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.
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-...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you read my other comments, I have made the similar criticisms - I.e. Firefox OS doesn't bring anything better to the table.
I'm not misattributing anything and putting words like 'shilling' into my mouth is cheap.
The fact that Android was hailed as open by the community clearly diminishes the impact of the major selling point of Firefox OS.
Even if Firefox OS was on par with Android in all aspects of performance, people would still have no reason to use it, and the argument 'because it's open' is no longer persuasive.
> "A platform being open is not merely academic. It makes future open source software exponentionally better just like it did in the past decades."
That's very arguably at the very least. As a Ubuntu user at work I can tell you how annoying are all the little bugs, all the drivers issues and hardware incompatibilities.
Yeah, you can tell me that is not linux/open source community fault, but in any case it is preventing to make future software "exponentionally" better.
Other example? I really can't stand GIMP (It is usable but really a good alternative to Photoshop)
> As a Ubuntu user at work I can tell you how annoying are all the little bugs, all the drivers issues and hardware incompatibilities.
1) What laptop are you using? Ever tried building a Hackintosh? Seems to me that either you or your company bought a computer and expected it to just work. In many cases it does so perfectly (for example on my Thinkpad it worked perfectly out of the box), in some cases it doesn't.
2) If you're so annoyed about Ubuntu, why do you keep using it? So you can bitch and moan about it?
I'm sick of people criticizing gimp. If photoshop is so much better, either:
A. Use photoshop, and pay the absurd license cost.
B. Spend what you would on photoshop to pay some starving GNU developer to implement some features you like from PS in gimp.
C. Fix the problems you have with it yourself since it is FOSS and development is open.
I don't see how Firefox OS is necessarily any more open than Android is. Firefox OS still has a very centralized, limited-access organization behind it. This organization basically completely controls the development of Firefox OS. In practice, the wider community doesn't really have any say over the functionality that's supported, or the direction that's taken.
This has become pretty apparent with desktop Firefox, for instance. There have been many poorly-thought-out decisions foisted upon its users lately, without them having any say. This has accelerated since Firefox 4 was released. Just look at the one from today about removing the ability to easily disable JavaScript in Firefox 23, for example. I don't see things being any different with Firefox OS, and I don't consider this to be a form of "openness".
The same goes for JavaScript. In practice, it really isn't more "open" than C, or C++, or Java, or Objective-C, or C#. Unless you're part of certain teams at a very small number of organizations, you're not going to have any influence at all on JavaScript. This is very different than the situation with, say, Python, where unaffiliated individuals can actually make a difference.
But I wasn't even referring to standards when it comes to JavaScript. That's peripheral to the lack of choice that exists under Firefox OS. It's not a very "open" platform when the only language you can practically use is JavaScript. Android gives us the option of using Java, or using C and C++ via the NDK, for example. That's far more choice than we have under Firefox OS.
Maybe my comment was harsh, but we are discussing reality here, not some academic fantasy. The evidence just isn't there to back up Firefox OS being more "open", or even practical in any way.
You seem to misunderstand how Mozilla works. Of course non-Mozilla devs can contribute code and new features that haven't been specifically ordered by a "centralized, limited-access organization". This happens all the time. Add to that the fact that every repository is public, that commits are visible in real-time rather than through opaque code-drops, and you get a project that's as open as it goes.
I won't discuss the openness of JavaScript vs. that of other languages, since this doesn't seem to be the purpose of your message. Yes, JavaScript is the only way to get code executed on FirefoxOS. However, considerable steps are being taken by both Mozilla and third-parties to ensure that this does not limit (too much) your choices. These days, dozens of languages can be compiled to JavaScript, directly [1] or indirectly [2], including C, C++, Objective-C, Java, C# or Python. That doesn't mean that all your applications can be ported immediately to FirefoxOS, as you'll need some library support that may or may not be available for the platform, but it's hardly limiting.
As for your "academic fantasy" paragraph, well, let's just politely ignore that trollbait.
> I don't see how Firefox OS is necessarily any more open than Android is. Firefox OS still has a very centralized, limited-access organization behind it. This organization basically completely controls the development of Firefox OS. In practice, the wider community doesn't really have any say over the functionality that's supported, or the direction that's taken.
You couldn't be more wrong. Firefox OS is developed in the open, on GitHub. You can submit pull requests. Others have. They've been accepted. FFOS is implementing a very cool text selection concept that came from the community, for example.
Android is developed behind close doors. Only release versions are opened sourced. Android does not accept patches from non-Google employees.
> Android gives us the option of using Java, or using C and C++ via the NDK, for example. That's far more choice than we have under Firefox OS.
On FF you have the option of using any language that compiles to JavaScript, which has all of the same API capabilities as JS. This is not true on Android, where every attempt to port a JVM language to Davlik has failed (thus far).
Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel.
I base this on statements made in the #android IRC channel in the past by Google developers working on Android.
As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components.
> Google does accept patches for Android from third parties, but they must go through a process that isn't exactly obvious to those third parties. I believe there is also a contributor license agreement required, but that is becoming standard practice for things including the Linux kernel.
I confirm that Mozilla has fixed a number of bugs and/or performance issues in Android. In fact, if my memory serves, Chrome for Android simply couldn't load without our patches :)
However, if my memory serves, getting these patches accepted has proved pretty difficult. I'm not the author of the patches, so I couldn't tell you why.
> As for FirefoxOS, is it possible for a user to install XPIs or XPCOM components on their own handset? I can understand why limitations would be placed on third-party applications obtained through a web service, but not why owners of devices could not install additional components.
Well, given that XPCOM components have 100% access to the file system, hardware, etc. and can easily brick a phone, we didn't really spend time making that footgun user-friendly. So you can easily add an XPCOM component, but only if you build an image of FirefoxOS yourself. Not too hard to do, just probably not the answer you hoped for.
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!
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.
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.
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.