
  I've built HTML/CSS/JS mobile apps with phonegap and while it's fun as a developer, the user experience is just not as good as building a proper native app. If you care about user experience, build using what is native to the platform. This is why most web devs don't build web apps using Flash or Java applets anymore. Those aren't native to the platform and don't provide the best possible user experience. HTML/JS as "native" apps to a platform can absolutely work and be awesome, but it really comes down to what "native" on a given platform means. On Android it's Java, on iOS it's Obj-C, on Windows it's C#, on a web browser or Firefox OS it's HTML/JS.
  - rhelmer 13y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate the details. There definitely is a "happy path" for each platform, where tools/docs/developer support and getting into the marketplaces and so forth is much simpler and well-understood - things can get dicey when you stray from that.
- zanny 13y ago
  Using a document markup as your application structural layout, in an environment built around either static links or argument supplemented static links, with the concepts of forward and backward through a chain of pieces of content, I think is a really poor way to design applications. For a better UX and developer experience, that still uses JS, just look at QML. Declarative, application focused, and scriptable in JS. Easy to create one UI that transitions to other layouts, but the elements are first, not the text within them.
aray 13y ago
The open source comment has me puzzled. Where does it differ from Android in that regard? Edit: I may have misread, I agree it is good to have more open source mobile OSes :)
- rhelmer 13y ago
  The development process is arguably more open - everything happens in public repositories, many different individuals and companies are involved at all stages, etc. Android does parts of the development in a private tree, see http://source.android.com/faqs.html http://source.android.com/faqs.html Android itself is definitely open-source in a technical sense though, and they share a ton of useful changes back to the kernel and userspace apps that Firefox OS and many other projects use and contribute to as well.
- soapdog 13y ago
  There is one pretty big difference. Android is developed by google behind closed doors and then released to the world once they think it is ready. You don't get to see the code or influence it during development. Firefox OS is developed in the open, all the code is on github and you can join the lists and participate on the process.

RRRA 13y ago

It really needs a VoIP, SSH and jabber client!

thallian 13y ago
For Jabber there is loqui: http://loqui.im/ http://loqui.im/ It already works pretty good on my peak :) (although I am not using it that much) According to the author it should get a new release next Tuesday 15.10.2013: https://github.com/waalt/loqui/issues/54 https://github.com/waalt/loqui/issues/54
- agwa 13y ago
  What's the battery life like when using loqui? When not implemented well, XMPP clients can be a real drain on battery because of the polling and other frequent protocol messages.
  - thallian 13y ago
    I can't really say. Until it completely broke my connectivity I was using the nightly builds and there were sometimes other problems with the battery life (like wireless not really sleeping) so it's not easy to say if the drains were caused by loqui or other stuff. On the newest 1.2 image I have no data connectivity and can only use it with wifi. As that is normally in places where I have a stationary desktop with a client I am not really using it at the moment.
  - zobzu 13y ago
    I think they just implemented the push api (1.2?) without push anything like this will drain battery. so the clients will be decent battery wise (on par with android I suppose) 1.2 onwards i guess..
- RRRA 13y ago
  I'm confused by their page mentioning SSL, is this a normal xmpp client or some form of cloud proxy to my actual server?

reidrac 13y ago

I'd love to get FFOS updates in my ZTE Open because 1.0.1 feels more like a dev preview than an end user product, to the point that it is almost useless as a smartphone. I can see the potential, but I'm not buying a new device just for that.

kurt_ 13y ago
I second you, mine is buggy (some times I cannot respond to a call) and missing needed feature for me (like a notification when new email arrive)
- daleharvey 13y ago
  I just noticed today the email app has periodic sync on a current build, so hopefully it is on 1.2 (or 1.3)
untog 13y ago
Yeah, I'm really surprised they started selling devices as consumer-ready so early. They're great as dev test devices, but I wouldn't want to use one day-to-day.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  If you bought the original G1 with Android on it (mine is still hiding in the back of my desk), it's not much different. You have to start somewhere.
- zobzu 13y ago
  they mainly sold it as a replacement to feature phones, not to high-end smartphones. in that regard, it makes sense. that people try to replace their high-end smartphones with it, looks pretty promising if anything (and even if it falls a bit short for now) whats great is that anyone can improve it and they'll take the fixes. Unlike Android/Google, which refuse any external code [except some from samsung apparently] (yay openbullshit..)
BrianEatWorld 13y ago

amenod 13y ago

I was really looking forward to checking FFOS out. But this article puts so much emphasis on carriers that I am a bit alarmed - I hope Mozilla manages to keep the FFOS open.

yeukhon 13y ago
You can't have a smartphone without the support from carrier. Mozilla has to deal with carriers issue and this is why they really can't make FFOS available in North America yet (beside the fact that FFOS is still in early stage...) You have to compromise with carriers and manufacturers without compromising user's privacy (FFOS tries its best to protect user's privacy, but certainly you can't do everything right?) Sometimes you have to choose certain hardware and certain price. Mozilla is a giant but it doesn't ahve the resource Google does. So when it comes to negation, it depends on how much users Mozilla FFOs has. The source code itself is open. Well the master copy. In the future there will be forks and I think Mozilla will keep its best effort to make sure phones running forks meet the standard (they are making such process, validation process to ensure Mozilla's standard is met before the build is released).

MildlySerious 13y ago

The biggest deal about FFOS so far is that I don't own a phone with this yet. This propably doesn't matter for most end users, but I think the big delay between countries where it gets available is pretty bad in terms of marketing.

rhelmer 13y ago
Think of FirefoxOS as a MVP - it created partnerships and an actual device, and proved there was a market in several countries underserved by current smartphones. The article is about the very first iteration on top of this. I disagree that this is bad in terms of marketing - it would be the equivalent of trying to sell a MVP to a huge enterprise company before getting any users/traction/market validation - except in this case it'd be putting a phone in the hands of consumers who are used to more advanced features and a more mature ecosystem.

andreastt 13y ago

I think the most important thing Firefox OS can do, even if it's not a financial success, is to bring Mozilla – and in extension everyone who cares about openness – to the discussion table. This can, if played right, become a very effective tactic at standardizing things on the phone/device platform. It's a fact that the web is playing a more important part on phones, and no-one has quite yet been able to figure out how to integrate it well in a native environment. Rethinking the phone environment with the browser sandbox as a toolkit is a very interesting, but also bold approach. So whether Firefox OS takes off or not is really of secondary interest to me. I'm just happy that people who care about curating and caring for the web are making their voices heard.