Mozilla Drops $25 Smartphone Plans, Will Focus On Higher Quality Devices 90
An anonymous reader writes: When Mozilla developed Firefox OS, its goal was not to provide the best smartphone experience, but to provide a "good enough" smartphone experience for a very low price. Unfortunately, these cheap handsets failed to make a dent in the overall smartphone market, and the organization is now shifting its strategy to start producing a better experience for better devices. CEO Chris Beard said, "If you are going to try to play in that world, you need to offer something that is so valuable that people are willing to give up access to the broader ecosystem. In the mass market, that's basically impossible." Of course, when moving to the midrange smartphone market, or even the high end, there's still plenty of competition, so the new strategy may not work any better. However, they've hinted at plans to start supporting Android apps, which could help them play catch-up. Beard seems fixated on this new goal: "We won't allow ourselves to be distracted, and we won't expand to new segments until significant traction is demonstrated." He adds, "We will build products that feel like Mozilla."
Why do this in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why is Mozilla trying to enter into the cheap handset market? This isn't their core competencies.
It just seems like they're flailing about trying to define the next big thing. And, really, that seems to be a waste of resources.
This just feels like Mozilla has kind of lost the plot.
Re:Why do this in the first place? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it will collapse otherwise because it no longer can suck on Google's teet.
But now, they've got Bing's teat to suck on.
I imagine that eventually people will stop giving Mozilla boatloads of free money and Mozilla will have to figure out a way to function like a real business. However, this isn't it:
"they've hinted at plans to start supporting Android apps"
That will kill Firefox OS faster than anything. If Firefox OS runs Android apps then there's no reason for write any Firefox OS apps. There already are a gazillion Android apps out there. And if you think of something new, and you're already experienced at writing for Android, there's no need to learn how to write for Firefox OS, just keep making Android apps. And if there are no Firefox OS-specific apps then there's no reason to use Firefox OS.
Google The Failure of OS/2
Re: (Score:1)
>Because it will collapse otherwise because it no longer can suck on Google's teet.
If there's only one, that might not be a teet.
Developing an alternative low/mid-end product would be a far more valuable contribution if there were also some key differentiating feature. If a more-secure product with refined web standards, were tweaked to allow some expression of ad preferences while aggressively fighting any kind of personal data-mining, many might value that.
A breakthrough mainstream product might have
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you just listed off all the features regular consumers do not care about.
Re: (Score:3)
There will, never, ever be a "killer app" for Firefox OS. And who cares? This isn't a video game console. People expect a phone to have all the basic apps like Facebook/Runkeeper/Whatever, and it's impossible to think such an app would be developed for a single platform. Nobody buys an Android because they can't get Hulu for iOS.
Firefox will succeed if people prefer the look & feel of the OS, and if it's easy to get, and if it easily runs all the apps expected of it. As long as it works, who cares
Re: Why do this in the first place? (Score:3)
I have a better idea: Just use Android, only write a drop in replacement for Play Services. Pull an Amazon, only invite other OEMs to the party so that they sell your devices, and no walled garden.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a better idea: Just use Android, only write a drop in replacement for Play Services. Pull an Amazon, only invite other OEMs to the party so that they sell your devices, and no walled garden.
How would this be attractive to OEMs? Google already offers an extremely well-developed open ecosystem. Amazon wanted to have their own walled garden, but you're assuming there are OEMs that don't want to do that, but want to have a different ecosystem, and want it enough to be willing to accept smaller sales numbers. What would make them want to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
there's no reason to write firefox apps NOW.
either the firefox apps need to be natively packagable for android or the other way around.
however, if it feels like mozilla? what do they mean? that they'll add a skinning system to it with big fanfare and then drop it? that at first it'll be a lean mean thing that runs quick and then quickly will get bloated with stupid shit while they move yes/no/cancel buttons to different combinations and orientations without telling you?
also, it feels just like a fucking co
Re: (Score:2)
there's no reason to write firefox apps NOW.
But if it runs Android apps then why would developers write for Firefox and alienate Android users when they could just write for Android and have it run on Firefox OS anyway?
Having an application library just reduces the burden on the "killer feature", it doesn't have to be so great that people abandon the Android or iOS application library but that feature still needs to be good enough to drive adoption.
Re:Why do this in the first place? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that they are essentially rudderless without Google's yearly handouts. If Mozilla had diversified their revenue long ago they wouldn't be in this situation of throwing tons of shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is that they are essentially rudderless without Google's yearly handouts. If Mozilla had diversified their revenue long ago they wouldn't be in this situation of throwing tons of shit at the wall to see what sticks.
They were too busy firing a CEO because "ZOMG GAY MARRIAGE"
Re: (Score:1)
Because how else are they supposed to make the money to keep operating, when everything else they try just makes naive, idealistic people stop supporting them? T-shirts and donations aren't cutting it, and they can't operate on zero, especially when they're not just making browsers, but are trying to compete with Google, MS, and Apple on how the web is steered. They need their core team to keep fighting to modernize Firefox, so why not a licensing scheme like FirefoxOS? They've already broken with Google li
Re: (Score:2)
Well, making their browser useful again would be a start. The gap between Chrome and Firefox is hilarious now. There's a good reason why every new browser makes outthere uses a Blink/Webkit derivative and not Gecko.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a line that's been trotted around so much since 2008 that I think people just believe it's inherently true, rather than checking for themselves. If so many people out there have noticed how shitty Chrome has become, and how much Safari/WebKit has stalled, then why can't you?
What's really pathetic is that Firefox truly is usable and useful, compared to Chrome and the rest. It's hardly incapable of doing what the others do, they're even largely caught up to Chrome in terms of HTML5 features and are fa
Re: (Score:1)
12 years and they still haven't solved the memory leak problem. Memory usage easily goes up to 1 or 2GB after a week of use and closing all tabs couldn't fix it. Compared that to Chrome - at least Chrome utilizes a multi-process model which ensures everything gets cleaned up the moment you close a tab.
The entire Mozilla/Gecko engine is NOT meant to be suitable for integration because they somehow decided it's better to have their own platform, GUI, internal scripting and everything instead of just a core en
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So why is Mozilla trying to enter into the cheap handset market? This isn't their core competencies.
It just seems like they're flailing about trying to define the next big thing. And, really, that seems to be a waste of resources.
This just feels like Mozilla has kind of lost the plot.
Mozilla lost the plot long ago. Their combination of arrogance and incompetence has ruined what was once the best browser around.
But at least they forced their CEO to resign because he voted against same sex marriage. They've got that going for them.
Re: (Score:2)
But at least they forced their CEO to resign because he voted against same sex marriage.
That is soooo not what happened. I'll never understand: If what Mozilla did was so wrong then why can't the people shaking their finger at them be honest about what actually happened?
He donated $1,000 to have ads like this produced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 [youtube.com]. We heard about it because his own employees raised the issue.
Saying he was forced to resign because of a vote he made is just plain dishonest.
Re: Why do this in the first place? (Score:2)
MoFo is expert at making excuses for architectural deficiencies that slay the UX but have 15-year-old bugs on them because "that touches a lot of code". And fostering an environment where that's A-OK. In the time that Mozilla's not been able to get async tasks out of the UI thread, Elon Musk has build a spaceship company that's gone to the ISS and landed a rocket back to Earth. It's either a lack of engineering discipline or absurdist leadership - hard to say which or both but no for-profit firm would to
Re:Why do this in the first place? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do this in the first place?
Unlike the desktop, most people use the browser supplied with their smartphone/tablet. Apple doesn't allow any application competing with their own as far as I know and on Android Chrome is a central part of Google's all-or-nothing package of apps and services. Maybe they think that for once they'll be the default browser on something. Then again, they're not a first party browser on the desktop either so why they need to have delusions of grandeur I don't know. What I do know is that they have zero chance of pulling off a whole mobile ecosystem with apps and everything. Even Microsoft struggle like hell and they have poured billions into Windows Phone, the Nokia buyout and whatnot.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't allow any application competing with their own as far as I know
And what you know amounts to very little apparently. When was the last time you heard anything about iOS? 2009? What Apple doesn't allow is third-party web engines, but they allow alternate webkit-based browsers. There are probably hundreds of such applications in the App Store.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple do indeed (still) have an infrequently enforced policy about competing apps
Such as?
That there are lots of alternative web browsers based on their webkit does not suggest 'competing' browsers, because those browsers are unable to meaningfully compete.
They can't compete on the rendering engine, sure, but users don't actually give two shits about that. The browsers compete on the other features they can provide.
Re: (Score:2)
and they still do not allow the default email or browser app to be changed.
No, but companies can do like what Google does and just tightly integrate all your apps together where clicking something in one launches another one of your apps to handle it.
Re: (Score:2)
What Apple doesn't allow is third-party web engines, but they allow alternate webkit-based browsers.
Are "alternate webkit-based browsers" capable of adding support for HTML5 elements and attributes that Apple chose to leave out of WebKit for iOS? Are they allowed to associate themselves with the http: and https: schemes? I didn't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Are "alternate webkit-based browsers" capable of adding support for HTML5 elements and attributes that Apple chose to leave out of WebKit for iOS? Are they allowed to associate themselves with the http: and https: schemes?
No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
I didn't think so.
And I never said they could so I don't see the relevance.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, Firefox for iOS uses system WebKit as well. This could result in an interesting situation where Firefox on Android runs like crap, but Firefox on iOS runs pretty nicely (still like crap because embedded WebKit disables Nitro).
As for why, Safari runs with reduced permissions that allow JIT code compiling, embedded WebKit runs with standard (i.e., greater) permissions so JIT code is a se
Re: (Score:2)
It's only ironic if you have no knowledge of Apple's policies.
As for webkit performance, stay up-to-date: webkit on iOS 8 [9to5mac.com]. iOS 8 has been out for half a year.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought iOS 8 allows 3rd party browsers to use Nitro?
System-provided yet extensible? (Score:2)
No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
I intended to ask whether "the system-provided WebKit" could be extended with additional application-provided behaviors for elements and attributes that "the system-provided WebKit" alone does not provide.
Re: (Score:2)
You may not think (so), but that doesn't make you correct. What exactly is stopping an app developer for using http or https as a custom scheme?
The Apple-provided app is launched instead (Score:2)
What exactly is stopping an app developer for using http or https as a custom scheme?
The fact that Safari has already grabbed it. Apple's Inter-App Communication page [apple.com] states: "The handlers for these schemes are fixed and cannot be changed. If your URL type includes a scheme that is identical to one defined by Apple, the Apple-provided app is launched instead of your app."
Re: (Score:1)
Because the people in charge are deranged loonies?
Look I'm all for there being cheap devices that the poor and starving can afford, but those devices are essentially worthless if the wireless access services are so expensive that they can't even use them. That is the problem with this line of thinking "cheap is better" ... no cheaper is only better when the cost to use it is zero.
Ask anyone with a high end gamer PC how much it costs them in electricity. They won't know. I can tell you right now that a mid-h
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think SpiderMonkey/Gecko are the villains here. Specs are in order to reach a price point.
Profit margins on a $25 device are zilch, so manufacturers need to cut corners by releasing products unsuited to a 2015 era OS. Try running iOS 8 or Android 5 on a handset with 128MB and a Cortex A5 CPU - that's a phone released in 2014 with specs equivalent to an iPhone 1 or a Nokia 97 from last decade.
By comparison on better hardware - Performance on their reference phone, the Flame, is decent. ZTE are releas
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a ZTE - bought it as a back up in case I break my main phone - I used it for a couple of months to get used to it / check it worked for me.
Seems fine for the basics, sat nav was a bit flaky but I don't use my phone for that much. Otherwise perfectly fine for voice, sms, and a bit of browsing.
Re: (Score:2)
These aren't your grandfather's web applications.
You download a bundle from the firefox marketplace and it installs on your device. Offline. Such an app will thus use no more 3G data than a corresponding app for iOS or Android.
Re: (Score:2)
HTML5 supports offline storage. Once enough applications are built to use that feature in an intelligent way, world-class data plans don't matter as much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Memory leaky. Soon to have targeted advertising. Uses at least 2x the memory available.
Read the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing (Score:3)
Law 8 is "the law of duality" - every market becomes a two horse race. Coca-Cola & Pepsi, Nike & Reebok, etc. The horses here are "iPhone" and "Android". The best Mozilla can hope for at this point is to become Royal Crown Cola.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe look into who owns those brands. Often there aren't as many players in a market as it first appears.
Re: (Score:2)
But there's still more than two players, which makes it not a duality.
Re: (Score:2)
No offense, but your mistake is not understanding the segmentation. Look at all the restaurant chains/franchises owned by Yum to get an idea of how crazy it all is. You're correct that not all markets are dualities, but it's a very common theme particularly when you understand how companies place their brands.
I would particularly recommend the chapters around it which explain that you can create a new segment very easily.
Mozilla barking up wrong market (Score:1)
I think Mozilla has generally lost its way. I really don't think there is much market for smartphones left with any hope of making good profit. Even Microsoft has basically resorted to the bottom feeder approach because Android and IOS have basically controlled the smartphone market for some time. Even the bigger early giant Blackberry has pretty much been killed off. I really do not know why Mozilla felt the need to enter a very crowded mobile OS market? They could not even get their web browser Firefox in
Re: (Score:2)
Security updates on Firefox OS 2.2 (Score:3)
Quoted from the Mozilla guy's email :
"We will ship v2.2 and all pending work to deliver entry-level smartphones with our key partners. Additional appropriate feature work will be rolled into Ignite. v2.2 will be maintained as a long-lived branch with security and stability updates only."
Probably means that cheap Firefox OS 2.2 phones will have a stagnant OS, but if security updates come in with regularity and for years that's precisely what we need. Are other people feeling that way? I don't care that much about how many megapixels and shiznits there are in that thing, I want it to be supported.
It lacks features though, I hope when they talk of "extensibilty" that will include ways to filter the web. PR about freedom and privacy does not work so well if it's e.g. loading facebook buttons everywhere and they can't be blocked.
Fix importan stuff first (Score:2)
Why are they wasting their time on this crap? Firefox has still got a lot of bugs and every release it seems the performance drops and memory consumption increases. What happened to the original goal of Firefox to have a lean and mean browser?
Re: (Score:2)
With Android smartphones, you get much more value for money when you don't buy today's middle model but yesterday's top model. By that time, you also know if you can root it (if not, buy another model) and reclaim your freedom.
get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox (Score:5, Interesting)
Much of the value of Google's contacts, calendar, music player, etc. on Android is I can access the data from any browser. It's so useful I grit my teeth and share my personal info with evil Google. Firefox OS has its own HTML5 versions of those apps running locally, yet they don't run in desktop or Android Firefox. If the apps did run in every Firefox (and eventually any standards-compliant browser) and Firefox Sync securely kept the apps' data in sync (FF Sync is encrypted, so no one can spy on my personal data) then i would find it pretty compelling.
That's my 2 cents, it merely takes $20M to implement. I like Firefox, and I enjoy the sync. Having open productivity apps running in a browser fits with Mozilla's mission. I want more stuff running in a browser without spying, because it levels the playing field for Linux and could lead to a lightweight boot-to-browser environment for my phone, laptop, desktop, and tablet. Part of Google has that vision with ChromeOS, but they can't let go of the lock-in and dominance Android gave them. It's depressing seeing everyone piss all over Mozilla instead of supporting an alternative to picking a closed proprietary environment provided by a spying corporation.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my 2 cents, it merely takes $20M to implement.
Plus a lot more to operate the data centers needed to store and sync all that data around. For Mozilla to build that they'd have to find some way to pay for it. Given that people are generally not willing to pay monthly fees for that sort of service, advertising is the obvious option. But to make the advertising effective, it needs to be targeted, so...
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use the web service you want to, and simply use Mozilla Sync to provide the bookmark to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not use the web service you want to, and simply use Mozilla Sync to provide the bookmark to it.
Because web services spy on you and share or sell what you give them and everything else they discern about you. Firefox with cookie and tracker blockers reduces some of your exposure, but why have any? My calendar, to-do list, and movements are nobody's business but my own.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree but theoretically there'd be a reputable service, perhaps with a small fee like $1/month, that you would use for that and only that, with web site, mobile web site and Firefox OS application. (The Firefox OS "app" can be just a shortcut to the website at worst).
Small data, no media etc. (a playlist can be stored as it's kilobyte-sized though of limited use), not even mail.
I like that on yahoo mail there's a small section where you can simply enter raw text notes and I can put some shit there.. But i
Re: (Score:2)
That's my 2 cents, it merely takes $20M to implement.
Plus a lot more to operate the data centers needed to store and sync all that data around. ...
True. The sync payload isn't that big for the apps I mentioned. Music is a lot to transfer but with de-duping of everyone's identical Taylor Swift tracks it isn't so much to store, though i can't see how you maintain encryption with de-duping. I deliberately left a photo-video app off the list because it's a huge amount of unique data that you do want backed up and your favorites sync'd. So maybe you pay for cloud media storage and only Firefox-sync metadata. Or web apps sync big data with OwnCloud or Freed
Re: (Score:2)
Even the small payload becomes a big logistical challenge when you're looking at doing it globally, for large numbers of devices and want to make it fast (means having data centers in all regions), and make it reliable (means having redundancy, at multiple levels). Oh, and the "all the data is encrypted" bit may expose regulatory problems, too.
I really want an alternative to Android, but it's an even bigger challenge than I thought.
What specifically are you looking for? As an alternative, are there some ways that Android could be improved to alleviate whatever concerns you have? If your concerns
Safari and Chrome already run HTML5 apps very well (Score:2)
Mozilla launched Firefox OS in 2013 with the goal of breaking open the "walled gardens" that confine iOS and Android...
:
:
Mozilla's alternative is to embrace the Web. No matter what operating system a device uses... Firefox OS thus runs apps written for the Web, which in principle means those apps run on any other device, too.
:
:
: :
[auntie Elizabeth returns Firefox phone because she can’t Skype/FaceTime/WhatsApp/...]
[reality sets in at Mozilla]
[consumers in emerging markets don’t care about operating systems, walled gardens, lock-in, etc. as long as the phone runs their favourite apps]
"To bridge this app gap between user expectations and the readiness of the ecosystem, we will explore implementing Android app compatibility," Beard said
:
:
:
[Mozilla declares Android’s picket fence more acceptable than iOS’s palisade fence]
[Mozilla digs foxhole in Android’s not-so-walled garden and declares it open]
[Mozilla tunnels under iOS palisade fence an
Plan A (Score:1)
If Mozilla continues alienating their loyal user base by changing the gui every release without fixing the abysmal multicore performance i guarantee that the user base won't jump on the firefoxOS bandwagon.