Mozilla Drops $25 Smartphone Plans, Will Focus On Higher Quality Devices

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Drops $25 Smartphone Plans, Will Focus On Higher Quality Devices

Posted by Soulskill on Monday May 25, 2015 @05:18AM from the disposing-of-disposable-technology dept.

An anonymous reader writes: When Mozilla developed Firefox OS, its goal was not to provide the best smartphone experience, but to provide a "good enough" smartphone experience for a very low price. Unfortunately, these cheap handsets failed to make a dent in the overall smartphone market, and the organization is now shifting its strategy to start producing a better experience for better devices. CEO Chris Beard said, "If you are going to try to play in that world, you need to offer something that is so valuable that people are willing to give up access to the broader ecosystem. In the mass market, that's basically impossible." Of course, when moving to the midrange smartphone market, or even the high end, there's still plenty of competition, so the new strategy may not work any better. However, they've hinted at plans to start supporting Android apps, which could help them play catch-up. Beard seems fixated on this new goal: "We won't allow ourselves to be distracted, and we won't expand to new segments until significant traction is demonstrated." He adds, "We will build products that feel like Mozilla."

90 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why do this in the first place? by gstoddart · 2015-05-25 05:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

So why is Mozilla trying to enter into the cheap handset market? This isn't their core competencies.
It just seems like they're flailing about trying to define the next big thing. And, really, that seems to be a waste of resources.
This just feels like Mozilla has kind of lost the plot.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
1. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Because it will collapse otherwise because it no longer can suck on Google's teet.
2. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-05-25 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The problem is that they are essentially rudderless without Google's yearly handouts. If Mozilla had diversified their revenue long ago they wouldn't be in this situation of throwing tons of shit at the wall to see what sticks.
3. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:36 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  The problem is that they are essentially rudderless without Google's yearly handouts. If Mozilla had diversified their revenue long ago they wouldn't be in this situation of throwing tons of shit at the wall to see what sticks.
  They were too busy firing a CEO because "ZOMG GAY MARRIAGE"
4. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Because how else are they supposed to make the money to keep operating, when everything else they try just makes naive, idealistic people stop supporting them? T-shirts and donations aren't cutting it, and they can't operate on zero, especially when they're not just making browsers, but are trying to compete with Google, MS, and Apple on how the web is steered. They need their core team to keep fighting to modernize Firefox, so why not a licensing scheme like FirefoxOS? They've already broken with Google like we wanted, so now they need to find other sources of revenue... and those don't just appear out of thin air.
5. Re:Why do this in the first place? by rudy_wayne · 2015-05-25 05:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Because it will collapse otherwise because it no longer can suck on Google's teet.
  But now, they've got Bing's teat to suck on.
  I imagine that eventually people will stop giving Mozilla boatloads of free money and Mozilla will have to figure out a way to function like a real business. However, this isn't it:
  "they've hinted at plans to start supporting Android apps"
  That will kill Firefox OS faster than anything. If Firefox OS runs Android apps then there's no reason for write any Firefox OS apps. There already are a gazillion Android apps out there. And if you think of something new, and you're already experienced at writing for Android, there's no need to learn how to write for Firefox OS, just keep making Android apps. And if there are no Firefox OS-specific apps then there's no reason to use Firefox OS.
  Google The Failure of OS/2
6. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't this like Apple in the early '90s, after Jobs was fired? Tons of cash but a sense of time running out.
7. Re:Why do this in the first place? by rudy_wayne · 2015-05-25 05:41 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  So why is Mozilla trying to enter into the cheap handset market? This isn't their core competencies.
  It just seems like they're flailing about trying to define the next big thing. And, really, that seems to be a waste of resources.
  This just feels like Mozilla has kind of lost the plot.
  Mozilla lost the plot long ago. Their combination of arrogance and incompetence has ruined what was once the best browser around.
  But at least they forced their CEO to resign because he voted against same sex marriage. They've got that going for them.
8. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't their core competencies.
  What the hell is Mozilla competent at these days? Sure as hell isn't UX.
9. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Bullshit.
  The terms are undisclosed, but Yahoo are supposed to be paying at least as much as Google used to. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide citations for our benefit.
10. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  Nonsense. They get equally huge amounts of money from Yahoo, who took over from Google as their cash cow.
  Diversify their revenue?! Are you suggesting an Office Suite, or an Operating System? Perhaps a games company. Or Burger Restaurants.
  Personally, I'd like them to stick to Browsers, thank you.
11. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Kjella · 2015-05-25 06:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why do this in the first place?
  Unlike the desktop, most people use the browser supplied with their smartphone/tablet. Apple doesn't allow any application competing with their own as far as I know and on Android Chrome is a central part of Google's all-or-nothing package of apps and services. Maybe they think that for once they'll be the default browser on something. Then again, they're not a first party browser on the desktop either so why they need to have delusions of grandeur I don't know. What I do know is that they have zero chance of pulling off a whole mobile ecosystem with apps and everything. Even Microsoft struggle like hell and they have poured billions into Windows Phone, the Nokia buyout and whatnot.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
12. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, those open source hippies just don't understand business. They call it "free software". Free! Hippies, the lot of them.
13. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-05-25 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  Apple doesn't allow any application competing with their own as far as I know
  
  And what you know amounts to very little apparently. When was the last time you heard anything about iOS? 2009? What Apple doesn't allow is third-party web engines, but they allow alternate webkit-based browsers. There are probably hundreds of such applications in the App Store.
14. Re:Why do this in the first place? by nashv · 2015-05-25 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Well, making their browser useful again would be a start. The gap between Chrome and Firefox is hilarious now. There's a good reason why every new browser makes outthere uses a Blink/Webkit derivative and not Gecko.
  
  --
  Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
15. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Because the people in charge are deranged loonies?
  Look I'm all for there being cheap devices that the poor and starving can afford, but those devices are essentially worthless if the wireless access services are so expensive that they can't even use them. That is the problem with this line of thinking "cheap is better" ... no cheaper is only better when the cost to use it is zero.
  Ask anyone with a high end gamer PC how much it costs them in electricity. They won't know. I can tell you right now that a mid-high end system (eg powerful enough to play a MMO on, not stupidly expensive, increases my power bill by 8$ per month. If a cheap system and a high end system's only difference is saving or spending an extra 5$, you aren't going to justify buying the 500$ more expensive hardware just to save 5$/mo since you will only recover it after 17 years... by which you'd have replaced it no less than 3 times.
  No with cell phones, the monthly service has to be effectively zero before people will actually care how much the device costs.
16. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  Your point does not cancel out the GP's point.
  Apple do indeed (still) have an infrequently enforced policy about competing apps, and they still do not allow the default email or browser app to be changed.
  That there are lots of alternative web browsers based on their webkit does not suggest 'competing' browsers, because those browsers are unable to meaningfully compete.
17. Re:Why do this in the first place? by tepples · 2015-05-25 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  What Apple doesn't allow is third-party web engines, but they allow alternate webkit-based browsers.
  Are "alternate webkit-based browsers" capable of adding support for HTML5 elements and attributes that Apple chose to leave out of WebKit for iOS? Are they allowed to associate themselves with the http: and https: schemes? I didn't think so.
18. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-05-25 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Apple do indeed (still) have an infrequently enforced policy about competing apps
  Such as?
  
  That there are lots of alternative web browsers based on their webkit does not suggest 'competing' browsers, because those browsers are unable to meaningfully compete.
  They can't compete on the rendering engine, sure, but users don't actually give two shits about that. The browsers compete on the other features they can provide.
19. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is a line that's been trotted around so much since 2008 that I think people just believe it's inherently true, rather than checking for themselves. If so many people out there have noticed how shitty Chrome has become, and how much Safari/WebKit has stalled, then why can't you?
  What's really pathetic is that Firefox truly is usable and useful, compared to Chrome and the rest. It's hardly incapable of doing what the others do, they're even largely caught up to Chrome in terms of HTML5 features and are far ahead in terms of ES6. So just repeating this tired line isn't useful anymore unless you have an incentive to pretend that Firefox is still that far behind.
20. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-05-25 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Are "alternate webkit-based browsers" capable of adding support for HTML5 elements and attributes that Apple chose to leave out of WebKit for iOS? Are they allowed to associate themselves with the http: and https: schemes?
  No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
  
  I didn't think so.
  And I never said they could so I don't see the relevance.
21. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2015-05-25 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  and they still do not allow the default email or browser app to be changed.
  No, but companies can do like what Google does and just tightly integrate all your apps together where clicking something in one launches another one of your apps to handle it.
22. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  So what you're basically saying is that Apple is telling Mozilla to release a Firefox that isn't really Firefox, will not work like Firefox does, and will therefore disappoint people who think it's substantially different from Mobile Safari, or anything like desktop or Android Firefox. Yup, that's definitely fair and completely not anti-competitive! Next you'll be telling me that Google not allowing OEMs to bundle Firefox with their droids is perfectly fair too!
23. Re:Why do this in the first place? by tlhIngan · 2015-05-25 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
  Ironically, Firefox for iOS uses system WebKit as well. This could result in an interesting situation where Firefox on Android runs like crap, but Firefox on iOS runs pretty nicely (still like crap because embedded WebKit disables Nitro).
  As for why, Safari runs with reduced permissions that allow JIT code compiling, embedded WebKit runs with standard (i.e., greater) permissions so JIT code is a security vulnerability.
  But apparently it's not about the HTML renderer that matters - it's everything around it that matters in a browser.
24. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  Some MBA had a brilliant idea that Mozilla should try to shovel the least efficient way of doing applications (==HTML5) into cheapest piece of shit phones one can find. Perhaps next time the management team gets somebody from R&D to review their technology visions.
25. Re: Why do this in the first place? by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-05-25 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  MoFo is expert at making excuses for architectural deficiencies that slay the UX but have 15-year-old bugs on them because "that touches a lot of code". And fostering an environment where that's A-OK. In the time that Mozilla's not been able to get async tasks out of the UI thread, Elon Musk has build a spaceship company that's gone to the ISS and landed a rocket back to Earth. It's either a lack of engineering discipline or absurdist leadership - hard to say which or both but no for-profit firm would tolerate such complacence.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
26. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Cheap phones make sense in certain instances. What doesn't make sense is making a cheap phone that depends heavily on web applications to function. That cheap phone probably isn't going to be paired with a world-class data plan.
27. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  >Because it will collapse otherwise because it no longer can suck on Google's teet.
  If there's only one, that might not be a teet.
  Developing an alternative low/mid-end product would be a far more valuable contribution if there were also some key differentiating feature. If a more-secure product with refined web standards, were tweaked to allow some expression of ad preferences while aggressively fighting any kind of personal data-mining, many might value that.
  A breakthrough mainstream product might have a good chance in some part of the world where there is still healthy tech innovation (including viable component and hardware manufacturing) and regulations aligned with a more focused public outrage over privacy violations. Perhaps Germany ought to be in the smartphone business. Blackberry would be less likely to lose their security-conscious customers under German ownership then with a U.S. based owner like MS. Being able to produce what goes into the product would make it a healthy contributor to jobs and the wider economy, instead of it hurting all but those at the top.
  MS could try to differentiate itself with a privacy/security targeted product, but they'd have a tougher battle building trust.
  While data-mining has provided growth for some businesses, it has also brought considerable harm to many.
28. Re:Why do this in the first place? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2015-05-25 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  But at least they forced their CEO to resign because he voted against same sex marriage.
  That is soooo not what happened. I'll never understand: If what Mozilla did was so wrong then why can't the people shaking their finger at them be honest about what actually happened?
  He donated $1,000 to have ads like this produced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4. We heard about it because his own employees raised the issue.
  Saying he was forced to resign because of a vote he made is just plain dishonest.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
29. Re:Why do this in the first place? by kamapuaa · 2015-05-25 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  There will, never, ever be a "killer app" for Firefox OS. And who cares? This isn't a video game console. People expect a phone to have all the basic apps like Facebook/Runkeeper/Whatever, and it's impossible to think such an app would be developed for a single platform. Nobody buys an Android because they can't get Hulu for iOS.
  Firefox will succeed if people prefer the look & feel of the OS, and if it's easy to get, and if it easily runs all the apps expected of it. As long as it works, who cares if it's OS native or not?
  
  --
  Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
30. Re: Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, and I'll bet if Mozilla had Musk's resources, a blank slate to start with, and lack of competitors dozens of times his size, then they could have turned out a fantastic browser too. But sadly they had Firefox to work with, much less revenue, and a userbase of snark-generating machines who would rather hide behind "I can just use Chrome instead of helping Mozilla out" as their excuse. Heck, when Mozilla decided it was taking too long to fix the UI, and replaced it, did people think "well, that's just how it goes - you gotta break a few eggs to make the omelette?" No, they chastised Mozilla even MORE for not keeping the shitty old UX and bugs, because it wasn't familiar anymore. Mozilla just can't do anything right when you define everything in purely theoretical negative terms.
31. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  Mozilla needs to lose their non-profit status. It's pretty fucking clear that they are not a non-profit, what with their fancy offices and mobile phone products.
32. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, firing that bigot was the single thing that they have done right in recent years.
33. Re: Why do this in the first place? by ArmoredDragon · 2015-05-25 10:21 · Score: 2
  
  I have a better idea: Just use Android, only write a drop in replacement for Play Services. Pull an Amazon, only invite other OEMs to the party so that they sell your devices, and no walled garden.
34. Re: Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 11:36 · Score: 0
  
  +1
35. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  Punctuation dude!
  Google "The failure of OS/2"
  or
  Google: The failure of OS/2
  Some young readers will start thinking Google killed OS/2
36. Re:Why do this in the first place? by gl4ss · 2015-05-25 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  there's no reason to write firefox apps NOW.
  either the firefox apps need to be natively packagable for android or the other way around.
  however, if it feels like mozilla? what do they mean? that they'll add a skinning system to it with big fanfare and then drop it? that at first it'll be a lean mean thing that runs quick and then quickly will get bloated with stupid shit while they move yes/no/cancel buttons to different combinations and orientations without telling you?
  also, it feels just like a fucking company now so there's that... it doesn't have the from users to users feel. mozilla should just go and look back at why phoenix was such a success and why firefox is now meh.
  mozilla hasn't provided me with anything useful/better in THIRTEEN FRIGGIN YEARS than competition now so..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
37. Re: Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Shut up, Apple.
38. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 15:30 · Score: 0
  
  And yet their direction since has been... oh wait there hasn't been any direction.
39. Re:Why do this in the first place? by exomondo · 2015-05-25 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  there's no reason to write firefox apps NOW.
  But if it runs Android apps then why would developers write for Firefox and alienate Android users when they could just write for Android and have it run on Firefox OS anyway?
  Having an application library just reduces the burden on the "killer feature", it doesn't have to be so great that people abandon the Android or iOS application library but that feature still needs to be good enough to drive adoption.
40. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 16:28 · Score: 0
  
  Hence the "single thing that they have done right in recent years" part of that statement.
41. Re:Why do this in the first place? by kuzb · 2015-05-25 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Congratulations, you just listed off all the features regular consumers do not care about.
  
  --
  BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
42. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Dog-Cow · 2015-05-25 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  You may not think (so), but that doesn't make you correct. What exactly is stopping an app developer for using http or https as a custom scheme?
43. Re:Why do this in the first place? by Dog-Cow · 2015-05-25 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's only ironic if you have no knowledge of Apple's policies.
  As for webkit performance, stay up-to-date: webkit on iOS 8. iOS 8 has been out for half a year.
44. Re:Why do this in the first place? by ChunderDownunder · 2015-05-25 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  These aren't your grandfather's web applications.
  You download a bundle from the firefox marketplace and it installs on your device. Offline. Such an app will thus use no more 3G data than a corresponding app for iOS or Android.
45. Re:Why do this in the first place? by ChunderDownunder · 2015-05-25 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think SpiderMonkey/Gecko are the villains here. Specs are in order to reach a price point.
  Profit margins on a $25 device are zilch, so manufacturers need to cut corners by releasing products unsuited to a 2015 era OS. Try running iOS 8 or Android 5 on a handset with 128MB and a Cortex A5 CPU - that's a phone released in 2014 with specs equivalent to an iPhone 1 or a Nokia 97 from last decade.
  By comparison on better hardware - Performance on their reference phone, the Flame, is decent. ZTE are releasing the Open-L this month with a quad core Snapdragon 210. Hardly iPhone 6 territory but still - The previous model has been retailing for about $US77 here in Australia. When my Flame breaks I'll willingly shell out the dough...
46. Re:Why do this in the first place? by AqD · 2015-05-25 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  12 years and they still haven't solved the memory leak problem. Memory usage easily goes up to 1 or 2GB after a week of use and closing all tabs couldn't fix it. Compared that to Chrome - at least Chrome utilizes a multi-process model which ensures everything gets cleaned up the moment you close a tab.
  The entire Mozilla/Gecko engine is NOT meant to be suitable for integration because they somehow decided it's better to have their own platform, GUI, internal scripting and everything instead of just a core engine. It's inconsistent in every way with every OSes it runs on, and also unnecessarily slower and more resource-hungry. Firefox is essentially a web-based shell to a web browser based on Gecko.
47. Re:Why do this in the first place? by squiggleslash · 2015-05-25 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Because of the three existing mobile platforms, two have gatekeepers with a veto on what can and cannot be installed. This makes it exceptionally difficult for Mozilla to make mobile browsers with any chance of success.
  This is only not important if you think:
  1. Mobile devices will never become the most common way of accessing the Internet
  2. Android (the sole platform that allows the user and only the user to ultimately decide what's allowed to be installed on their device) will always have a huge market share, so big that iOS and Windows Phone/Mobile/whatever it's called today will always have a negligible marketshare.
  I suspect (1) is already false. (2) is laughably false. So this is important for Mozilla.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
48. Re: Why do this in the first place? by swillden · 2015-05-26 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  I have a better idea: Just use Android, only write a drop in replacement for Play Services. Pull an Amazon, only invite other OEMs to the party so that they sell your devices, and no walled garden.
  How would this be attractive to OEMs? Google already offers an extremely well-developed open ecosystem. Amazon wanted to have their own walled garden, but you're assuming there are OEMs that don't want to do that, but want to have a different ecosystem, and want it enough to be willing to accept smaller sales numbers. What would make them want to do that?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
49. Re:Why do this in the first place? by trewornan · 2015-05-26 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  I've got a ZTE - bought it as a back up in case I break my main phone - I used it for a couple of months to get used to it / check it worked for me.
  Seems fine for the basics, sat nav was a bit flaky but I don't use my phone for that much. Otherwise perfectly fine for voice, sms, and a bit of browsing.
50. Re:Why do this in the first place? by DuckDodgers · 2015-05-26 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm less certain of this than I was a year ago. In mid 2014, I would confidently assert that Firefox matches Chrome everywhere, and Chrome's multiprocess advantage was irrelevant because Firefox was so stable it did not matter. But this spring, Firefox on Ubuntu has been awful for me. After it's been open for about a day, it starts to hang left and right, even with all add-ons disabled. I had to change my user preference to "When Firefox Starts: Show my windows and tabs from last time" and now I kill the browser manually when I can't stand the lag about twice a week. I've gone through all of the steps at https://support.mozilla.org/en... and my machine has 12GB of RAM, and aside from the fact that applying any suggested fix involves a full restart of Firefox (which solves the problem for about two days) nothing seems to work.
  
  Maybe the situation is better on Windows, OS X, and Android. I certainly hope it's better on Firefox OS, since of course low and even mid range mobile devices don't have the same memory available as traditional laptops and desktops. I leave Chrome on my work machine, which also runs Ubuntu, open for months at a time.
51. Re:Why do this in the first place? by DuckDodgers · 2015-05-26 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Mozilla is trying to foster platform independence - the ultimate goal of Firefox OS is not to get Firefox OS onto every smartphone in the world, the ultimate goal is to make is so that the host operating system of every smartphone in the world is irrelevant because you can do everything you want on a smartphone with an HTML5 browser.
  
  HTML5 supports offline storage. Once enough applications are built to use that feature in an intelligent way, world-class data plans don't matter as much.
52. Re:Why do this in the first place? by sonicmerlin · 2015-05-26 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  I thought iOS 8 allows 3rd party browsers to use Nitro?
feel like mozilla ? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:24 · Score: 0

so i guess to feel like Mozilla you have to spy on your users (but call it telemetry) show adverts (but call it enhanced tabs) incorporate non open source services that replicate existing functionality and generally piss off their users with inexplicable UI changes
that "high quality" Mozilla ?
"We will build products that feel like Mozilla" by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 05:30 · Score: 0

So they are squishy? And make a mess on your shoes?
1. Re:"We will build products that feel like Mozilla" by weilawei · 2015-05-25 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Memory leaky. Soon to have targeted advertising. Uses at least 2x the memory available.
First you get my hopes up by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:00 · Score: 0

...and then you let me down with this.

"We will build products that feel like Mozilla."
"Feel like Mozilla"? More cheap copies of Chrome? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:13 · Score: 0

"We will build products that feel like Mozilla."
Great. Just what we fucking need.
More cheap copies of Chrome from a Chrome-wannabe shop.
Read the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Trailer+Trash · 2015-05-25 06:17 · Score: 2

Law 8 is "the law of duality" - every market becomes a two horse race. Coca-Cola & Pepsi, Nike & Reebok, etc. The horses here are "iPhone" and "Android". The best Mozilla can hope for at this point is to become Royal Crown Cola.

--
Do you have ESP?
1. Re:Read the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  every market becomes a two horse race. Coca-Cola & Pepsi, Nike & Reebok, etc
  Coke and Pepsi is just something that business school professors, and business writers, like to talk about because it's easy for people to get their heads around.
  In autos, or even segments of the auto industry such as SUVs, there is no two horse race. Even "Nike & Reebok" is a stretch - Nike dominates that industry, so it's more of a one horse race. In golf equipment you have Titleist, Nike, Taylor Made, Calloway, Mizuno, and others.
  In software and IT services, there is a tendency towards monopoly, most obviously with Windows and MS Office on the desktop, Google in search, Facebook for social networking and Amazon for e-commerce. Metcalfe's Law has a lot to do with that.
2. Re:Read the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  That law is precisely why that book is broken. The example it gives of McDs vs BK is crap. In many, many, many areas it ends up being McDs vs. XYZ vs. ZYX vs. whatever vs. BK.
  Where I am, it's McD vs Harvey's vs Wendy's vs BK. In fact, in all my travels throughout North America, I've never found this two horse race. Other places have Sonic, In 'n Out, White Castle, Five Guys amongst others.
  In fact, the only two things I can think of that follow that law are Toothpaste and Soft Drinks.
  As an example for the geeks, quick, tell me 4 major PC vendors: (Asus, Dell, HP, Acer)
  How about 4+ major car manufacturers? 4+ major insurance companies? 4 major banks? etc. etc. etc.
3. Re:Read the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by BiggerIsBetter · 2015-05-25 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe look into who owns those brands. Often there aren't as many players in a market as it first appears.
  
  --
  Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
4. Re:Read the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by adolf · 2015-05-25 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  But there's still more than two players, which makes it not a duality.
  
  --
  Kid-proof tablet..
5. Re:Read the 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing by Trailer+Trash · 2015-05-25 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  No offense, but your mistake is not understanding the segmentation. Look at all the restaurant chains/franchises owned by Yum to get an idea of how crazy it all is. You're correct that not all markets are dualities, but it's a very common theme particularly when you understand how companies place their brands.
  I would particularly recommend the chapters around it which explain that you can create a new segment very easily.
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
Mozilla barking up wrong market by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 06:37 · Score: 1

I think Mozilla has generally lost its way. I really don't think there is much market for smartphones left with any hope of making good profit. Even Microsoft has basically resorted to the bottom feeder approach because Android and IOS have basically controlled the smartphone market for some time. Even the bigger early giant Blackberry has pretty much been killed off. I really do not know why Mozilla felt the need to enter a very crowded mobile OS market? They could not even get their web browser Firefox into the mobile market and yet they felt they would have better luck with a OS? So far I do not even understand Mozilla anymore, they lost Google revenue they gained very little from Yahoo and they seem to continue to bleed market share on their most popular product Firefox. This is not a model that screams longevity unless Yahoo simply plans to roll Mozilla into some sort of portal like the old AOL did with a dedicated browser product? Otherwise, I just see Mozilla fading out.
1. Re:Mozilla barking up wrong market by DuckDodgers · 2015-05-26 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  Mozilla is trying to add features to HTML5 to the point that mobile devices don't need native applications and can do everything the user wants in HTML5. At that point, the differences between iOS, Windows Phone, Android, Blackberry, WebOS, and Firefox OS become irrelevant because you can do anything you care about with a good browser on your phone. That is the point of Firefox OS. Not to dominate the mobile device market, but to fundamentally change the way it works so that no corporate juggernaut can dominate it.
Security updates on Firefox OS 2.2 by Blaskowicz · 2015-05-25 07:14 · Score: 2

Quoted from the Mozilla guy's email :
"We will ship v2.2 and all pending work to deliver entry-level smartphones with our key partners. Additional appropriate feature work will be rolled into Ignite. v2.2 will be maintained as a long-lived branch with security and stability updates only."
Probably means that cheap Firefox OS 2.2 phones will have a stagnant OS, but if security updates come in with regularity and for years that's precisely what we need. Are other people feeling that way? I don't care that much about how many megapixels and shiznits there are in that thing, I want it to be supported.
It lacks features though, I hope when they talk of "extensibilty" that will include ways to filter the web. PR about freedom and privacy does not work so well if it's e.g. loading facebook buttons everywhere and they can't be blocked.
Well no sh*t... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 08:09 · Score: 0

They only offered them in poor countries. Offer it in the US and other places and it might actually sell.
Fix importan stuff first by kbg · 2015-05-25 09:14 · Score: 1

Why are they wasting their time on this crap? Firefox has still got a lot of bugs and every release it seems the performance drops and memory consumption increases. What happened to the original goal of Firefox to have a lean and mean browser?
1. Re:Fix importan stuff first by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  Citation needed, because my experiences (and those who I know) differ greatly from yours. Bugs are getting fixed, the long-standing bigger issues are being fixed (e10s, OMTC, APZ, etc), memory usage is a far cry lower than it was in the Firefox 2-6 days for the same types of sites, and so on. It's not like things are just getting worse and worse. But then, I file bugs and try to help Mozilla fix them. I don't just give up and complain about them on Slashdot, and pretend that a completely unrelated division of Mozilla are the same guys working on the desktop browser and core engine.
2. Re: Fix importan stuff first by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 15:17 · Score: 0
  
  Citation: Get raped.
System-provided yet extensible? by tepples · 2015-05-25 09:38 · Score: 1

No. Hence why I said that they can't have a third-party web engine. They have to use the system-provided WebKit.
I intended to ask whether "the system-provided WebKit" could be extended with additional application-provided behaviors for elements and attributes that "the system-provided WebKit" alone does not provide.
Bummer, I want a good-cheap phone :( by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 10:03 · Score: 0

I recently found myself wishing amazon had made a cheap phone, they should profit by having the consumers connected to the amazon ecosystem, not by selling an over hyped phone with bad battery killing graphic features, thus I was hoping the Firefox phone would fill this need (Ill be in the EU soon where they are available from Orange or whatever.)
I find smartphones control of the app environment very annoying thus I do very little online with them. I get by with a Ubuntu netbook when I travel atm.
The modern cellphone environment is all about total control, so I am willing to give up some features for a cheap, simple and open system.
1. Re:Bummer, I want a good-cheap phone :( by johanw · 2015-05-25 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  With Android smartphones, you get much more value for money when you don't buy today's middle model but yesterday's top model. By that time, you also know if you can root it (if not, buy another model) and reclaim your freedom.
plan or smartphone? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 10:15 · Score: 0

Wait, is the plan $25 or is the smartphone $25? The post on Slashdot says plan, but the article on CNet says smart phone. I have a ZTE android phone for Tracfone that I bought from Best Buy for $30. I think it was on sale. Thanks for sharing the link though.
He adds, "We will build products that feel like Mo by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 11:00 · Score: 0

so, slow, buggy and with version numbers flipping by faster than you can blink?
GSM FFBook? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 13:23 · Score: 0

I think it would be better to compete with a GSM optional FFbook (to compete with the Chromebook) based on their actual investment on the FireFoxOS on low end hardware.
They would need a web office suite but i guess Microsoft would be happy to compete against Chromebooks on this camp.
Android Compatible? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 13:47 · Score: 0

I think that is an unfortunate goal. I guess it is playing Blackberry strategy, but I am not sure if it will pay off to Firefox.
I guess it would be better to make an announcement on supporting Facebook Android apps natively (whatsapp, facebook, facebook messenger) as a first step (after all the smartphones today are facebook gadgets + media players (youtube, netflix, mp3) + game console)
I guess they would do a much better impact telling us they will be a reactos instead of a android-like os.
Finally competing to Google in a position that can attract Facebook money (instead of Yahoo's) seems a better long term strategy.
Went from a Tech Company to Social Justice Society by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-25 20:33 · Score: 0

Big problem with Mozilla is that they stopped being a tech company and started purging people for their private personal views. Now it is just a Social Justice Warrior league.
get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox by spage · 2015-05-25 21:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

Much of the value of Google's contacts, calendar, music player, etc. on Android is I can access the data from any browser. It's so useful I grit my teeth and share my personal info with evil Google. Firefox OS has its own HTML5 versions of those apps running locally, yet they don't run in desktop or Android Firefox. If the apps did run in every Firefox (and eventually any standards-compliant browser) and Firefox Sync securely kept the apps' data in sync (FF Sync is encrypted, so no one can spy on my personal data) then i would find it pretty compelling.
That's my 2 cents, it merely takes $20M to implement. I like Firefox, and I enjoy the sync. Having open productivity apps running in a browser fits with Mozilla's mission. I want more stuff running in a browser without spying, because it levels the playing field for Linux and could lead to a lightweight boot-to-browser environment for my phone, laptop, desktop, and tablet. Part of Google has that vision with ChromeOS, but they can't let go of the lock-in and dominance Android gave them. It's depressing seeing everyone piss all over Mozilla instead of supporting an alternative to picking a closed proprietary environment provided by a spying corporation.

--
=S
1. Re:get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox by swillden · 2015-05-26 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  That's my 2 cents, it merely takes $20M to implement.
  Plus a lot more to operate the data centers needed to store and sync all that data around. For Mozilla to build that they'd have to find some way to pay for it. Given that people are generally not willing to pay monthly fees for that sort of service, advertising is the obvious option. But to make the advertising effective, it needs to be targeted, so...
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
2. Re:get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox by Blaskowicz · 2015-05-26 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Why not use the web service you want to, and simply use Mozilla Sync to provide the bookmark to it.
3. Re:get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox by spage · 2015-05-26 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  That's my 2 cents, it merely takes $20M to implement.
  Plus a lot more to operate the data centers needed to store and sync all that data around. ...
  True. The sync payload isn't that big for the apps I mentioned. Music is a lot to transfer but with de-duping of everyone's identical Taylor Swift tracks it isn't so much to store, though i can't see how you maintain encryption with de-duping. I deliberately left a photo-video app off the list because it's a huge amount of unique data that you do want backed up and your favorites sync'd. So maybe you pay for cloud media storage and only Firefox-sync metadata. Or web apps sync big data with OwnCloud or FreedomBox running on your router, another open alternative that's struggling for investment and mindshare.
  I really want an alternative to Android, but it's an even bigger challenge than I thought.
  
  --
  =S
4. Re:get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox by spage · 2015-05-26 20:55 · Score: 1
  
  Why not use the web service you want to, and simply use Mozilla Sync to provide the bookmark to it.
  Because web services spy on you and share or sell what you give them and everything else they discern about you. Firefox with cookie and tracker blockers reduces some of your exposure, but why have any? My calendar, to-do list, and movements are nobody's business but my own.
  
  --
  =S
5. Re:get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox by Blaskowicz · 2015-05-27 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  I agree but theoretically there'd be a reputable service, perhaps with a small fee like $1/month, that you would use for that and only that, with web site, mobile web site and Firefox OS application. (The Firefox OS "app" can be just a shortcut to the website at worst).
  Small data, no media etc. (a playlist can be stored as it's kilobyte-sized though of limited use), not even mail.
  I like that on yahoo mail there's a small section where you can simply enter raw text notes and I can put some shit there.. But indeed I can't trust them much and don't give them structured data like calendar and contacts (plus it's slow)
  The best way for now is probably self-hosting : in fact that's where I think something like Firefox OS can be especially useful because you can have a self hosted back-end and the front-end just uses the web.
  But you have to be a technically minded person and even if you are there are fees, possibility of letting the domain lapse, certificate shit, possible security breach anyway, even data loss and unavailability if done at home. But maybe you know all that, I'm just listing that shit.
  It goes back to your point of hosting the data on Mozilla Sync (with self-hosted Sync as an option too), I end up agreeing it would be a nice place but that may be out of the scope of Sync. It even becomes kind of a "monster account" like a google or microsoft account where you log in to your browser or OS or game console etc. though obvisouly not as bad.
6. Re:get the phone apps syncing with desktop Firefox by swillden · 2015-05-27 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Even the small payload becomes a big logistical challenge when you're looking at doing it globally, for large numbers of devices and want to make it fast (means having data centers in all regions), and make it reliable (means having redundancy, at multiple levels). Oh, and the "all the data is encrypted" bit may expose regulatory problems, too.
  
  I really want an alternative to Android, but it's an even bigger challenge than I thought.
  What specifically are you looking for? As an alternative, are there some ways that Android could be improved to alleviate whatever concerns you have? If your concerns are non-technical and primarily about insufficient ecosystem diversity (i.e. insufficient fragmentation), then there's probably not much to do. If your concerns are related to technical problems with Android, or privacy concerns about its relationship with Google, there may well be.
  I'm an engineer on Google's Android Security team, and I'm actively looking for things that we can do to address security and privacy concerns. One of the ideas I've been kicking around is a "pre-encryption network tap"... basically, what if you could turn on a mode that logs a copy of everything your device transmits and receives? Most of that data is (and should be!) encrypted, but since most apps and all system services use the framework implementations (yes, plural... sigh) of SSL/TLS it should be possible to hook in and grab the plaintext. My goal here is to enable users to examine what their device is sending, and to whom, because I think right now it's too hard to tell, and because specifically I think there are a lot of erroneous assumptions that Google is receiving a lot of data from Android devices without user permission.
  The downside, of course, is that adding such a hook into the system makes it a prime target for various sorts of attacks. So I don't think we would want to do that, not as stated, anyway. Though there may be some variant of the idea that isn't too risky.
  Anyway, given a system like that, it should be possible to build an alternative ecosystem of apps and services that run on Android and don't use Google's infrastructure, and that would be much easier than building an entirely new platform. You'd still need to address the problems I mentioned at the top, but at least those could be the bulk of the challenge rather than just another piece of it.
  As another alternative, I think if Google became more transparent about how it manages user data and what it does with it, many peoples' concerns would be addressed. But although I make that argument regularly, I don't have the same degree of influence there as I do over platform technology.
  Or if you have other concerns, what are they, and do you have any ideas about how the platform could address them?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Safari and Chrome already run HTML5 apps very well by Flytrap · 2015-05-26 00:28 · Score: 1

Mozilla launched Firefox OS in 2013 with the goal of breaking open the "walled gardens" that confine iOS and Android...
:
:

Mozilla's alternative is to embrace the Web. No matter what operating system a device uses... Firefox OS thus runs apps written for the Web, which in principle means those apps run on any other device, too.
:
[auntie Elizabeth returns Firefox phone because she can’t Skype/FaceTime/WhatsApp/...]
:
[reality sets in at Mozilla]
:
[consumers in emerging markets don’t care about operating systems, walled gardens, lock-in, etc. as long as the phone runs their favourite apps] :

"To bridge this app gap between user expectations and the readiness of the ecosystem, we will explore implementing Android app compatibility," Beard said
:
[Mozilla declares Android’s picket fence more acceptable than iOS’s palisade fence]
:
[Mozilla digs foxhole in Android’s not-so-walled garden and declares it open]
:
[Mozilla tunnels under iOS palisade fence and declares it web enabled]
Feels like Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · 2015-05-26 06:37 · Score: 0

So it's going to constantly be serving me popup windows about upgrades? This is the Mozilla experience to me.
The Apple-provided app is launched instead by tepples · 2015-05-26 11:28 · Score: 1

What exactly is stopping an app developer for using http or https as a custom scheme?
The fact that Safari has already grabbed it. Apple's Inter-App Communication page states: "The handlers for these schemes are fixed and cannot be changed. If your URL type includes a scheme that is identical to one defined by Apple, the Apple-provided app is launched instead of your app."
Plan A by mnt · 2015-05-26 19:24 · Score: 1

If Mozilla continues alienating their loyal user base by changing the gui every release without fixing the abysmal multicore performance i guarantee that the user base won't jump on the firefoxOS bandwagon.