Mozilla Plans Mobile App Store

dkd903 writes "Mozilla wants to make it big in the Mobile world and has revealed its plans for a unique mobile app store in its annual report — 'The State of Mozilla,' which was released recently. Mozilla has already brought the desktop Firefox experience to mobile devices as the Fennec browser, which was initially launched for the Maemo platform on Nokia N900. Mozilla has designed a prototype of a mobile app store and plans to call it a 'Open Web App ecosystem.' The aim is to create an open app store platform that would consist of apps that can run on all mobile devices: — A 'Mobile Device Independent' App Store."

Comments

Store?

[rossdee]

Mozilla users aren't used to paying for add ons...

Re:Store?

[catbutt]

Is this restricted to mozilla users? I assume you can access it with mobile safari and mobile chrome (or whatever you call the android browser)

Re:Store?

[yoshi_mon]

Damn right we are not paying for addons. We are trying to use the FOSS model.

I'm not even sure, yes I did not read TFA, what this is all about but no. No dammit I'm not going to pay for an addon. Do you people even know what FOSS means?

Re:Store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla users aren't used to paying for add ons...

I'd pay for an add-on that allowed Firefox to better manage its memory usage. But of course I here that Firefox does not have memory management issues.

Re:Store?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just Mozilla users?
This whole concept of an "app" as define in Apple newspeak, is an mere artifact of the DRMed-to-hell platforms that are coming out.
All the games, transport timetables, maps etc that you could access free on the web, you can now buy for your phone.

I really hope that Mozilla's "Open Web App ecosystem" smashes all these 25% free-as-in-beer with censorship existing app stores to bits.

Re:Store?

[icebraining]

Hand in your geek card and go read Selling Free Software.

Re:Store?

[icebraining]

You already can - just pay someone to write it.

Re:Store?

[commodore64_love]

Speaking of addons:

Does Firefox have a "Debug And QA UI" addon like SeaMonkey has? I've found this extension to be extremely useful and would love to use it with fox. If you don't know what I'm talking about read more here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/212342/

Re:Store?

[tehcyder]

But of course I here that Firefox does not have memory management issues.

It no longer has issues, but unfortunately its coping strategy is to be in denial.

Re:Store?

[yoshi_mon]

Tell you what, I'll split the difference with you when you hand in your geek card and read:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Re:Store?

[icebraining]

You mean the part of the license which says

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey

?

Free Software is NOT about it being gratis. The only reason they're usually gratis is because 1) they're done as personal projects or 2) someone can "CentOS"-it, by buying a copy and redistributing the sources (or even binaries) for free. But nothing in any Free Software license (either copyleft or not) precludes you from charging, and in fact you can even charge for copies of software you didn't write.

Re:Store?

[yoshi_mon]

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey...

The idea of setting up a 'marketplace' rather than a repository is I think in direct opposition to what the FSF/GNU philosophy is. I know of no 'marketplace' where I can go and get goods for free.

I do however know of many FSF/GNU repositories that I can update my FSF/GNU machines from for no cost. Will I be able to apt-get updates from such a 'marketplace' without having to go though a screen that says, "No thanks, I really don't want to give you some money at this point."

I really have no problem with people making money from FSF/GNU software. And I have no problem with the idea that people, if they so choose, can pay for something that is free. But I do not like at all the idea that they are going to setup a 'marketplace' because while you highlighted the former pat of the FSF's charter, I think the latter is much more important to keeping to the name.

And there is a proven lisence for people like you. It's called the BSD lisence and well you might have heard about a little company called Apple that has used it well.

Re:Store?

[icebraining]

Please, you can't even spell license. You're gasping at straws but as I showed you, charging is not in direct opposition to the FSF/GNU philosophy.

I do however know of many FSF/GNU repositories that I can update my FSF/GNU machines from for no cost. Will I be able to apt-get updates from such a 'marketplace' without having to go though a screen that says, "No thanks, I really don't want to give you some money at this point."

Unless you're using gNewSense, the GNU project does NOT decide which gets in those repos.

If you're talking about Debian, then it's the Debian Free Software Guidelines. And if you're talking about Ubuntu, they are already selling software, distributed through apt.

while you highlighted the former pat of the FSF's charter, I think the latter is much more important to keeping to the name.

Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. RMS and the FSF have never changed their minds about it. It is and always OK to sell FLOSS software.

And the BSD vs GPL debate has nothing to do with charging. It's about letting or not other people distribute the software along with closed source apps.

Re:Store?

[yoshi_mon]

Hey hey hey, we are both on the same side here I think. Lets keep this civil. This:

Please, you can't even spell license.

Is not called for. I actually saw that slip though my spell-check as I clicked submit. But anyway, that is not the point. Please, lets keep the ad-hominem attacks down.

Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. RMS and the FSF have never changed their minds about it. It is and always OK to sell FLOSS software.

Again, easy with the ad-hominem killer. I'm on your side I think. I am just trying to make sure that the FSF/GNU model is not corrupted by the monetization of the FOSS software. You clearly argue that selling software FOSS is fine. I agree. But I am saying that saying that by virtue of what it is and what it stands for it should always be free matters more.

Re:Store?

[icebraining]

Is not called for. I actually saw that slip though my spell-check as I clicked submit. But anyway, that is not the point. Please, lets keep the ad-hominem attacks down.

I apologize. I felt the tone of your last sentence was somewhat accusative, but my reply was definitively uncalled for.

Again, easy with the ad-hominem killer.

That's not an ad-hominem, I was targeting your argument, not you. And frankly, while harsh that was what you were doing.
If you feel that having a marketplace and selling GPL licensed software is wrong, fine, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. But that was never the FSF position and I find it disrespectful of you to try to put words in their mouths.

I am just trying to make sure that the FSF/GNU model is not corrupted by the monetization of the FOSS software. You clearly argue that selling software FOSS is fine. I agree. But I am saying that saying that by virtue of what it is and what it stands for it should always be free matters more.

Personally, while I prefer free stuff (for obvious reasons), I think that encouraging people to pay a buck or two for apps would help FLOSS. And if they charge too much, someone will do like the CentOS people did and distribute it for free anyway :)

Re:Store?

[yoshi_mon]

I apologize. I felt the tone of your last sentence was somewhat accusative, but my reply was definitively uncalled for.

Thank you.

That's not an ad-hominem, I was targeting your argument, not you. And frankly, while harsh that was what you were doing.
If you feel that having a marketplace and selling GPL licensed software is wrong, fine, your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. But that was never the FSF position and I find it disrespectful of you to try to put words in their mouths.

It is a standard tactic in a debate to try and rephrase your argument such that you can get your point across. I fully understand that in this day and age that...some people have taken that to a new level but that was neither my intention or what I'd hope to do. If anything I tried to further my argument about why the idea of paying for FSF/GNU software is wrong.

And I am not trying to put words into anyone's mouth. I'm actually arguing from a GNU founder's POV, Richard Stallman, and as radical and sometimes silly as he is he's still gotten a lot of things right.

Personally, while I prefer free stuff (for obvious reasons), I think that encouraging people to pay a buck or two for apps would help FLOSS. And if they charge too much, someone will do like the CentOS people did and distribute it for free anyway :)

Your former point clearly I agree with. But your latter point is where I think is where we have a philosophical divide. FOSS should never imo be about any end user being asked to pay a single cent for use. Rather it is the machine that drives our infastructure that should be asked to pay for the development. As they are the ones who actually stand to gain from it.

Further and finally if someone chooses to write something in their spare time for the good of everyone, and then they choose to publish it under the GNU then it becomes part of the public works. Much like how we can perform Shakespeare, Mozart, or Bach today.

Re:Store?

[Guy Harris]

Faggots like you don't understand that open sauce is a health hazard to the economy.

Well, don't just leave the sauce jar open; close it when you're done with it, and it won't go bad so fast - less health hazard. You might want to consider refrigerating the sauce while you're at it.

Re:Store?

[icebraining]

It is a standard tactic in a debate to try and rephrase your argument such that you can get your point across. I fully understand that in this day and age that...some people have taken that to a new level but that was neither my intention or what I'd hope to do. If anything I tried to further my argument about why the idea of paying for FSF/GNU software is wrong. And I am not trying to put words into anyone's mouth.

When? In your original reply, you posted only the GPL as an argument against selling FLOSS software, when it says nothing of a kind. How is that not putting words in their mouths?

I'm actually arguing from a GNU founder's POV, Richard Stallman, and as radical and sometimes silly as he is he's still gotten a lot of things right.

Yes, and one of those things was the essay "Selling Free Software" where he says "we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can."
Then you go and say I'm emphasizing their "old" stance, but you don't provide any references to the supposed new stance.

Your former point clearly I agree with. But your latter point is where I think is where we have a philosophical divide. FOSS should never imo be about any end user being asked to pay a single cent for use. Rather it is the machine that drives our infrastructure that should be asked to pay for the development. As they are the ones who actually stand to gain from it.

In many cases, they already do - only with code, not with money. The companies that use FLOSS in their business often contribute code back.
But many projects are user-centric and not used by infrastructure - especially "apps" like in this case.

Further and finally if someone chooses to write something in their spare time for the good of everyone, and then they choose to publish it under the GNU then it becomes part of the public works. Much like how we can perform Shakespeare, Mozart, or Bach today.

But that doesn't mean you don't have to pay for the book which comes with the sheets :) Personally, I think that unless we, as users, actively contribute to the apps we like - either with code/art/etc or money - FLOSS will never reach its full potential.

Re:Store?

[ruthwho]

I'm a bit confused by this argument, but I think it's clear, Yoshi Mon, that you seem to think that selling Free Software is wrong.

Now, if we can all accept that the FSF's stance on this is that it is like Free Speech, not Free Beer, as Richard Stallman himself said. The idea of a free market does consist of the same basics of buying and selling, but it takes a different look at property. Once you have bought a piece of software you should be able to look at the code, modify the code, and redistribute your modifications provided that you attribute correctly. Credit where credit is due. This simply ensures that anyone who innovates gets paid, it's a fair spread of wealth. The age old comparison of the car being that you buy a car, you respray it, you change the tires, you modify the engine, you put leather over the seats, give it a nice steering wheel cover, and you re-sell it. There is an entire industry for this in cars, houses, furniture, but in software it's illegal? The GNU GPL, and the entire philosophy of Free Software is specifically designed to fix this problem of it being illegal in the first place, to create a Free Market. So, buying free software is a substantial part of Free Software's creation.

What I'd like to know is _why_ you think it is wrong to pay/charge for Free Software?

And

[mrsteveman1]

If the developer opportunities are good, i'm in. Problem is, calling something an App Store doesn't really change things much if you're just giving people access to a web site. Maybe they're going to focus on local apps written in html+css+js?

Re:And

[catbutt]

Maybe they're going to focus on local apps written in html+css+js?

Problem is, they can't do that for iPhone, but they certainly could for Android.

I suppose they could do it for mobile web apps and work out a way of blocking access to people who haven't paid, like you seem to suggest. I'm sure people would be annoyed by that though (even though there's no reason it's really any worse that just selling the app itunes-style)

Re:And

[mrsteveman1]

I was under the impression that you COULD do that on the iPhone.....maybe its just local storage of data and not the entire thing working in offline mode?

Re:And

[catbutt]

What I meant was they can't sell (non-jailbreak) iPhone apps in a non-Apple store.

Re:And

[node 3]

Maybe they're going to focus on local apps written in html+css+js?

Problem is, they can't do that for iPhone, but they certainly could for Android.

What are you talking about? That's how Apple originally addressed the desire people had for third-party apps. It's still a perfectly valid and explicitly permitted method for running software on the iPhone.

Re:And

[POWRSURG]

If the developer opportunities are good, i'm in. Problem is, calling something an App Store doesn't really change things much if you're just giving people access to a web site. Maybe they're going to focus on local apps written in html+css+js?

What you're looking for are called W3C Widgets. W3C Widgets currently run on Opera, and Vodafone, while T-Mobile and the Nokia S60 have have near standard W3C Widget implementations. It looks like Android is working on it, but Apple is doing everything in their power to fight this (all while touting how great HTML5 is).

Sounds dreadful

[wampus]

Also, Steve Jobs will say no.

Re:Sounds dreadful

[ducomputergeek]

More likely it's the Verizon's, Sprints, AT&T, and Telstra's of the world that will say no. They're already starting to lock down android phones they carry. There is too much money in "apps" that they don't get piece of, at least not with Apple and not with the google marketplace. And in the cell phone worlds it's all about revenue per customer.

Re:Sounds dreadful

[AmiMoJo]

Although I suspect that the parent is trolling it does raise a genuine issue for iOS. Apple does not allow apps that can run arbitrary code, which is why they don't allow general purpose emulators or Flash. If Firefox on iOS can install apps they might decide it falls foul of this rule.

Re:Sounds dreadful

[wampus]

Not trolling, it's the truth. Apple flat out says the only way to get code onto an iThing is through Apple. This Mozilla doodad "duplicates system functionality" of the App Store.

I also think it's a stupid idea on my Android device, wouldn't install it on my BlackBerry, and doubt that MS will allow it on WinPho 7.

Re:Sounds dreadful

[AmiMoJo]

Adblock and a good tabs implementation would make it better than the standard Android browser IMHO.

Compatability Testing?

[TheEyes]

What I'm wondering is, are they going to have some sort of compatibility testing done, to ensure that the app will actually run on the phone? Rovio's going to develop a lightweight version of Angry Birds for slower phones; will there be some way of automatically testing the phone to see if it's compatible, or will there just be a whole load of programs that you'll never know if you can run or not? If it's the later, I can't see this venture being very successful.

Re:Compatability Testing?

[AmberBlackCat]

My guess is the app store itself will be labeled beta and there will be little quality control.

Re:Compatability Testing?

[NoSig]

Seeing as it is coming from Mozilla you'd think these apps would be written for use on Mozilla browsers using their XUL platform. In that case these apps should as well or as poorly as the Mozilla browser itself does. The one problem might be apps requiring more processing power or ram than your phone has, which is the exact same issue on PCs.

Re:Is this really needed?

[martin-boundary]

Maybe it is just me, but cell phones seem to require more involvement by at least one party to ensure quality control.

All the main Linux distros do quality control implicitly when they package their binaries. For every big and not so bit piece of open source and/or Free software, there's a distro guy who makes sure it installs and at least runs when invoked. Those guys sometimes do a whole lot of work to make that happen, even.

I don't see what's so special about cell phones and app stores - especially if they run Linux under the covers anyway.

Re:Its

[Mitchell314]

Cousin It actually has an annual report.

IOW, typo's are not a big deal, and life moves on.

I'd like a taste

[zeroRenegade]

I'd be interested in seeing an app store moderated by a free software foundation. I think it could attract a lot of talented developers. It would free us from the walled garden and the android market is being drowned by a flood of low quality development. For example, if you look for a live wallpaper, there are hundreds of applications from just a few of the same developers. Developers should be restricted in the amount of applications that they slapped together which they are allowed to release. A foundation like Mozilla understands good software.

Cloud applications are making a good fight, but in reality local applications/games in javascript and webgl are the future. Both of these types of web applications could be distributed through mozilla. I'd be willing to part with the same 30% that Apple takes from my pie, if the store garners a decent customer base.

Re:I'd like a taste

[SuperKendall]

but in reality local applications/games in javascript and webgl are the future

Games will never have a primary future in javascript/webgl. They simply give up way too much CPU and platform potential. Sure you are going to see a lot of javascript/webgl games, but it's just not ever going to be "the future" of gaming. It might be for applications, although I think they jury is far, far out on that and I'm doubtful for the same reasons.

Re:I'd like a taste

[icebraining]

That's because you're still clinging to the idea that AAA games are the future. They're not even the present. The casual gaming market is growing immensely and has much better profit margins.

Re:I'd like a taste

[duguk]

there are hundreds of applications from just a few of the same developers. Developers should be restricted in the amount of applications that they slapped together which they are allowed to release. A foundation like Mozilla understands good software.

I couldn't disagree more. More software isn't a bad thing, and stopping duplication or number of releases would be against the whole point of a free software foundation.

What's needed is a better way to distinguish good apps from bad apps; in the same way that we have on other OS's - especially Windows. Mozilla are pretty good with this on their Addons (there's a lot of crap, but you don't often see it) - I could see this going well.

As for language and where it's run, I don't see as it's that important; developers should choose the best tool for the job.

Re:You know what I want?

[byronblue]

what the hell are you talking about? The only apps that have ads are those that you didn't pay for (try buy an app you like some time). If you're using Safari then it's not different that browsing the web with your desktop browser (although on desktop it's easier to block ads with plugins). There is no such thing as ad injection capabilities on iOS. You better get back under the bridge before you get hit by a car.

Re:You know what I want?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla would never do that, as they make money on ads. They'd also never include an open plugin system, as then apple wouldn't let it on the appstore.

If you want adblock on the iphone, jailbreak and install SBSettingsAdBlockToggle. It's one of several adblock apps on the cydia store, and it works fairly well.

Re:i have an appstore

[metrometro]

Unfortunately, neither my old iphone or new android phone can easily search and install apps from this "web" you speak of. And I hear that apps are popular with the "users". Having a new standard - platform independent apps - and a non-creepy selection criteria sounds like a win for people who use phones, encouraging competition and keeping us all interoperable.

I'm glad Mozilla is working on this, because no one else seems to give a damn about both openness and competition.

Re:Its

[Tumbleweed]

IOW, typo's are not a big deal, and life moves on.

Well, that depends on if you're using draconian error handling or not.

Re:Its

[mug funky]

it's a sign-writer's apostrophe.

this looks like a normal apostrophe, but it's purpose is to warn the reader that an "s" is coming.

Re:Is this really needed?

[Frosty Piss]

I don't see what's so special about cell phones and app stores - especially if they run Linux under the covers anyway

Not only that, you really *DON'T* have to build an app that runs in all Linux / Android distros. First you eliminate all the "fringe" distros and hardware platforms, "fringe" means niche, very few users. Then, you target the top three.

No problems.

Already being done...

[SuperKendall]

I'm sure Mozilla can do a good job, but there are already similar attempts underway - one is OpenAppMkt.

I guess Mozilla has an advantage in that they can bundle it with the browser, but to me it seems more like mobile users would be using such a thing than desktop users, and I don't know of any mobile devices that ship with Mozilla as the default browser.

Re:As a Nokia fan boy ...

[Microlith]

Which is at best tangential to the topic at hand, no?

Re:Its

[hedwards]

Um, last time I checked making a typo wasn't illegal. As opposed to the TSA illegally molesting passengers for the audacity to buy plane tickets. I'm also unaware of any significant number of people with a legitimate cause for complaining about flashbacks induced by such a common misspelling.

Re:Its

[Yvan256]

< is the beginning of an HTML tag. Slashdot simply doesn't convert it into the &lt; entity.

Browser with JS device API + Open store

[Mandrel]

There needs to be a browser that exposes in JavaScript a common API for phone I/O: accelerometer, multi-touch, camera, GPS. etc.

I'd also like to see a store for apps (native or HTML+JS) that charged for apps but also (1), encouraged developers to make the source of their apps available, and (2), allowed other developers to sell altered binaries on the same store, with the original author getting a cut equal to what they originally charged, and so on down the line. This would open development, while ensuring those adding value are compensated. It'd be like a software VAT.

Re:Browser with JS device API + Open store

[ducomputergeek]

There needs to be a browser that exposes in JavaScript a common API for phone I/O: accelerometer, multi-touch, camera, GPS. etc.

Um that part already exists: http://www.phonegap.com/

Re:Browser with JS device API + Open store

[Mandrel]

Excellent, thanks for the link.

Re:how about shipping the browser first?

[mrawhimskell]

uhm, don't we have mozilla firefox mobile on the iphone? and on android as well? BTW, that was a smart move by them. when they 'enable' the app store feature, it'll be interesting to see how apple reacts to it.

Re:Its

[DavidinAla]

Actually, something such as this probably wasn't a typo. It was probably ignorance. Continuing to ignore this kind of ignorance creates a mass of people who can't write, can't spell and are very unclear in what they're trying to communicate. So I agree that it's worth calling attention to. We all make mistakes sometimes, and typos DO happen. But when you see "it's" over and over and over from people who think they're typing a possessive, they're not all typos.

Re:how about shipping the browser first?

[preflex]

a platform that people actually use?

Such as Android?

Re:Its

[Anonymous Coward]

It does matter to me, greatly. I buy a lot of plane tickets nowadays. I drive to the airport, park my car, go through security, and read a book. I don't actually board the plane though. I just like having TSA guys rub their hands all over me. Mmmmm....

Your turn.

Re:Its

[gmhowell]

Um, last time I checked making a typo wasn't illegal.

Make a typo on your tax return and get back to me on that.

Guaranteed Fail

[digitaltraveller]

I'll bet good money this will fail. One reason apps are so popular is that their user experience is so highly customised to their individual devices.

Re:Guaranteed Fail

[pspahn]

Agreed. Phones make no sense for even the current model to be sustainable. Put a browser on the phone, point the browser to a web site. App installed.

Granted, I can see the point of having a library that simply links to a web site, but I wouldn't necessarily call that an app store.

Web apps mean open - how not?

[SuperKendall]

but also (1), encouraged developers to make the source of their apps available

How are web apps not open, ever? By definition if they run you can see the source, because the browser has to have the javascript/css to work...

Re:Web apps mean open - how not?

[Mandrel]

How are web apps not open, ever? By definition if they run you can see the source, because the browser has to have the javascript/css to work...

JavaScript can be compressed/encoded/obfuscated, which makes it much harder to modify than when there are both code comments and proper function and variable names. API documentation, both client and server-side, may also be lacking.

Walmartization of app space..?

[BenJCarter]

From the first 2 opening paragraphs:
"Mozilla has already brought the desktop Firefox experience to mobile devices long back as the Fennec browser"
"Mozilla has designed a prototype of mobile app store"
GNU can take over the world, but beware the dreaded Engrish.

PhoneGap

[Mandrel]

PhoneGap looks like it's a set of SDKs that allows apps written in JavaScript to run on a number of phone OSes; not a browser for each of these OSes that allow arbitrary websites to act like device-integrated phone apps.

Does anyone know of a browser app with PhoneGap capability? Would such an app be approved by Apple?

Re:PhoneGap

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it doesn't have everything you mentioned, but it does exist: Adobe Flash. But everybody around here thinks it has no market.

And it sucks.

Editors?

[GF678]

has revealed it's plans

has revealed it is plans?

Cart before horse

[suv4x4]

I love the guys at Mozilla, but damn they're good at digging a hole for themselves.

All mobile platforms have stores that offer apps. Including web stack apps, as both for iPhone, Symbian and Android, *officially approved* SDK-s exists that compile cross-platform apps driven by the built-in WebKit (plus extra API-s exposed to it, to make it an app).

This means Mozilla will be creating a niche no one is asking for, and potentially shooting their chances of being on the iPhone, as Apple has shown it may approve video players and web browsers in some cases, but it'll never approve an App Store app.

Everyone *everyone* I have seen install Mozilla's browser on a mobile says the same thing: make it faster, make it more efficient. I guess they thought this is not fancy enough, so let's put an app store clone... Sigh.

Re:Cart before horse

[kangsterizer]

Let's say that Mozilla would need to have an EXTREMELY good app store, that starts fast, have fast and good apps that works WELL everywhere.

Not half-assed polish, but really good stuff.. for this to work. That means if they were to release Angry Birds for it for example, it would work on w7, android, iOS, Symbian, Meego with no customization, and just as well as Angry Birds for iOS/Android (and the store would have to start "instant" no delay.)

And I'm not sure they can deliver that.

Re:Cart before horse

[VortexCortex]

Let's say that Mozilla would need to have an EXTREMELY good app store, that starts fast, have fast and good apps that works WELL everywhere.

Not half-assed polish, but really good stuff.. for this to work. That means if they were to release Angry Birds for it for example, it would work on w7, android, iOS, Symbian, Meego with no customization, and just as well as Angry Birds for iOS/Android (and the store would have to start "instant" no delay.)

And I'm not sure they can deliver that.

Done and done: I have Angry Birds running on my Linux laptop... The Android SDK includes a phone emulator.

As far as I can tell, there's no reason phone makers can't install Android on any device they want (hell, even jailbroken iphones can run Android). Android is cross platform.

Also note: Games are hard to make perform well on so many platforms because you typically want to take full advantage of the hardware available. This is why "Minimum System Requirements" exist. At some point you have to remove features on slower hardware or set a hard baseline.

IMO, all we really need now is the option to add custom app stores to the device. Adding a custom repository is a well understood practice; Make doing so simple on phones then Mozilla's store can just be another tab in the phone's app store.

Re:Cart before horse

[kangsterizer]

The was not to run this very game (Angry Birds) on a given platform. It's already running on all platforms, but they had to port it for each.

The point is to have such a popular game working equally well on all platforms via Mozilla's app store.

Not Angry Birds of course, it's pointless, but a game of the same level, it would mean any other such game would be written the same and be truly "write once run anywhere" (what java wanted to be)

Android has custom app stores, by the way, as long as your phone is not all locked up (= choose well what you buy, I've a SGS for example, and various non-Google app stores, all it took is one app to install)

Re:Cart before horse

[kangsterizer]

The point was not*
Damn me :(

Re:Firefox: Memory and CPU muncher

[commodore64_love]

I've not noticed any Firefox memory problems since 3.5, and 4.0 is even more robust.
Still not as tiny as SeaMonkey but a lot better than in the past.

Re:Its

[hedwards]

Still not illegal. Sure they can audit it, but they have to prove that it was more than a typo. You'd have to pay plus a penalty, but what you've got there is a straw man.

Gotta' love software companies..

[Seth Kriticos]

..and their tendency to abuse every software paradigm.

As I see it, app stores / software centers are meant to unify application sources and updates. This implies to me, that there should be one of it and probably the best place is on the platform level: the OS.

If we start pushing in app stores on all other software stack levels (browsers, random websites, company specific app stores - I'm sure Adobe is working on something like that -, probably more will show up) then the whole idea misses it's point. Could as well go back to downloading random apps and installing it.

This is the same crap that happened with OpenID. Suddenly we had 16 different, incompatible OpenID providers, and it's hardly useful at all any more.

I picture the scenario where my uncle asks me for help over the phone and I tell him to please install app x/y from the software center.. and then I have to detail which one of the 15.

Re:Gotta' love software companies..

[VortexCortex]

..and their tendency to abuse every software paradigm.

As I see it, app stores / software centers are meant to unify application sources and updates. This implies to me, that there should be one of it and probably the best place is on the platform level: the OS.

Agreed, there should be one place to unify application sources and updates. I think an OS level muliti-repository system is in order. So, what we really need is the ability to add custom repositories to the "app store list", much like Linux repository management...

It's up to the app developers not to flood each repo with multiple incompatible versions; Such complications will have to be ironed out, but I would really like the choice to add alternate app stores.

Note: Mozilla's app store is not integrated into the unified app distribution and update system specifically because the option to add alternate app stores isn't available to the users, yet.

Re:Its

[Mitchell314]

You're seriously comparing the TSA bs to a typo in a /. summary? Okay...

Re:Is this really needed?

[VortexCortex]

Since I first discovered what an "app store" is my brain has always performed this simple perl regexp:

=~ s/ app(lication)? \W store /repository/gosix;

Ah, that's better. Yes, repositories are a good thing. Community driven repository approval processes makes sense to communities. Corporate dictatorship repository approval processes makes sense to control freaks.

Personally, I will not use any platform where I can't either: add my own repositories or install programs that are not in the approved repository... IMO, there is no excuse to not give customers this choice.

Mozilla already has a repository for its FF plugins, so it has some experience with repositories.

I think repositories are the best way to distribute software. Making it easier to distribute the programs I create to wider audiences is a win for everyone.

PS: I also think we need more decentralized repositories. (Central program database backed by .torrents?)

Re:Its

[tehcyder]

it's a sign-writer's apostrophe.

this looks like a normal apostrophe, but it's purpose is to warn the reader that an "s" is coming.

What are you talking about? Are sign-writers pathologically scared of the letter S because it's the first one in Spider or something?

Re:Copy others much?

[lluBdeR]

Why go to all the trouble of creating something when you can wait for someone else to do it then jump on the bandwagon and make some "me too" money?

Re:i have an appstore

[Daengbo]

Much like ChromeOS'(s?) App Marketplace, this could give web developers exposure and an easy payment model, driving up paid subscriptions. I think that's a good thing.

Nope, AAA games are not the future

[SuperKendall]

That's because you're still clinging to the idea that AAA games are the future. They're not even the present.

It's not AAA titles that really go after performance. It's the smaller developers, the indies, because they are not about making an engine that is simply good enough to carry the billion dollars of artwork to be delivered, indies are all about making an AMAZING game that often takes full advantage of some hardware features.

So you are exactly backwards in your thinking - AAA titles could live quite well in a world of javascript/webgl, and in fact they would obviously prefer to do so since it would mean lower development costs. It's the indies that crave uniqueness and platform performance, and why only the simplest of games will carry forth in the web world leaving the really interesting stuff to be native.

Re:So this is why Firefox 4 is delayed

[Lanteran]

An internet explorer browser slashdot's browser of choice? What the hell are you smoking dude?

Re:how about shipping the browser first?

[jo_ham]

They'll do nothing - the system exists right now on the iPhone for HTML5/css/javascript based apps. It was the original method designed for the iPhone, and it is still there, documented and ok'ed by Apple as an app delivery route.

Re:Is this really needed?

[BitZtream]

The problem is not that cell phones are so different, the problem is that you think what you described is quality control.

installing and running a package and marking the checkbox when the window pops up is not quality control, sorry.

Re:As a Nokia fan boy ...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Which is at best tangential to the topic at hand, no?

A native American Indian hunter/scout/guide once told me that his folks never got lost in the woods ... but sometimes the path strayed a bit.

When I told him that my thoughts often ran tangential to the topic, he answered, "Good! Then you will not notice that we are lost!"