Firefox Home Coming To iPhone, Browser Next?

siliconbits writes "Mozilla has launched an iPhone app called Firefox Home that gives iPhone users instant access to their Firefox browsing history, bookmarks, and the set of tabs from their most recent browser session. What's more, it provides Firefox Awesome Bar capability that enables people to get to their favorite websites with minimal typing." With the Mozilla blog promising "There will be more to come," can the full browser be far behind?

Comments

Surprising

[XPeter]

It's quite shocking to me that Apple is allowing any Mozilla software to come to the App Store from the get go; but regardless it's great news to have open source infiltrating Apple's proprietary market.

Re:Surprising

[delinear]

It doesn't seem like much of an ifiltration if all it does (by the sound of it) is allow you to open your Firefox bookmarks, etc in the native iPhone browser and provide a search bar that does the same thing. Still nice to have the option to take your bookmarks across to the mobile device, though, and it might help win/retain a little FF mindshare but a far cry from the win that native FF on the iPhone would be.

Re:Surprising

[dzfoo]

It's perfectly understandable. Most Apple-bashing zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody, for some irrational control-freakery bout they have attained. So it may seem surprising when their entrenched, biased opinions are rattled by an otherwise business-savvy move that seems too rational.

        -dZ.

Re:Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can see, the licenses Firefox is distributed under all have GPL-style requirements to provide the source. So wouldn't putting the full browser on the App Store have the same problems as that Gnu Go derivative we had a story about the other day?

Re:Surprising

[donny77]

Not if the Mozilla team represents 100% of the authors. If it does, they are within their rights to dual license their code in a non GPL form. This is why it will be interesting to see who submitted the GNU Go port.

Re:Surprising

[BrokenHalo]

...zealots have assumed from the beginning that Apple is engaged in an all-out war against anybody and everybody...

I really don't understand that position. After all, Apple really, really just wants you to think different. Just so long as you don't think differently from them.

Re:Surprising

[teh31337one]

It doesn't seem like much of an ifiltration if all it does (by the sound of it) is allow you to open your Firefox bookmarks, etc in the native iPhone browser and provide a search bar that does the same thing.

Seemed to me like they were going to have their own webkit (since that's the only one Apple allow) browser built into the app, and it won't use the iPhone browser

Re:Surprising

[MrHanky]

You really think so? I don't think you do. I think most Slashdotters know perfectly well that Apple looks out for Apple's best interest, and screwing the customer is something they do for profits, not for its own sake. Of course, with no rational defence for Apple, the fanboy resorts to strawman bullshit instead.

Re:Surprising

[s73v3r]

Here's what I don't get: Apple is merely the storekeeper for this. Shouldn't the onus of source providing be on the guy who submitted the program? And would he have to provide the source to the Cocoa Touch libraries as well?

Re:Surprising

[Lars T.]

Seemed to me like they were going to have their own webkit (since that's the only one Apple allow)

So what do you base this claim on?

Re:Surprising

[teh31337one]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQRYNWbd5rI#t=00m10s Using a webkit browser is only logical, since the only non-webkit browser Apple have accepted is Opera Mini, and Opera isn't really a browser, it's just a front end that relays info to and from their server.

Re:Surprising

[Lars T.]

Using a webkit browser is only logical, since the only non-webkit browser Apple have accepted is Opera Mini, and Opera isn't really a browser, it's just a front end that relays info to and from their server.

Ahh, so the fact that nobody but Opera has yet even tried to get a browser accepted is proof that Apple wouldn't accept them. And I thought you actually had something written by Apple.

Re:Surprising

[teh31337one]

Opera not even bothering to port over their main mobile browser, along with Fennec/skyfire not doing so is proof enough.

Re:Surprising

[Lars T.]

And the fact that you can't get Flash for most Android phones is proof that Google doesn't allow it to be ported.

Re:Surprising

[teh31337one]

Yeah.. But Google allow you to install applications from anywhere, so argument is flawed. Apple lock you down to their App store.

Re:Surprising

[Lars T.]

Sure, but you can't get Flash anywhere - proof Google is evil.

Re:Surprising

[teh31337one]

http://imgur.com/TtJxC.jpg

Desktop?

[EricX2]

How does it sync with my desktop? Will it require something on my desktop that then sends all the information from my browser to their servers? Does firefox do that currently now?

Re:Desktop?

[The MAZZTer]

There is an extension you need called Firefox Sync. Just install it and it walks you through the sync process. IIRC you just need to set up an account with a password and choose what to sync. The data is encrypted by YOUR password which they don't know (so they can't peek at your data). Works with Firefox for desktop and Firefox Mobile. It was called Weave when it was in development.

Keep an eye on labs.mozilla.org, cool stuff on there.

Re:Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric,
Well currently Firefox sends the information to DHS db servers for safekeeping. Once all of the information is vetted by the DHS it is then converted to newspeak before it is sent to an Apple server that is located in a synchronous orbit. It is then beamed directly to the aluminum foil located on your head where it is processed and sent via a Bluetooth connection to your iPhone.

Love,
Big Bro

Re:Desktop?

[BZ]

> Will it require something on my desktop that then sends all the information from my
> browser to their servers?

Yes (though note https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Crypto for details; the only data the server sees is an encrypted blob).

> Does firefox do that currently now?

Only if you install the relevant extension. See https://mozillalabs.com/sync/

Re:Desktop?

[Own3d-You]

Yes, it's currently called Mozilla Weave, it's an extension you can get. I believe they are renaming it soon.

Re:Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but it fucks your mom in the ass. Ha ha!

Re:Desktop?

[aztracker1]

I've been using XMarks (formerly FoxMarks) for a while, which supports password and bookmark syncing. May switch to the Firefox/Mozilla solution eventually, but for now it works well enough for me.

Re:Desktop?

[Gilmoure]

I thought it pulled in your bookmarks and browsing history from Mozilla's server that tracks all firefox usage.

Re:Desktop?

[CyberDragon777]

I use Xmarks too

The long term plans for Firefox Sync include arbitrary addon provided data (like settings or Adblock filter list) and installed addon/theme syncing, so I probably will switch eventually.
The sync feature will be included in a future Firefox release (I think 4?).

Here are some of the planned things: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Roadmap/Future

Re:Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL you dissed Firefox there! I bet your smug anti-Windows jokes at parties get you tons of pussy too. Oh you're a virgin, how did I guess?

application development layer

[StripedCow]

It would be nice if we could run javascript/html5/css3 code on Apple products (plus minor extensions for accessing local stuff etc), via Mozilla. Then we could finally write useful platform-independent apps that also run on Apple products.

--
while [ 1 ]; do curl "http://apple.com" > /dev/null; done

Re:application development layer

[BZ]

> It would be nice if we could run javascript/html5/css3 code on Apple products

Apple's terms of service for the iPhone and iPad prohibit just this, so it's not likely barring an Apple policy change.

Re:application development layer

[dzfoo]

Sure, ask the Mozilla Dev Team to write iFirefox to use WebKit instead of Gecko. There are other browsers for the iPhone, you know, but Apple requires them to use WebKit as the sole rendering layer.

        -dZ.

Re:application development layer

[Anonymous Coward]

"Apple requires them to use WebKit"

Like Opera Mini?

Re:application development layer

[jmpeax]

Opera Mini is different - pages are rendered (and JavaScript executed) on Opera's servers and sent back to the device for display. No rendering happens locally.

Re:application development layer

[dzfoo]

Opera Mini does not render HTML nor processes JavaScript. This is done on Opera's servers, and streamed down to the client for display using the native framework.

        -dZ.

Re:application development layer

[schnikies79]

Which seems to be the better option for me. Let a full-size computer/datacenter do the hard work and just let the cell phone, with it's limited hardware, display the results.

Re:application development layer

[s73v3r]

No they don't. HTML/JavaScript/CSS is one of the things you are allowed to write in. That, and the C/C++ and Objective-C languages.

Re:application development layer

[BZ]

The poster was specifically talking about doing it "via Mozilla". And a JavaScript interpreter (other than the one Apple ships) is one of the things you are NOT allowed to ship on iPhone OS by Apple. Nor can you ship an interpreter of any other kind. It's not clear to me that even an XSLT implementation would be acceptable (since XSLT is a Turing-complete functional language).

So you could not in fact use Mozilla's JavaScript interpreter on iPhone or iPad.

Re:application development layer

[Dog-Cow]

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't know the state of Mobile Safari w.r.t. css3, but there's no issues at all using these technologies on the iPhone. Not only that, this was Apple's preferred method before they released the SDK and App Store.

Re:application development layer

[Gilmoure]

But what if you have no network connection and can't get to Opera's server? How you gonna' surf the web then?

That's what I thought.

Re:application development layer

[BZ]

I should clearly have quoted more of grandparent's post. He was specifically wanting to run JavaScript in the Mozilla JS interpreter, not the Mobile Safari one.

Re:application development layer

[Anonymous Coward]

And the problem with this is that any dynamic content gets screwed over. Stupidly simple example: you get the first frame of an animated GIF.

Re:application development layer

[rdnetto]

Clearly you have never used Opera Mobile. I have it on my N900, and GIFs render fine. As for other forms of dynamic content, the main reason I switched to it is that it executes Javascript way faster than the builtin browser (e.g. Slashdot is now usable).

You think that's surprising?

[pizzach]

Today on Mac Rumors they posted a story saying that Steve Ballmer will be at the next WWDC keynote with Jobs showing "The new version of Visual Studio will reportedly allow developers to write native applications for the iPhone, iPad and Mac OS."

Re:You think that's surprising?

[Xest]

Yeah, unfortunately following through the links it seems to be entirely unfounded, and little more than a guess that Ballmer is going to turn up, followed by a guess it'll be about Visual Studio 2010.

The wording also says "Chowdhry says the new version of VS will allow developers to write native applications for the iPhone, iPad and Mac OS.". Which we know is false because VS2010 is already out and has no such support, unless he's suggesting they'll follow it up with some downloadable addon.

If Microsoft are turning up I'd wager it's more likely going to be about an Apple/Bing tie-in after Apple fell out with Google, or perhaps something about Microsoft's new web based version of Office being compatible with the iPad or something dull.

It seems unlikely they'd invest time doing something in Visual Studio that would require a lot of work (new language support, new binary format support/emulator required, new compiler support etc.), and doesn't really benefit them or their customers whatsoever. I just don't really see what they'd gained by it, particularly at a time when Apple has been killing off 3rd party development environments, and is facing potential court cases over it to boot.

Re:You think that's surprising?

[Cyberax]

Technically, it's not that hard for MS to add this support. Objective-C/C++ is just a plain C with some preprocessor magic, and VS in its current iteration is quite extensible.

Certainly, adding support for another language is possible as a simple add-on (for example, Nemerle language has one - http://rsdn.ru/article/nemerle/Nemerle.VsIntegration-en.xml ).

Re:You think that's surprising?

[rolfwind]

If you're developing for the Mac OS... you should be working on a Mac. Not that it will be even close to your greatest cost, but just saying. Especially with UI considerations and knowing what your customer is used to and all that.

Re:You think that's surprising?

[MrEricSir]

But given the choice, would you rather write an app in Xcode or Visual Studio?

Re:You think that's surprising?

[aztracker1]

With the silverlight on Mac efforts, and the fact that VS2010 has a lot of XAML/WPF and MEF goodness, maybe they've made it run on a mac, in which case they could pretty easily add compiler support for VS over the Apple compilers. I doubt it, but anything is possible. However, MonoDevelop already works on OSX if you want .Net, and MonoTouch already targets iPod Touch and iPhone.

Re:You think that's surprising?

[s73v3r]

Its a little more than that. However, given that the entire toolchain is open source, it should be easier for it to be integrated into Visual Studio. Hell, if it were anyone else, I would suggest that they just integrated the actual iPhone toolchain (Clang + LLVM).

Re:You think that's surprising?

[Xest]

There's a fair bit more to do than that though, just implementing syntax highlighting and configuring an external compiler is merely the start of it. You're right this is easy, you can use the Visual Studio Shells (Integrated and Isolated) for this sort of thing too.

The issue comes with the rest of it though, because Visual Studio is more than just a syntax highlighting app, debugging would perhaps be the most prominent example, you're either going to have to have a Mac/iPhone emulator developed for Windows, or you're going to have to find a way of executing the binaries natively. You're then going to have to hook into whichever method to be able to debug it. Is there even a Windows based compiler for Mac Apple's binary formats? that's another job. Then there's question of support for WYSIWYG editing of Apple's Mac OS and iPhone OS interfaces- creating a new GUI designer for that seems quite a stretch.

I simply can't see Microsoft doing a half-assed implementation, if you look how selective they are with other languages, like F# took a fair while to finally bring in in Visual Studio 2010, whilst J# has faded away. Microsoft don't seem to just bundle any old language in for the sake of supporting it, it tends to be done with the goal of making sure each language makes best use of the tools in Visual Studio as possible (debugging, refactoring, modelling, testing, code analysis, TFS integration.), and that takes a lot of work.

Make no mistake, if the news is in fact true, Microsoft will have had to spend millions upon millions getting this done, so there'll have to be some pretty interesting underlying reason why they'd make that investment, and whatever that reason is it's not something based on existing business goals, because in the context of those it doesn't make any real sense. It'd likely mean accepting a loss of their stranglehold on the desktop operating system market and that seems highly counterproductive when they're trying to expand outwards with the likes of Bing and Windows Mobile.

Re:You think that's surprising?

[BitZtream]

If you think thats the case, I seriously doubt you've ever written any serious objc application.

More insightful than it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdotters have an odd tendency to view things in terms of black and white, good and Evil-with-a-capital-E. Most corporations fall solidly within the Evil category. Slashdot assumes that companies are in business to screw their competitors and customers as much as posible.

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

Re:More insightful than it sounds

[richie2000]

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

Of course it does. However, some corporations seem to conflate the "do business" and "screw everyone" concepts. Some only do it once in a while and a few never does it. That's called "reality" and it doesn't come in black and white.

Re:More insightful than it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

It registers nicely. The fact that there are many times in which said business is Evil(tm) (the completely inflexibly unchangeable Evil) apparently doesn't register with you. Hardly our fault.

Re:More insightful than it sounds

[Chrisq]

Slashdotters have an odd tendency to view things in terms of black and white, good and Evil-with-a-capital-E. Most corporations fall solidly within the Evil category. Slashdot assumes that companies are in business to screw their competitors and customers as much as posible.

The idea that companies are in business to do business doesn't register.

The truth is that businesses are out to screw competitors and their customers to what ever extent will maximise their profit. That means locking you in to expensive apps and platforms works, as long as they are not expensive enough to drive people away.

Re:More insightful than it sounds

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see that big of a difference between doing business and doing evil. Yes, this modern world wouldn't be possible without big businesses. But as I see it, the law creates "bare minimum" standards of safety/fairness towards competitors/environmental concerns etc. The role of the businesses then is to maximize their profit by doing things in way that is as close to being illegal as possible.

Re:More insightful than it sounds

[Gilmoure]

Sorta' like boobs or not boobs?

Like.. web apps?

[Henriok]

Ah, so you mean like writing web apps? The plattform independent platform that is HTML5? The kind Apple thought apps was supposed to work for iPhone since day one, long before the AppStore was even invented? If you think that's a great way to go, just go ahead. It's been implemented in the iPhone the last three years. You don't need Mozilla for writing web apps. Safari is great for such things. It's a web browser you know, they run web apps.

Awesome Bar

[Richard_at_work]

Please, not more 'Awesome Bar' stuff, its the bane of my life. Heres my problem with the 'Awesome Bar':

1. I start typing 'stackoverflow', with the intent of tabbing to 'stackoverflow.com'
2. At 's' I get one URL suggested, but not the front page. I have visited this page once before in living memory. Its not in my bookmarks either.
3. At 'st' I get another URL suggested, but not the front page. Again, I have visited this page only once before and its not in my bookmarks either.
4. Repeat the last two steps until I get to 'stackoverf' when it finally suggests the front page of Stackoverflow.com to me

And theres no way to turn it off. Fantastic. Highlighting the options in the url bar and hitting delete doesn't get rid of them either. Fantastic.

Re:Awesome Bar

[thijsh]

Yeah, this pisses me off... why no expanding results that always include the 'smart' homepage like:
- Stackoverflow.com (1 more) +
--- Stackoverflow.com/ random_article_with_terrible_long_url_so_its_more_work_ to_select_this_and_go_back_home_than_type _stackoverflow.com_directly/2y498624392328874...

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

You just have to learn to train it. I removed my bookmarks toolbar shortly after the awesome bar came out.

In your situation, type until you get stackoverflow.com, tab complete, hit enter. Do it a couple more times, s will tab complete to stackoverflow.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

funny how you leave out the part where you get to "stack"...

perhaps it shows you "stackedmidgethorseporn.com"?
that would screw up the awesomebar no matter how smart it was.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

And theres no way to turn it off. Fantastic

about:config
browser.urlbar.maxRichResults - value=0

Highlighting the options in the url bar and hitting delete doesn't get rid of them either. Fantastic.

Highlight and delete definitely removes entries from the Awesome Bar database, just confirmed in 3.5 and 3.6.

Just blame the software for your inability to use it. Fantastic.

Re:Awesome Bar

[VGPowerlord]

I can't see why anyone would actually want to port the 'Awful Bar' to another device.

No, seriously, I can't.

Re:Awesome Bar

[HockeyPuck]

Add tags to your bookmarks, tags come up before cache hits.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Richard_at_work]

Another workaround but not a fix.

Re:Awesome Bar

[jez9999]

Why doesn't the Awesomebar consider 's', arrow-key down to stackoverflow.com, hit enter, the same thing as typing in 'stackoverflow.com', enter?

Re:Awesome Bar

[owlnation]

"Please, not more 'Awesome Bar' stuff, its the bane of my life."

Couldn't agree more. Awesomebar is the single reason I have not, and will never, upgrade Firefox. I'm running the version previous to its addition, and am staying with it.

Were it not for the plugins, Firefox would have been deleted off my system the moment they released the version with awesomebar. Once another browser develops a plugin system as good as that available for Firefox, it will most surely be gone.

Awesomebar is symbolic for all that is wrong with Firefox. The fact that Mozilla seems to view it as a success, still touts it as a feature, just shows how totally out of touch they are with their userbase.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

You know Shift + Delete is the key combination you need, right?

Re:Awesome Bar

[HockeyPuck]

Here's a fix:

Don't use it.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Richard_at_work]

The moment someone offers a replacement for Firefox keywords in Safari or Chrome, I'm there. Thats the *only* thing I need.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Senjutsu]

Chrome has search keywords built in

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

I start typing 'stackoverflow', with the intent of tabbing to 'stackoverflow.com'

There's your problem, right there.

A more retarded site of nonsensical questions with obvious, useless or just plain wrong answers (often submitted by the person asking the question itself!) is hard to find.

Re:Awesome Bar

[JustinOpinion]

Highlighting the options in the url bar and hitting delete doesn't get rid of them either.

Use "Shift + Delete" while one of the items is highlighted and it will be removed. (Unless it's a bookmark, in which case you need to remove it from your bookmarks.)

In your case, you could go to stackoverflow.com, then click the bookmark icon (the little star to the right of the address bar). This will give this URL higher priority. In fact you can add tags/keywords to the bookmark while you're at it, to identify the site by a more unique word that is easier to type. Or add the tag "stack" to it so that this bookmark will be heavily associated with you typing "s-t-a-...".

This is usually enough to promote a given URL so that awesomebar will put it first. If not, you might have to type "s-t-..." and select it a few times to train the system that this URL is higher priority.

Yes, it's a bit annoying to have to train/fiddle with it. But for many of us, the amount of fiddling with the awesomebar is much lower than it once was fiddling with bookmarks and the like. The vast majority of the time, I start typing in the awesomebar and it brings me where I want (usually within two or three characters typed). There are some times when it doesn't... and this is frustrating (all the more since I've gotten used to relying on it). But, as I've outlined above, you can then manually promote the behavior you want. The awesomebar is not perfect, but it is quite useful for many of us. (Again, your mileage may vary... my main point is that many of us use it productively. If you don't like it, that's fine too. You can either begrudgingly learn to use it more efficiently, switch to another browser, or continue being annoyed by it. Your call.)

Re:Awesome Bar

[Sir_Lewk]

Weird, I never had to "train" my bookmarks menu. This is considered "better" how exactly?

Re:Awesome Bar

[ChristTrekker]

Awesomebar is symbolic for all that is wrong with Firefox.

Such as how it is growing into a behemoth like the Mozilla Suite, which it was supposed to be the "slimmed-down replacement" for? It's not as bad as it could be...imagine if the 25 or 50 most popular plugins were built in (including the 20-45 that you personally have no use for)...but it would be great if things like "awesomebar" could be a plugin, too.

Re:Awesome Bar

[aztracker1]

There's always Chrome, most of the good extensions for Firefox have Chrome alternatives. Personally, it bugs me that the window chrome (the application window borders/titlebar) are overridden in chrome, also that the UI just feels very alien and is the biggest reason I don't use it. If they moved the tabs *into* the window, and used more native looking UI elements I'd probably have switched by now. It's actually one of the bigger reasons why I use Firefox... on OSX it looks like an OSX app, on Windows it looks like a Windows app, on Linux, well looks more like a Gnome/GTK app than a KDE/Qt app.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, even IE does, though the UI for adding them is called regedit.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Dog-Cow]

I like the Awesome Bar. I think it's much more likely that you're an anal-retentive asshole.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Richard_at_work]

about:config browser.urlbar.maxRichResults - value=0

Suggested every time I mention this - it does not turn off the 'Awesome Bar', it just cripples it in some ways. It does not accomplish what I want.

Highlight and delete definitely removes entries from the Awesome Bar database, just confirmed in 3.5 and 3.6.

Just blame the software for your inability to use it. Fantastic.

Wow, I've been getting it so wrong all these .... wait one moment, still doesn't work. Just confirmed it.

Do you really think I hadn't actually tried what I posted? Really? You really think there is *any* possibility of user error in 'highlight and delete'?

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

Preferences: Privacy: Location Bar

When Using the Location Bar Suggest:
1) History and Bookmarks
2) History
3) Bookmarks
4) Nothing

Choose option 3.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

search for the oldbar plugin... it restores the old bar on firefox 3.x

Re:Awesome Bar

[ThunderThor53]

Weird, I never had to "train" my bookmarks menu. This is considered "better" how exactly?

I'd say you trained your bookmarks menu every time you added something to it or organized it.

Re:Awesome Bar

[trawg]

Shit, I love AwesomeBar. It took me a few weeks of constant use to get over the learning curve, because it was so different to the previous experience. Now I've migrated to Chrome and I have no fucking idea how the address bar in there works any more. I'm sure I'll get used to it, but the AwesomeBar was fantastic - I could type partial URLs, separated by spaces, and it would happily figure out where I wanted to go. Not having that functionality is killing me in Chrome.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Richard_at_work]

I think its amazing that someone isn't allowed to dislike something these days without someone else insulting them. If Mozilla truly gave a shit about those that dislike the Awesome Bar, they would give us a method to turn it off. They haven't, so whats anal retentive about disliking it?

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

It is supposed to work, and it has worked whenever I've tried it. Perhaps there is something broken about your profile and you need to create a new one.

Re:Awesome Bar

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people actually like it. I do, I'm not sure I care enough about it to install an app just for it's functionality though.

Why not switch?

[nightfire-unique]

I honestly don't mean this as a troll. I just don't understand something here.

If application compatibility is an issue for you, why not ditch apple's proprietary device and buy one of the many Android devices? Or if you're a *nix user, an n900?

I'm truly baffled by the iPhone's continued popularity amongst my fellow engineers.

Re:Why not switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

All I use is Wifi, so I'm talking an ipod Touch instead of an iPhone, but on newegg:

An iPod touch is $199.
An n900 is $499.
An unlocked Droid Milestone is $499.

Re:Why not switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us want a phone that 'just works' and looks polished and well thought out. We don't buy it to hack it.

You can say what you will about the iphone, but at least it does what it does well. Do I miss some features? Yes. Would I buy another one? Don't know, I may take a chance on an alternative, but at this point in time, using an iphone vs an android phone is a noticeable user experience difference. Android is less polished, more rough corners, less fluid, less thought out.

It will catch up. But not yet.

Re:Why not switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is the new monster cables. Don't believe me? Look at the adjectives you use to describe your iphone.

Re:Why not switch?

[babyrat]

Have you used an Incredible? I switched from a 3G and have not noticed any user experience deficiencies. In fact when it comes to things like sharing photos via email/mms/social networking sites, it is way ahead.

Re:Why not switch?

[nightfire-unique]

Some of us want a phone that 'just works' and looks polished and well thought out. We don't buy it to hack it.

You can say what you will about the iphone, but at least it does what it does well. Do I miss some features? Yes. Would I buy another one? Don't know, I may take a chance on an alternative, but at this point in time, using an iphone vs an android phone is a noticeable user experience difference. Android is less polished, more rough corners, less fluid, less thought out.

It will catch up. But not yet.

I hear this over and over again, but finally having used an iPhone a few weeks ago, I disagree. First, it's unstable. I personally witnessed two unexplained reboots and a hard lockup that required reflashing (over the course of one week of heavy usage). When I asked the owner what the deal was, he said: "Ah, it's been a while since I've reset." Say what?

Not all apps maintain their state (lack of multitasking aside). I left one application (think it was maps, but I forget) to get an address, and when I went back, I lost the buffer I had been typing in. Had to retype the entire thing. What is this, 2003?

The entire thing seems designed around tethering to a computer with iTunes. I spent two weeks in the US recently without my laptop - n900 only. Anything that can be done on the device can be done without a PC... even flashing.

Speaking of..flash... still no flash in the web browser! Feature? I guess. But one of the things it does well, apparently, is web browsing. After using my n900 for the past 4 months, Safari feels like a toy. Especially on that low-res screen.

I don't know; I didn't see any polish that was significantly better than my friend's Nexus running 2.1. And frankly I find the Maemo UI much more usable.

In my opinion, I think both devices have such a lead on the iPhone it's unlikely that it will ever catch up.

Re:Why not switch?

[tepples]

Speaking of..flash... still no flash in the web browser! Feature? I guess.

What you recommend that the author of, say, Homestar Runner use instead of Flash?

Re:Why not switch?

[Changa_MC]

What you recommend that the author of, say, Homestar Runner use instead of Flash?

h.264?

Re:Why not switch?

[DdJ]

If application compatibility is an issue for you, why not ditch apple's proprietary device and buy one of the many Android devices? Or if you're a *nix user, an n900?

Because application compatibility is simply not the only issue. It's an issue, but one among many.

Related concept: the FSF recently asserted that Apple sets up the iPhone ecosystem so that Apple's interests come first, and the interests of Apple's business partners come second, and the interests of the actual end-user buying the device come third.

Well, let's say I accept that. Does that mean I should not buy an iPhone?

What if, even granting that prioritization, the iPhone is still the device that serves my interests better than any other device does? Should I accept a device that benefits me 60% less than an iPhone, simply because by doing so I make sure that the benefit to other parties is lowered by significantly more than that 60%?

(You may say "yes". I know many people who wouldn't, though, and hopefully this exercise helps you see why.)

Re:Why not switch?

[BitZtream]

I'm continually baffled by the fact that people like yourself can't understand that there are far more reasons people like the iPhone than there are reasons they don't like it.

The end result is that they buy it, use it, love it, and wish it did a couple other things that they just haven't found the app for yet.

Theres more to life than your one retarded agenda.

Re:Why not switch?

[rdnetto]

In my opinion, I think both devices have such a lead on the iPhone it's unlikely that it will ever catch up.

Both devices have an immense *technological* lead on the iPhone, but they're way behind in terms of marketing. Everyone has heard of the iPhone, but how many people have heard of Android?

Re:Why not switch?

[soppsa]

Amen. Engineer here, love the iPhone, would love to change things on it, but theres more going for it than against it.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[B3ryllium]

Uhm, I think there may be a step or two about the approval process that you don't understand.

Re:STOP advertising apple.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If you don't want to hear about Apple then stop visiting a site thats "News for Nerds".

There are just as many Windows and Linux related stories.

Evidently, you're not as sensitive to those stories.

Why the iPhone?

[mcgrew]

Considering that the iPhone is limited to AT&T (the network I hate most) and is completely closed, why not Android? Android is open source and on many different networks.

I wish I could get FireFox on my i776, it has perhaps the worst browser I've ever seen (OpenWave). Maybe they designed it to be bad, so it wouldn't be used much, since it's Boost Mobile and has unlimited everything for a $50/month flat fee with no contract.

I'm getting tired of hearing about the iPhone. Come on, Mozilla, get with the program -- ANDROID!

Re:Why the iPhone?

[BHearsum]

Because the full featured Firefox browser is coming to Android.

http://blog.vlad1.com/2010/02/02/android-progress-more-pixels-edition/

Re:Why the iPhone?

[maxume]

I think you can rest assured that Motorola did their best when designing your phone.

Re:Why the iPhone?

[mcgrew]

I hope I can get an Android phone that will work on Boost then. Not holding my breath, though. I looked into tethering it with my netbook, and found out that tethering is against their terms of service. They don't want TOO MUCH "unlimited" service, apparently.

Re:Why the iPhone?

[notjosh]

To be fair, you're putting forth a very American view. As an Australian, I've taken my (legitimately, from the factory) unlocked phone onto several networks across the globe. Including T-Mobile (because AT&T refused to let me on without a 2 year contract while travelling)

If you're not happy with AT&T, then go somewhere else. Easy. Plenty of others will happily taken your money. It's nothing to do with the iPhone device, it's about your choice as a consumer.

Re:Why the iPhone?

[mcgrew]

I don't have AT&T any more, in fact. I got tired of them ripping me off and moved to a different carrier, but as (at the time) they were the only one who supported the Razr I had to get a new phone.

I'm on Boost Mobile now, which gives me unlimited talk, email, text, voicemail, and internet for a flat fifty bucks a month, no contract needed (and I bought the phone with cash pay the bills with minutephone-like "phone card" with cahs; no tracking me). The only downside is that like every other American carrier, you have to use one of THEIR phones.

If I were Australian or European I'd certainly have either an iPhone or (better yet) and Android.

A Firefox Browser on My iPhone Would Be AWESOME

[Logical Zebra]

...as long as it comes equipped with AdBlock.

Re:A Firefox Browser on My iPhone Would Be AWESOME

[jo_ham]

Why is the parent flamebait? It's a serious concern. It's silly that my iPhone's browser displays more adverts than my desktop copy of Safari, and the phone's screen is smaller and is often browsing via 3G, so is even more annoying for downloading content that I do not want. At least the flash ads are a non issue.

Re:A Firefox Browser on My iPhone Would Be AWESOME

[mjwx]

Why is the parent flamebait? It's a serious concern.

Precisely because it's a serious concern. Apple fanboys need to censor the problems with the Iphone in order to pretend they don't exist.

Oh Boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Access to everything in our Firefox browser except the ability to actually browse with it.

Why not just build web apps

[ThrowAwaySociety]

It would be nice if we could run javascript/html5/css3 code on Apple products (plus minor extensions for accessing local stuff etc), via Mozilla. Then we could finally write useful platform-independent apps that also run on Apple products.

Why not just build javascript + html5 + css3 web apps? You get full platform independence and no app store hassles.

The iPhone supports HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript. As for "local stuff," HTML 5 already has features that allows persistent local database storage. If your app need location awareness, the iPhone supports the W3C Geolocation API.

You may not remember, but originally, Apple's official stance was that the only third-party iPhone apps would be web apps. Lots of people bitched and moaned about how Apple was not allowing developers onto its device, so Apple eventually caved and released its SDK. But there's no reason you can't still build web apps for the iPhone.

Re:Why not just build web apps

[StripedCow]

Actually, yes. But I think I should have put more emphasis on "with minor extensions for accessing local stuff". It might be of minor difficulty to implement this in a browser, but being able to access the local filesystem is a major feature which would allow web apps, like you mention, to behave more like native apps.

So until something like google gears comes to the iphone, we're still mostly stuck with the proprietary api from apple.

Also, I think for this to be practical, the browser, which acts only as a layer, will have to become a little more concealed (no menu, no buttons, especially no back-button).

Re:Why not just build web apps

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking idiot. Google gears has been deprecated in favor of html5 local storage. Mobile Safari supports local storage. Get a fucking clue your worthless cock socket.

Re:Why not just build web apps

[marmoset]

Everything you mentioned can already be done in Mobile Safari, Check.in (from the Brightkite folks) is a web application that makes use of local HTML persistance, geolocation, and hides the browser controls. It looks and behaves exactly like a native iPhone app.

Re:Why not just build web apps

[jez9999]

Why not just build javascript + html5 + css3 web apps? You get full platform independence and no app store hassles.

If such apps started to get really popular, Apple would have to implement a mechanism to enable them to charge for access to them.

Re:Why not just build web apps

[s73v3r]

No. Web Apps were originally the only form of App development on the iPhone. And the developers are the ones that set the prices. Apple has nothing to do with that. Given that with a Web App, they don't have to do credit card processing, hosting or anything like that, they don't need to take anything off.

Re:Why not just build web apps

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why not just build javascript + html5 + css3 web apps? You get full platform independence and no app store hassles.

If such apps started to get really popular, Apple would have to implement a mechanism to enable them to charge for access to them.

You can sell apps on the app store or give them away for free. You can package Web apps as regular apps on the app store and sell them or give them away for free. You can put Web apps on the Web and charge for access or give them away for free. So how did your post get modded "insightful"? Apple wants and encourages developers to give apps away because it makes Apple money by motivating the sale of iPhones. You're clueless and so is whoever modded you up as anything but "funny".

Re:Why not just build web apps

[Dog-Cow]

Whoever modded you insightful is an Apple-hating, ignorant piece of shit. As are you.

Re:ahem

[richie2000]

I hope they are also working on FireFox for Android.

Yes, they are: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms/Android

Re:STOP advertising apple.

[ndvaughan]

This is very possible using Slashdot:
If using "Dynamic Index"

1. Go to Help & Preferences
2. Choose "Exclusions"
3. Type "apple"
4. Click "Save"

If using "Classic Index"

1. Go to Help & Preferences
2. Choose "Sections"
3. Click 1st radio button on the left in the "Apple" row
4. Click "Save"

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Vectormatic]

i think it has been demonstrated before that the approval process doesnt (always) include a complete code-review, some malicious code has gotten in IIRC

Granted, it would be frikkin hard to hide the ability to download and run a flash-plugin in code so that it wont be found. Not to mention that if you dont succeed the first time, apple will be on their guard the next time.

Otherwise, if the flash option is hidden at first, hardly anyone will be really drawn to install FF unless they offer another killer feature. Then when they reveal the option, apple will drop it from the app-store within a nano-second, so i doubt either way that they could achieve a large number of flash-available iphones this way..http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/05/27/1326245/Firefox-Home-Coming-To-iPhone-Browser-Next?art_pos=2#

What would make this news ...

[Trufagus]

This is not news. Mozilla is free to put as many apps as they want on the iPhone so long as they follow Apple's rules. Unfortunately, Apple won't tell us what those rules are, but we have a pretty good idea that you can't say anything bad about Apple or powerful people, and you can't compete with any Apple technologies or strategic plans (e.g. what Google Voice did). So, it would be news if Mozilla puts Firefox on the iPhone without stripping out their HTML5 Ogg support since Apple has a financial interest in H264. If Mozilla gets Firefox on the iPhone by agreeing to tailor Firefox to Apple's wishes (e.g. strip out Ogg or anything else that Apple doesn't like) then that would be a total sellout on Mozilla's part.

Re:What would make this news ...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

f Mozilla gets Firefox on the iPhone by agreeing to tailor Firefox to Apple's wishes (e.g. strip out Ogg or anything else that Apple doesn't like) then that would be a total sellout on Mozilla's part.

Mozilla can get Firefox on the iPhone the same way Opera did, by following the rules. No interpreted code, which probably means a complete rewrite of the Firefox architecture. Mind you, there are apps to play Ogg on the iPhone, so I doubt that would be an objection. Apple doesn't seem to have any problem with Ogg in general, they just want to use a hardware optimized format as much as possible for defaults.

Apple has a financial interest in H264

You should probably do some more research. Apple makes little or nothing in H.264 licensing. They're a very minor patent holder in the pool. It's not in any way significant compared to the money they make selling more iPhones and iPods.

Re:What would make this news ...

[jo_ham]

"Financial interest in H.264" - you mean 1 patent, out of the thousands in the pool.

I'm sure they bet the company on that one!

Re:What would make this news ...

[Trufagus]

Mozilla can get Firefox on the iPhone the same way Opera did, by following the rules. No interpreted code, which probably means a complete rewrite of the Firefox architecture. Mind you, there are apps to play Ogg on the iPhone, so I doubt that would be an objection. Apple doesn't seem to have any problem with Ogg in general, they just want to use a hardware optimized format as much as possible for defaults.

What I'm suggesting is that, if Apple changes course and allows Firefox on the iPhone, they will require that Mozilla remove support for Ogg Video (particularly now that Ogg video is being supported by Google). Hopefully I'm wrong.

You should probably do some more research. Apple makes little or nothing in H.264 licensing. They're a very minor patent holder in the pool. It's not in any way significant compared to the money they make selling more iPhones and iPods.

I doubt anyone is making much off of H264 right now, but if you want to get some idea of how much could be made from H264 once its position is secure take a look at MP3 - Thomson is making a ton off of that and I think that video has much greater potential.

You are correct that I don't know what Apple's share of any proceeds from H264 would be. If someone knows please enlighten me (don't give me patent count - that doesn't mean anything). I think that Apple's hostility to Ogg would be just as much from Google involvement with Ogg as from any ability to make money from H264.

In any event, the ideal would be for Apple to explain the rules for what they block and what they don't and enforce them consistently. If they want to block all porn, or things that use too much battery (e.g. Ogg) then great - tell the world the specific rules so that the issues can be resolved. For now, it appears that they reserve the right to block anything that is not in their financial and strategic interest. The Google Voice incident was particularly illuminating because the FCC had the power to reveal the truth.

Re:What would make this news ...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What I'm suggesting is that, if Apple changes course and allows Firefox on the iPhone...

Then they will have completely changed their business strategy and depending upon what the new strategy is, could do anything.

they will require that Mozilla remove support for Ogg Video (particularly now that Ogg video is being supported by Google). Hopefully I'm wrong.

I know that's what you're saying, but I don't see that it makes a lick of sense. Why would that be in Apple's best interests?

I doubt anyone is making much off of H264 right now, but if you want to get some idea of how much could be made from H264 once its position is secure take a look at MP3 - Thomson is making a ton off of that and I think that video has much greater potential.

Yeah, except Apple doesn't own MPEG-LA, they own a couple of patents in the pool meaning they stand to make little or nothing, especially compared to the profit they make by selling more hardware.

I think that Apple's hostility to Ogg would be just as much from Google involvement with Ogg as from any ability to make money from H264.

What hostility? Apple doesn't block Ogg using programs on the iPhone. They let you use Ogg codecs on Macs. My Safari browser open Oggs via video tags just fine, because it uses any codecs you install on the machine, including Ogg. They just didn't want it as the standard in HTML5 video for the same reason Google did not, they handle a lot of video and performance means money to them. Getting good battery performance on iPods, iPhones, etc. when it is not supported by existing hardware would be a nightmare for Apple. Added bandwidth costs for YouTube would likewise be a problem for Google. It's not that either has a grudge against Ogg, they just didn't want it to be the one and only standard in HTML for business reasons. You'll note Google isn't offering an Ogg version of YouTube.

In any event, the ideal would be for Apple to explain the rules for what they block and what they don't and enforce them consistently.

They can't catch all violations because they don't have the manpower, but almost every instance of an app being not accepted is a case of it not being within the published rules. Now here on Slashdot it is clear lot of people never bothered to read those rules and never bother to RTFAs that explain such when it happens in the news.

For now, it appears that they reserve the right to block anything that is not in their financial and strategic interest.

They certainly can, it's their application service. I find it a bit restrictive so I don't own an iPhone or use their app store. I don't see why this is a problem.

Re:What would make this news ...

[BitZtream]

I really don't get how these things get marked interesting or insightful.

This is SOP for any real business.

Of course you're also making retarded accusations since there are already other, mind you, completely shitty apps, on the app store that use OGG so you've lose that one before it started.

Opera on Android: been there, done that.

[darthflo]

Opera Mini (5 beta, available from the market) can make use of Opera Link, keeping bookmarks and co. in sync through all desktop and mobile instances configured for the same user.

In addition to what Fx and Fx Home do, it also includes a fast rendering engine, better UI, snappier JavaScript, a better developer console, an awesomer bar and a bunch of other stuff. With alternatives like Chrome and Opera, when can we finally put that XULly abomination to rest?

Re:What would be very interesting...

[BrokenHalo]

I think people might also take a while to discover quite how wonderful Flash is... >:S

No

[netsharc]

From their Wiki:

Does this mean Firefox will be available on the iPhone?
No. We do not have plans to ship the full Firefox browser for the iPhone. Due to constraints with the OS environment and distribution, we cannot provide users the full Firefox browsing experience on the iPhone. For details, see Mobile/Platforms.

Reading is so passé, why have YouTube if you have to read? 3-step instruction? Don't read, listen to some nerd with dweeby voice ramble about it for 10 minutes on YouTube!

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Goaway]

Why exactly would Mozilla be interested in helping a commercial company push their proprietary technology?

Re:What would be very interesting...

[rednip]

...get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Not everyone agrees that ending Flash's iron grip on video on the web would be a bad thing. Locked systems like Flash are good (sometimes) for fast adaption periods, but often fail to progress technologically long term; while becoming a cost prohibitive hindrance in a growingly commodified market.

maybe. I'm rooting for Apple on this one, but in corporate power plays, consumer benefit is usually only a low occurring side effect.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed?

Then apple would revoke the keys for security reasons and it would stop working, of course.

This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Ha ha ha. No.

Even x86 is proprietary technology

[tepples]

How is making a bookmark sync tool available for iPhone any more "helping a commercial company push their proprietary technology" than making binaries available for x86 CPUs? Both ARM and x86 CPUs use proprietary technology subject to patent, trade secret, and either mask work right or HDL copyright, and you'd have to switch to something like the MIPS-compatible CPU written in VHDL to get away from this.

Re:Even x86 is proprietary technology

[Goaway]

Please at least make the effort to read the post I am replying to, OK?

Re:Even x86 is proprietary technology

[Dog-Cow]

YMBOH.

Re:Even x86 is proprietary technology

[ducky10]

Which post are you replying to? is it this one?

"It doesn't seem like much of an ifiltration if all it does (by the sound of it) is allow you to open your Firefox bookmarks, etc in the native iPhone browser and provide a search bar that does the same thing. Still nice to have the option to take your bookmarks across to the mobile device, though, and it might help win/retain a little FF mindshare but a far cry from the win that native FF on the iPhone would be"

Are you still asking:

Why exactly would Mozilla be interested in helping a commercial company push their proprietary technology?

Mozilla has a vested interested in supporting proprietary technology (OSX, Windows,Iphone for example) to compete with other browsers. Mozilla wants to get their browser used by the most people to get the most support from web developers.

Re:Even x86 is proprietary technology

[Goaway]

Go to my post, click "Parent":

What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed? This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Re:STOP advertising apple.

[jack2000]

Thanks for the informative answer, also wtf mods? I was serious about this not a troll. Thanks again ndvaughan.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[tlhIngan]

What if iPhone Firefox had a built-in Flash viewer that would be activated only after the software were approved, e.g. with a datebomb or visiting a secret website that would not be available until "everyone" had the app installed? This could be the crowbar move to get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

Have you seen the Android phone requirements for Flash? You need a phone with a 1GHz CPU. No iPhone right now has a 1GHz CPU. The 3GS' is only 600MHz. Which is why if you don't have flash, the Nexus One should blow away the 3GS in everything (and in Android 2.2, it does) - after all, its CPU is 50% faster clock for clock.

Run flash on anything besides a 4G iPhone with its 1GHz A4 (rumored), and everyone will curse Flash more than they already do. Heck, the Flash on Android 2.2 makes the browser dog-slow again. Hardware accelleration only really works on videos (when it's finally implemented), but other flash content won't see much benefit. Advertisers would like it, as you can't scroll away from their ad as quickly, though.

Heck, to be honest, I'd like to see Firefox run acceptably well on any machine sub-1GHz. It ran poorly on my 600MHz PocketPC, it runs poorly on a Tegra dev board I have, and I hear the Android version is good if you like seeing paint dry.

Latency

[tepples]

Let a full-size computer/datacenter do the hard work and just let the cell phone, with it's limited hardware, display the results.

With how much lag for an onclick event in JavaScript?

One thing about the walled garden...

[Skuld-Chan]

It makes even the smallest advances in technology major breakthroughs on a platform...

It better stop hogging memory first...

[pbhogan]

If they intend to bring FireFox to the iPhone, they've got to get a handle on it's memory gobbling first. It has gotten better over the last while, but leave FF open for any length of time and you suddenly have several hundred megabytes of RAM chewed up, especially on OS X where it stays resident even if you close all tabs.

Re:It better stop hogging memory first...

[aztracker1]

I have to conditionally agree to this, though I have a lot of RAM on my Win7 desktop, and a fair amount on my Macbook and honestly don't notice it, it's there. I have to say it's leaps and bounds better than IE has been, and Chrome can be more bloated than either (while running), so it's a toss up and depends on your usage. Haven't used Safari enough to comment on it though.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Lumpy]

I agree, I cant understand why they released a Windows and OSX version of their browser.

It's called market share.

Fennac?

[SphericalCrusher]

I figured iPhone would already have Firefox's Fennac browser that the Droid has. It's a little slow, but nice.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Goaway]

You too: Go read the post I am replying to.

Re:STOP advertising apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

I’m guessing it was the whole "god damn souless junk peddlers” angle.

You’re supposed to lead with the serious question, not the flamage.

I don't get it

[affenhund]

I don't get why Mozilla goes out of its way to bring their products to the iphone. If SJ doesn't want their software on his precious, why bother trying to find ways to do it anyway? Maybe some people might start to think about getting a system that is not as closed down if their favorite software isn't available on their current phone.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[marsu_k]

How come then my N900 (which has an ARM Cortex A8 @ 600MHz) runs Flash, if not perfectly, then at least acceptably? Granted, Youtube et al are better with a dedicated app (then again, Flash video sucks on Linux, even with a beefy computer), but the occasional game is just fine.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[marcansoft]

There's a live application blacklist backdoor/killswitch built into the iPhone. It hasn't been used yet.

I'd bet money that if a Flash-enabled browser were snuck into the App Store, Apple would make their inaugural blacklist entry.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Lars T.]

How come then my N900 (which has an ARM Cortex A8 @ 600MHz) runs Flash, if not perfectly, then at least acceptably? Granted, Youtube et al are better with a dedicated app (then again, Flash video sucks on Linux, even with a beefy computer), but the occasional game is just fine.

Still only Flash 9.4 - which is way faster than 10.

And while 10 has been announced it is of course late.

H.264 with audio at combined 64 kbps? Hardly.

[tepples]

For a vector animation, H.264 needs several times the data rate of SWF. Case in point: Hyakugojyuuichi and Irrational Exuberance are each 4 minutes and under 2 MB, or about 64 kbps. What kind of quality are you going to get out of H.264 video and AAC audio at that bitrate?

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I use flashblocking software, and learned about it from the good people of slashdot.

uuuuh

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows?
OS X?
With some effort I could probably go on and on...

Re:uuuuh

[Goaway]

Jesus, what is it with Slashdot today? Is nobody capable of following a discussion?

Re:What would be very interesting...

[BitZtream]

To try and avoid their current slide into 'no one gives a fuck about firefox anymore' ?

Firefox and the Netscape have shown us twice (three times depending on how you count) that they kick ass when they have no competition to speak of.

Throw in any sort of useful competition and Firefox simply isn't impressive. They got to do something to remain relevant, and sometimes that means selling out you precious OSS zealots in exchange for some commercial recognition.

You guess really have blinders on.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Goaway]

Did you read the post I was actually replying to? Unlike the last three people? I can't quite tell.

iSlaves can't help themselves

[FreeUser]

Just quit it already you god damn souless junk peddlers. We're sick and tired of hearing about apple.

He can't stop. iSlaves simply cannot stop, ever. They are beholden to Jobs, they run only the software he tells them they are allowed to, they buy the devices he tells them to, and they badger the rest of us to buy into their shiny crippleware. Knowing iSlaves is like being friends (or worse, related to) Mormons or members of any other cult ... they simply will not stop trying to force you to think like them. Ever.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[ElectricFeel]

Why exactly would Mozilla be interested in helping a commercial company push their proprietary technology?

They are trying to create a buzz about it so Apple will open their browser to other browsers. It will happen, just like MMS and open apps. It takes Apple a while, but eventually they come around.

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Goaway]

You didn't read what I replied to either, did you?

Re:What would be very interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, what have you been smoking? Not only is Flash against Apple's app store policy because it allows execution of arbitrary code (that is on top of Steve Jobs hating it), but any fully functional browser would be because you can't have a fully functional browser without JavaScript, and guess what JavaScript allows? You might be thinking "but Opera got a web browser into the app store", only Opera's browser is not a fully functional one, indeed it is more like a simple viewer with since it works through Opera's servers which process, render and compress the page before sending it on.

So, indeed, what made you think Mozilla would get a browser into Apple's app store, let alone be able to carry out the subterfuge you suggest?