Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Mobile Reaches 1.0
Majix writes "Firefox Mobile, the mobile browser developed by Mozilla based on the same engine as in the recently released Firefox 3.6, has finally hit version 1.0. The first device to be officially supported is the Nokia N900. With a long list of features, Firefox Mobile looks to be the most complete mobile browser to date. Highlights include the familiar Awesome Bar, Weave Sync for sharing your browser state between your PC and mobile, and of course tabbed browsing and Firefox add-ons. With the Nokia 900 and Firefox Mobile 1.0, even Flash content including the normal YouTube site is working, showing that a mobile browser does not have to equal a compromised Internet experience."
They released version 1.0 and that's all they support? A whole one device?
More development needed methinks.
"We do not have plans to build an iPhone browser due to constraints with the OS environment and distribution. "
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms
This makes me want a Nokia N900 even more. I'm desperate for one. Unfortunately, these things cost a shitload of money (even on ebay, I can't find one cheaper than about $520). This thing has WIFI, which is all I really need, but if I decide to get one with a plan, I'll be robbed blind because there's no way to get one without an online plan that costs $10/month. Mobile phone service providers need to stop robbing us.
It is a Turing complete program. Of course it can't be approved for the iBad.
"Firefox Mobile looks to be the most complete mobile browser to date."
Perhaps if you ignore Opera, Safari and Netfront.. Otherwise, from what I have seen, it mostly sucks pretty bad...
...the N900 is an amazing platform. I know it from a computational photography class at my university: http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs448a-10/ It runs a full Linux distro, has a 5MP camera, and now with FF 1.0 I consider it the first phone with a real browser. (IPhone/ITouch/IPad doesn't count because there's no flash and they don't support any browser extensions. Once I can run Flash, Firebug, and Adblock, then it's real.)
I think it deserves a shoutout especially because
*) Nokia is truly awful at promoting their products
*) a certain company that's great at marketing is making all sorts of splash with the antithesis of this phone. it's called the iPad; it runs a Unix derivative, but is an affront to the Unix philosophy. it somehow manages to be three times the size of an N900 with a tenth the functionality.
I think that N900 + FF Mobile is a real tool in an ocean of toys.
Why select a minority platform with no devices? Surely someone sane would develop for S60 and perhaps iPhone first (perhaps because Safari probably quite entrenched with iPhone users).
I read on the website that it can be installed for the N810 as well but I can't find the easy "Install" button anywhere.
Does anybody know how good the performance is on the N810? The built-in Firefox browser is OK (terrible at javascript though) and I am wondering if this mobile version is any better.
I don't care that a "mobile browser does not have to equal a compromised Internet experience." My BlackBerry Bold is physically too large, in my opinion, yet the screen is far to small for me to give two winks about nice graphics or watching videos. I have the largest battery that fits into a stock battery cover, so I don't want to deal with further battery limitations to process all that crap. When I browse the Internet on the phone, I find myself wishing that more sites offered mobile versions, but only because the only thing I want is the content. I can even do without pictures and graphics altogether.
I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
I hate to burst your bubble, but Safari on the iPhone/iPod Touch is not a 'full mobile browser'.
And to take it one step further, this really isn't a 'full mobile browser'. Its a 'full browser that happens to be on a mobile device'
When you go to web pages that would serve up a "mobile" version of their page to devices like the iPhone, or Blackberries, or whathaveyou, with the N900 (even with the built-in Fennec based browser, but with this Firefox version as well) you don't get the mobile version of the page, you get the regular version of the page...and its quite usable doing it, too.
And he answered the GGP's question.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
Not so much the OS as the app store. Apple won't allow apps that can run code, or apps that duplicate existing functionality. A browser does both. Porting it to run on the iPhone wouldn't be too hard, but then only people using jailbroken phones could use it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I've had Flash on my N800 for years too. And I hate it. Incredibly slow. This is one of the reasons why Apple is doing the right thing by dropping Flash in their browser. I mean, what's the point? Having a web page that renders well and quickly except for blue boxes, or having "flash support" that results in your browser slowing to a crawl on all but the most "lightweight" flash pages?
Um, you're confusing Opera Mini with Opera Mobile, which is a full browser.
The UI felt a bit unusual at the start, but I actually ended up liking it, felt unique and effective. The application start time is a few seconds slower than the Micro browser that ships with the N900, but page load and rendering speed seems toughly equal. The straightforwardness of installing and configuring AdBlocker felt more integrated and polished in the new Firefox 1.0. However, the Firefox has a major deal-breaker for me, it's broken ZOOM function. You're only limited to a "maximum zoom in" or "maximum zoom out" by doubletapping the screen, you can't pick your desired level of zoom by doing a clockwise/counterclockwise drag movement like in Micro. Ctrl-UP and Ctrl-DOWN were supposed keyboard shortcuts for zooming in and out, but these didn't even work at all, the key combinations did nothing (while other shortcuts like Ctrl-L worked normally). This definately feels like a good start, but it's more of a 0.98 version than a 1.0, it just has a few rough edges and needs some polish.
Great news. I'm using Tear on my n810 mostly, let's see if this can top it...
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
The points are that flash is the most common way to deliver video content, which my N800 generally plays fine, and that I only load the flash I want to load, so I have more flexibility to view more pages by having flash support than by not having it. Not having it is not an advantage, because I don't load "flash crap", just things I actually want to use or see.
Apple did not do the right thing, I'm afraid. The right thing would be to give the user the *choice*. Hate flash? Fine, don't use it. Want flash? Fine, use it. Best of both worlds.
If anyone figures out how to select text on the page (not in a textarea or input - shift+right/left arrow does that) plz reply.
I mean, what's the point [of SWF]? Having a web page that renders well and quickly except for blue boxes
SWF is for working around limitations of Internet Explorer, namely its lack of a fast script engine, HTML 5 canvas, and HTML 5 audio. These are important for games if nothing else.
Given that flash uses 100% of a core of a high-end x64 processor, it'll be murderous on cell phone batteries. Still, Mozilla is the first mobile browser I'm aware of which may support something like Flashblock. And flashy pages are even uglier and more punishing on a mobile device.
Or people who compile it with an developer provision file. Or people who compile it with an ad hoc provision file. Or enterprises that bypass the app store.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Porting Firefox to the iPhone/iPad under even modified appstore rules that would allow another browser would be VERY hard, due to the absurd language restriction.
So according to Mozilla.org:
Firefox for iPhone
We do not have plans to build an iPhone browser due to constraints with the OS environment and distribution.
Firefox for Blackberry
Sorry, no plans. Due to its Java-based operating system and the inability to build native components, Firefox is not compatible on the Blackberry OS.
Firefox for Symbian
We currently have no plans to develop Firefox for the Symbian platform.
So, not available for iPhone, Blackberry and Symbian? Thats what, 3/4 of the smartphone market?
Its a shame as the Blackberry needs a decent browser. Opera Mini 5 is ok but I guess I will have to wait for Skyfire for flash support.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Have you tried SeaMonkey from mozilla? If you liked early firefox but hated the bloat, you might like it. Its more similar to the original mozilla suite but it is simple and clean. Might be right up your alley.
If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
The XUL stuff might also run afoul of Apple's refusal to allow any apps that include scripting languages.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
With the Nokia 900 and Firefox Mobile 1.0, even Flash content including the normal YouTube site is working
Given that the browser that comes out of the box in N900 is already Mozilla-based (in fact, the extension install screen looks conspicuously like Firefox), and can already play Flash, and use ABP, what advantage does this thing have over it?
The Awesome Bar is pretty awesome; I don't know why there's been so much negativity about it here on Slashdot. Rather than organizing a bunch of bookmarks, I just remember a few key phrases from a website's URL or page title. This is especially useful where I work because we have many web apps in various stages of development, and the URL varies by port number. I just type in the port and get the version I want. Also I don't notice much of a slow-down on any of the PCs I've used it on.
On vit, on code et puis on meurt.
Why would you want to? Even far cheaper netbooks have the power to run full blown browsers like the normal Firefox. If the Ipad can't do that, more fool anyone who buys it.
But if people are setting up a website to return a mobile version for mobile browsers, surely they could do the same for the N900? How would you avoid them doing that?
WTF? Uh, the N900 is a minuscule segment compared to netbooks, which need a lighter-weight browser (prism does not count) at least as much as the N900. FAIL, FAIL.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Latest versions of Seamonkey brought it closer to FF unfortuntelly; though it still seems second only to Opera in overall snappiness, how smooth the whole browsing experience is. Which is especially weird considering that the Seamonkey is supposed to be the heavy one, which caused development of FF...
One that hath name thou can not otter
I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing - a full mobile browser is a full browser that has the bonus of mobility i.e. runs on a mobile device. Certain websites serving certain variations on their standard HTML to specific useragent strings reflects nothing on the capabilities or the type of the browser that renders them.
Firefox for iPhone
We do not have plans to build an iPhone browser due to constraints with the OS environment and distribution.
Firefox for Blackberry
Sorry, no plans. Due to its Java-based operating system and the inability to build native components, Firefox is not compatible on the Blackberry OS.
Firefox for Symbian
We currently have no plans to develop Firefox for the Symbian platform.
I’m sorry. That’s just silly. Those are the 3 biggest platforms out there.
They are basically saying “Everyone can get Firefox. As long as he’s not using 99% of the platforms/phones out there!”.
I’ll stay with Opera, which already runs very nicely.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
For me it was totally irritating and distracting, but I don't much like the way completion is implemented in editors either. Now bash, which only completes a line when requested, gets it right.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
How does Hulu play on your N800? How about from the cellular data connection?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's just me, or my N900, but I can't figure out how to click links in Firefox without repetitively stabbing at them with the stylus
The awesome bar is not awesome. It's shit.
But those who like it will never agree with those who don't. The biggest problem was that such a major change to the browser was forced on all users - support for FF2 was dropped when 3 came out (or shortly afterwards). There are some workarounds and an extension that tries to bring back the sensible functionality, but it's still not the same.
The awful bar should have been an extension. Even if Mozilla felt it had to be with the browser, if it were an extension it could be removed properly.
I think NoScript is pretty awesome (well, I don't - I am just using the same stupid word you did. NS is a good idea, and massively increases security, and reduces annoyances). Should NoScript type functionality should be built into the browser? How would you like it if there was a major change in functionality when you already know how to use a tool, a tool that worked fine in the first place?
I really wish there were a fork of FF that trimmed it back down to being close to its original aim: to be a sleek, fast, browser with an extension system to add functionality.....
The awesome bar is so bad that I still haven't upgraded any installs of FF to v3 (and distros that come with FF3 have had it replaced with 2). I have even been using Seamonkey, as that hasn't been ruined to chase the clueless IE users. Yes, that is why FF is being dumbed down, to pander to fuckwits who don't know (and are so anti-intellectual that they refuse to read documentation) that the browser already had searchable bookmarks, and searchable history.
It is funny how people justify the awful bar being good for everyone, because of their specific need. I'm sure all users need the awful bar in case they need to access the same server, but on a different port. It saves them a few key strokes, and for the hunter-peckers this is good.
You should be using AdBlock Plus port for MicroB and Flashblock port for MicroB.
No ads, pages load faster, don't run any Flash you don't want to - and yet, you can run all the flash that you *do* want to!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I know runs contrary to some of the other posts here but I found Firefox for the N900 to be frustratingly slow. The MicroB browser feels far more responsive. I ended up uninstalling Firefox in the end because I just didn't have any reason to use it over MicroB. But even MicroB isn't as fast as it should be - this is inherent in using Gecko, which everyone knows is slower than Webkit, and the difference is especially noticable on a mobile device. It seemed like a very odd choice for Nokia to make. Tear shows promise but is not quite there yet.
Overall I like it - it's obvious that a lot of good thinking has been going on. That much said, there are a few things to look at:
Keep up the good work! You'll get there.
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
You obviously do not have an N900. If you did, you would know what it is like to have a full computer browser experience on a mobile device.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Actually, its incredibly fucking useful.
No, it is not. It is totally redundant, as (almost) all the functionality it provides was already in the browser, if you know how to use the browser.
To access history through the address bar is quicker and convenient than having to navigate through a ton of history.
The history was searchable pre-FF3, and it could be viewed in a few different ways. And a simple ctrl-h will bring up the history, and put the cursor in the search box. So there is no navigating through tons of history.
Admittedly the history being in a crappy little sidebar sucks, Seamokey's history is better, as it presents a different window with columns of information.
Do people really go trawling through their history so frequently that having that function available in the address bar is necessary? I doubt it.
The thing I don't get is even if you don't like it, don't fucking use it.
That's the point: you can't not fucking use it. You can try, but even with additional software, and option fiddling, things are still fucked up.
Besides, it adds chubbiness to the browser, and is a major symptom of Mozilla's destruction of the philosophy of FF. FF is just an IE alternative these days, and barely better (it is the extensions that make the product better).
It doesn't exactly get in the way and cause problems.
Now that is the biggest issue, it does. It's not clear, it's slower than the simple address bar. It presents lots of information, maybe even opening up opportunities for attack. It also presents irrelevant info: the bar doesn't know if you want bookmarks, history, a search, or if you are entering a new URL, so it does everything at once!
The awful bar is all about Mozilla ruining FF, and making it into what is basically a proprietary product (99.9999%+ of all users can't program, so to them it might as well be closed source). FF is just an IE competitor, not the best product technology will allow. The addition of the search box directly in the UI with FF2 shows this: the address bar could already by used for searching, but Mozilla (funded mainly by Google) added a redundant search box, right in the user's face, which benefits Google's business more than the user. The UI gets complicated by an additional box, but Google get their brand sitting in the user's eye-line for their whole browsing session.
The awful barf (lol, gonna leave that typo) is clearly Mozilla trying to make the browser appealing to IE-type users, the ones who will bitch about the line of rubbish (aka, a URL) purely because of their ignorance. Software should not be dumbed down, and generally FLOSS doesn't get dumbed down unless it is being user to chase the mass-market.
The iPad will use the same OS as the iPhone and the iPod Touch.
I have not seen a $699.00 entry price for iPhone dev.
Firefox joins Skyfire (http://www.skyfire.com/) in demonstrating that it's technically possible to run flash on a mobile device. Forgive this OT rant:
This demonstrates how Apples exclusion of Flash from the iPad and iPhone is not a mater of device stability, security or performance, but a mater of Apple's choice to try to destroy Flash because it is a threat to their monoculture. They claim that it runs the "whole internet" and has the "best web browsing experience", they falsified the iPad demonstration videos to try to make it seem like the Flash on the NY Times home page worked.
You can see a divisions in the ranks of the Apple Fanboys, on one side are those who criticize Apple wielding their power towards anti-competitive means, and the other side are the sheeple who rationalizes it, justify it, claim flash is obsolete, and actually wants flash to die because they want what ever the folks in Cupertino want.
This will not stand. Looking forward to a big settlement between Adobe and Apple once Adobe brings suit. Apple needs to be punished for their evil behavior.
To blog is sublime
Apple wont let us.
Developing for WinCE from scratch is too costly. We don't believe there is enough demand from corporate BB users to justify this cost.
Unless someone throws a bucket of money our way, HINT, Nokia, give us some cash.
Developing for Maemo was a cheap way to get version 1.0 out the door and this gives them an actual product to leverage with. I'd wager that converting the X86 Linux code to ARM Linux code was the fastest and cheapest option. If there is enough demand (or donations) Mozilla would write for BB or Symbian (or Android) but not for Iphone due to Apple, now that 1.0 is out their plans or lack there of may change.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Hopefully they allow the mobile version if you want it. When you have a dinky device like an iPhone... a 480x320 screen, you probably want the mobile version most of the time. By the time you're on a 1024x768 or so tablet or netbook, you definitely don't. On my DROID, at 854x480, sometimes the standard version is good, sometimes the mobile version is better. And this can be occupational, too... am I sitting somewhere, where it's easy to zoom or pan if needed, or am I walking or otherwise engaged.
The real key is that a proper mobile browser should be capable of everything a desktop browser CAN do, but optimize it for the handheld. Zooming, while supported in many desktop browsers, is critical for a mobile device. I love tabbed browsing, use it on my mobile and desktop (no frickin' idea how iPhone users get along without it and still manage to suck up for much bandwidth... oh, I guess that's the constant reloading of pages as you switch to look at something else or run a different app), but you don't want the tabs in your face on the mobile device.. they take up too much space. Dolphin on Android (at least the old version) does this right, you swipe to move between pages, and you can pop up the tabs if you want to get at them.
In short, there are GUI differences that are important. The content should not be limited, particularly given that today's modern handhelds have more screen real-estate than VGA-era PCs.
-Dave Haynie
Congrats to firefox mobile, open source is the best way, I love it.