FirefoxOS-Based Matchstick Project Ends; All Money To Be Refunded

Kohenkatz writes: Matchstick, a project built on FirefoxOS that aimed to compete with Google's Chromecast, which was initially funded on Kickstarter, is shutting down and will be refunding all pledges. In a post to Kickstarter backers today, they announced that this decision was due to the difficulty of implementing the DRM components that are necessary for access to a lot of paid content. Rather than drag out the project on an unknown schedule, they have decided to end the project.

Comments

Good for them

[grilled-cheese]

This would be an excellent example of Mozilla not being willing to compromise their principles to satisfy the media conglomerates obsession with DRM. Sadly however, I'm not sure who would be surprised by this.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

This would be an excellent example of Mozilla not being willing to compromise their principles to satisfy the media conglomerates obsession with DRM.

You mean you actually think they got all the way to this point and then thought "Oh crap! For a product like this we would need DRM! Oh we dont want that, better cancel."?

They were perfectly willing to "compromise their principles", they just couldn't get it to work in a feasible amount of time.

The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's unbelievable how pretty much everything relating to Firefox OS is a total, unmitigated disaster.

We know that Mozilla has poured a huge amount of resources into its development. These are resources that could have been put to better use, like by improving desktop Firefox, the only product of theirs that really sees any actual use these days. Every cent put into Firefox OS has been, in my opinion, a complete waste. Their willingness to put money and effort toward Firefox OS in the first place is why I will no longer donate to Mozilla.

The most scathing review I've ever read about a phone and its software involved Firefox OS. Having read probably thousands of reviews, that one sticks out in my mind for just how pathetic the problems were. Some people will blame it on the hardware, but many of the complaints revolved around Firefox OS, and would be a problem regardless of the hardware being used.

Then there's the whole issue of Firefox OS choosing the limited, rather shitty JavaScript/HTML/CSS stack as its only option. It's really bad when people refer to apps written using those technologies as being "native" apps just because the platform is so awful that it doesn't support anything resembling real native code or even proper bytecode of some form.

Now we have this, which is yet another failure directly associated with Firefox OS.

Mozilla, why do you keep dragging out the Firefox OS project? When we look at the big picture, it is not positive at all! Firefox OS is being rejected in the market place. It's uninspiring compared to its competitors, even when compared to what the competitors were capable of years ago. Failure surrounds the project. It wastes valuable resources.

Like the Slashdot Beta, sometimes it's better to cut your losses as early as possible. Firefox OS is clearly one of those cases. Sometimes failures happen, and when they do, it's best to move on quickly. So Mozilla, please, finally put an end to the Firefox OS project. Direct the resources toward something useful. Please!

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[Blaskowicz]

Ever seen a smartphone user, too? They use contact list, SMS, media player (or radio) and web browser.
I don't see why a google or microsoft account is needed for that.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

I don't think there's necessarily a problem with a FirefoxOS but it has to be something substantially different and disruptive, not just yet another Linux-based somethingOS for smart devices. If you want to do web apps for all platforms you can already do that, if you want to wrap them in a native platform-specific container and sell them through whatever app store you can do that too. This is also the same reason Windows Phone is doing so poorly in the market, it isn't necessarily a bad operating system, it's just not really any better or substantially different to the incumbent(s) of a mature market to have any hope to unseat them.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

FirefoxOS is an extremely important project, right up there with the browser at the time it was conceived.

As for the OS itself, years ago, there really wasn't much to say. It's improved dramatically since those early releases on low-end hardware. Check out some of the 2.5 demos. It's really something. What will really amaze you, of course, are the customization features you'll likely never find on other platforms.

As this is about the Matchstick, and you seem to like scathing reviews, take a look at this FXOS vs Android head-to-head in the smart TV arena. Needless to say, I was looking forward to the Matchstick.

When we look at the big picture, it is not positive at all!

I know. Google's spyware, Apples walled garden, it's a nightmare! That's why FXOS is so important. The mobile space needs an open platform and, most importantly, an open app package standard that anyone can implement. Users benefit by being able to keep their apps even when switching platforms and new platforms benefit from a wealth of apps ready to go from day one.

When you have a really good thing, you don't "cut your losses" simply because some kickstarter project didn't want to see another delay. It's not like the backers were consulted. I'd have voted to wait an extra year, if necessary, to get my hands on the thing. After all, I funded the project to support FXOS, not because I was interested in the matchstick. I know how important it is, and what it can do for mobile.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[ChunderDownunder]

Like the review says, running a smartphone OS on 2007 era hardware - which wouldn't be supported by any recent release of Android or iOS.

Try running a recent 2.5 build. I've been Android free for a year and loving it.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

The mobile space needs an open platform and, most importantly, an open app package standard that anyone can implement. Users benefit by being able to keep their apps even when switching platforms and new platforms benefit from a wealth of apps ready to go from day one.

What is it that the different platforms are providing then? The other issue that, AFAIK, there is no compatible standard for doing things like interfacing with fingerprint scanners, bluetooth, USB, NFC or audio/video capture. I understand there's various ways to go about some of these and there's a few different drafts for implementations particularly for the audio/video capture but still nothing standardized. This also means new features then need to wait for standardization before people can use them.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[supremebob]

Wow, that phone review was really sad.

It's particularly depressing considering that you can now get a $20 Android phone from your local Family Dollar or Dollar General without a contract that will outperform it in practically every performance and feature category.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

There are already standard APIs for interfacing with a number of different devices, with broad support across platforms. There are more on the way, with surprising cooperation between browser vendors. They know how important these new APIs are, after all. Though FireFoxOS is certainly doing a lot of the heavy lifting, even drafting support for VR. That's a solved problem and not the important issue here.

What's important here is the standard app package that can be trivially implemented on various platforms. The established players might not like it, but new mobile OS's certainly benefit from access to the established, and steadily growing, set of apps.

For users, it's even better. They're no longer beholden to a single platform or app market. They're free to use whatever OS and marketplace they feel best meets their needs. They can opt for a closed system or one that's completely open. What matters, of course, is that they have real choice in a much more open marketplace. If you have Apples walled garden and don't trust Google to do no evil with the data they're continuously gathering you have real options.

The rush toward homogeneity is why we ended up with IE6. Rather than shitting on FXOS for whatever reason, you should be demanding other vendors support their app packages. No one wins if FXOS fails, but everyone wins if it succeeds.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

There are already standard APIs for interfacing with a number of different devices, with broad support across platforms.

Of course there are, but that couldn't be a much broader and generic statement in this context. I'm pointing out a few key ones for mobile application development and these are taking very long time to resolve which means vendors wanting to add features have a very laborious process ahead of them rather than just being able to incorporate a feature into their platform. You say it's a solved problem yet these things still don't exist.

What's important here is the standard app package that can be trivially implemented on various platforms.

The platforms exist to run applications, if the applications are compatible across all platforms then why do we need "various platforms"?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[hairyfeet]

If the ONLY thing your product has to offer over the competition is your personal definition of "open" then YOU WILL LOSE, because nobody cares about your definition of "open" when your product is inferior in every.single.way. when compared to the other choices.

Apple has the walled garden which offers a unified user experience, Android has the app support and wide choice of devices your apps will run on, even MSFT has an advantage in the "bang for the buck" of their quite affordable offerings and the ability to integrate it into your Windows 10 desktop...what does FXOS have? It has Mozilla's definition of "open" which last I checked doesn't even jive with the GPL version of the same word...yep, not got a chance.

We have seen this time and time again, from "open" phones to "open" game consoles to "open" tablets and in every case? The results are the same, either death or usage numbers so low as to be below the margin for error. FXOS will peter out, the slow death of fading relevance and lack of support because of the simple fact that it has nothing to offer the consumer other than the Moz definition of "open".

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

The platforms exist to run applications, if the applications are compatible across all platforms then why do we need "various platforms"?

Because homogeneity, particularly when it comes to computers, is a very bad thing. We've seen this countless times. It's why we were stuck with IE6 for so long. It's why you still need MS Word. It's killed countless vendors and made others uncomfortably influential. Worse, it leads to stagnation as the pressure to innovate and take risks vanishes. We're seeing this now with iOS and Android.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[Blaskowicz]

No, I believe that $20 smartphones and the stories of a $9 32GB memory card sold at Walmart check out (or however big it is) are a US thing. I'm from a first world country where computer hardware is rather cheap (motherboards, etc.) barring the changes in euro valuation and latest stuff is immediately available, but bottom of the barrel smarphone or memory card cost at least double that.

For a third world country it's gonna be worse, because not only they don't have the kind of maritime commerce between China and the US west coast, but they don't have dozens containers full of unsold crap waiting to be discharged at fire sale prices into their chains of Walmarts etc., going through highly developed railroad and highway infrastructure.
There's India but not many third world countries are freaking huge and have nuclear power and space launches.

Mitigating my point is that cell phones are small and are high volume in third world anyway but I don't buy that you can get a smartphone at the price of a dumbphone.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

The issue is that right now the existing platform vendors introduce a new feature in their platform - without having to deal with committees and standards bodies that take an age to do anything - deliver it to developers who create applications for customers.
Now your proposed system requires a standardized API across all platforms so how does a platform vendor go about delivering a new platform feature? I hope it isn't anything based on the HTML5 and CSS mess of platform-specific implementations of various standard and non-standard features which would negate your whole concept.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

nobody cares about your definition of "open" when your product is inferior in every.single.way. when compared to the other choices.

I strongly disagree. Take a look at the video I linked earlier. I'd also recommend you take a look at the new 2.5 builds. A lot has happened since 2013. We're seeing things happen with FXOS that iOS and Android simply can't do.

I also don't think being beholden to a single vendor, like Apple or Google, is good in any way. That includes Mozilla, of course, which is why a standard app package like they're proposing is so important. Being built on open standards, and trivial to implement on new platforms is incredibly important. It allows new platforms to enter the arena with access to existing app marketplaces -- eliminating one of the biggest hurdles new players face. It allows users to move freely between platforms, no longer locked to a single vendor.

it has nothing to offer the consumer other than the Moz definition of "open".

FXOS succeeds when the competition adopts their app package standard. If they fail before that happens, everyone suffers. Users continue to suffer from the lack of choice in the market and vendor lock-in, and new platforms suffer from a market dominated by two major platforms, making it difficult to attract developers. If they succeed, everyone wins. Users can move freely between platforms and benefit from new and innovative platforms. New players can enter the market and succeed or fail on their own merits -- not because they lacked a large app market. Even developers win, as they can launch apps that target platforms that don't even exist yet across a range of competing marketplaces -- no longer beholden to the whims of Apples gatekeepers or Google's censors.

If FXOS succeeds, everybody wins. If it fails, everyone loses. "Open", in this case, isn't a meaningless buzzword. It's what will move us past stagnation and on to progress. FXOS can do for mobile what FireFox did for the web. Or would you rather we go back to the post browser-wars apocalyptic landscape of IE6?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[Blaskowicz]

Want freedom?, use a real computer with a keyboard. You want freedom on a 4" computer that can't be used for serious things anyway. In fact, go look at the requirements for Android SDK : Windows, OSX or Linux. So there's no Android SDK for Android. Likewise can you root the device from the device itself? I even read the other day that rooting mechanisms use security exploits.

About JavaScript, CSS and HTML : in fact they announced you can now edit the CSS and HTML, from the device.
You're right that it sucks, the web sucks. 1GB RAM and dual or quad core on low/mid range hardware will help with that. You will never run Crysis nor does it look like the good computer to run a ssh server or X11 server etc. but for reading text or updating a calendar it seems fine. It's that or a dumbphone, anyway.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

Yes, standards bodies move very slowly, though I seriously hope that you're not arguing against the need for standards!

Though speaking of moving slowly, you haven't seen slow until you've seen how slowly change happens once a single vendor dominate the market through proprietary formats! Maybe you're too young to remember the dark days after the browser wars, when MS, the victor, decided that IE6 was it, and essentially stopped further development, grinding the web to a halt. I don't know about you, but I consider 'stopped' to be about as slow as you can get.

Stagnation is what happens when you don't have open standards. We're seeing it now. When a few dominant players with their own proprietary products feel no pressure to innovate or take risks, they simply don't. When they do make a change, and you don't like it, you're stuck.

how does a platform vendor go about delivering a new platform feature?

There's nothing stopping vendors from having their own native formats. They'd just also have to support the standard package as well, if they want to take advantage of that large and open marketplace.

Still, is that a problem now? It doesn't seem to be. At least on the web, we're seeing far more cooperation between vendors than ever before. The major players work with the standards bodies, and each other, to shape the future. Experimental features are clearly delineated, and developers understand the risks of putting them in to production. We've seen remarkable progress over the past 5 years, in case you haven't noticed. Far more progress than we saw in the previous decade, all thanks the the millstone that was IE6.

When we embrace standards, things more forward far more quickly. Standards bodies are slow, but not nearly as slow a giant dominating a market.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[IamTheRealMike]

In fact, as a developer, Firefox OS is much more closed to me than Android or iOS are.

Yup.

The problem with FirefoxOS can be summed up in one word: web. The Mozilla guys have NEVER accepted that the web is a shitty platform. The closest they ever came to that was inventing XUL and XBL, but I read that they have been trying to move away from them for a long time in favour of (gah) HTML 5.

Android and iOS utterly spank FirefoxOS because the engineers who built them have no starry-eyed ideological driven illusions about web technologies. Android manages to be open through the clever trick of .... wait for it .... being open source. Not marriage to a more or less randomly evolved technology stack. iOS simply doesn't care: it's an explicit non-goal for them.

Mozilla will continue to waste effort on ridiculous projects like this until they accept the fundamental truth that Javascript is not the worlds best language, HTML is not a particularly great layout language and CSS is not a great styling language. And the combination of all of them is less than the sum of its parts.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[drinkypoo]

We know that Mozilla has poured a huge amount of resources into its development. These are resources that could have been put to better use, like by improving desktop Firefox,

The problem with Mozilla is that when they put more "resources" into "improving desktop Firefox" they shit it up and make us hate it. What they really need to do is fire a few people, cut back on their mission creep problem, and focus on keeping Firefox current and not fucking it up.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[drinkypoo]

FirefoxOS is an extremely important project, right up there with the browser at the time it was conceived.

Why? Why would I care? Why would I want FirefoxOS over a less-fucked over version of Linux running Firefox? What makes it so important? I'll let you know, and the answer is nothing. There's nothing compelling about FirefoxOS. It forgets that the whole reason that ChromeOS even exists today is that Android still isn't good enough to host full desktop Chrome. When Android Chrome reaches parity with desktop Chrome, ChromeOS is going away. And then Firefox will have doubly no reason to exist.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[drinkypoo]

I strongly disagree. Take a look at the video I linked earlier. I'd also recommend you take a look at the new 2.5 builds. A lot has happened since 2013. We're seeing things happen with FXOS that iOS and Android simply can't do.

If you can't explain why, and someone to whom you're trying to promote the OS has to go watch a video and actually download and trial the OS you're talking about, it's probable that none of the features are actually that compelling. If they were, you would remember what they were and you could tell us about them, or at least name them.

Don't be lazy. Tell us why we should care, or stop expecting us to.

If FXOS succeeds, everybody wins. If it fails, everyone loses.

That is FUD bullshit. What does FirefoxOS give me over a real Linux distribution running Firefox?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

Why? Why would I care? Why would I want FirefoxOS over a less-fucked over version of Linux running Firefox? What makes it so important?

I've gone over this several times, it's the standard app package that's important.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[drinkypoo]

I've gone over this several times, it's the standard app package that's important.

I haven't seen you go over it. I haven't seen a compelling argument for FirefoxOS at all.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[tepples]

What does FirefoxOS give me over a real Linux distribution running Firefox?

Compatibility with smartphone hardware, for one. Which X11/Linux distribution were you thinking of?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

I haven't seen you go over it.

It's in the comment to which you replied, as well as another one of my comments to which you replied.

I honestly don't see how you missed it.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[drinkypoo]

Compatibility with smartphone hardware, for one. Which X11/Linux distribution were you thinking of?

Full-blown Ubuntu runs on a number of devices already, and the theory is that we'll be able to use Android video drivers with Wayland, right? Or is that not the idea any more?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

Yes, standards bodies move very slowly, though I seriously hope that you're not arguing against the need for standards!

No, of course not. Standards are a good thing.

Though speaking of moving slowly, you haven't seen slow until you've seen how slowly change happens once a single vendor dominate the market through proprietary formats! Maybe you're too young to remember the dark days after the browser wars, when MS, the victor, decided that IE6 was it, and essentially stopped further development, grinding the web to a halt.

But we don't have that in the smartphone market, there are several major players and nobody is particularly beholden to any of them.

There's nothing stopping vendors from having their own native formats. They'd just also have to support the standard package as well, if they want to take advantage of that large and open marketplace.

But we already have that. All the operating systems have their own native formats and they all support HTML5 web apps. The standard package already exists and it's called the web, the platform is the browser and you can already use web store apps on all those operating systems through the browser.

What you're asking for is something we already have and have had for some time.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

But we already have that.

You honestly can't see the massive differences between those things?

I can't help you.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

You honestly can't see the massive differences between those things?

In terms of functionality there is no difference, the difference is in the deployment and as a developer you can already wrap a HTML5 webapp in platform-specific containers for all the major platforms with next to no effort so defining a new container has no benefit. If there is a significant benefit here then why can't you explain it?

I can't help you.

Actually it appears you didn't understand what you were advocating for, hence your inability to articulate it.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

you can already wrap a HTML5 webapp in platform-specific containers

This is the problem, not a solution to the problem. See my earlier posts for more details.

the difference is in the deployment

Yes, that's one difference. (A very important difference, as I've explained far too many times.) There are also differences, for example, in the security model.

hence your inability to articulate it.

I can only repeat myself so many times. At least read what I've written.

Like I said before, I can't help you. You ignore what I've written and flat-out deny the problems I put forward. Why you have such strong opinions on the matter is beyond me, as it's clear that you're not interested in the subject at all.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[hairyfeet]

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point as you can't name a single thing a consumer would care about and keep having to harp on and on (even slumming in FUDLand for a bit) about "free and open", thus proving my point better than I ever could that FXOS is a dead man walking, thanks.

As others have said if you believe what you are saying? Put up or shut up, name some features that a consumer would care about that have absolutely NOTHING to do with, or depend on, the words "free" or "open". If you can't or don't respond? You have perfectly proven my point yet again, thx in advance.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

This is the problem, not a solution to the problem. See my earlier posts for more details.

The fact that doing so is so trivial is exactly the reason it is not a problem. This isn't a problem for vendors, it isn't a problem for developers and it isn't a problem for users. Even if users are stuck with iOS or Android and want to change but cannot because their native applications prevent it this doesn't change that at all.

Yes, that's one difference. (A very important difference, as I've explained far too many times.)

You haven't factored in the ease of which developers can already port existing HTML5 applications between platforms into your reasoning though. This is not a pain point so explain why vendors, developers and users want a solution to a problem that doesn't exist?

I understand what you are trying to say but you are proposing something that demonstrably vendors, developers and users (we have been down the WORA path before) do not need or want and the proposed benefit is for additional mobile platform vendors that don't yet exist and may not even exist to offer anything of value in future. There's no tangible value to this proposal.

There are also differences, for example, in the security model.

So what is the difference in the security model versus say running the HTML5 webapp in the iOS browser?

You ignore what I've written and flat-out deny the problems I put forward.

No I have addressed every "problem" you have put forward, the issue is they are "problems" only for "potential new mobile OS vendors" and the proposed solution is worse for existing vendors and it is worse for existing developers and users due to the functional limitations of HTML5. You still have failed to address how these functional limitations would be solved.

Why you have such strong opinions on the matter is beyond me, as it's clear that you're not interested in the subject at all.

I'm definitely interested in the subject. The "problem" you have outlined is only theoretical, in practice it doesn't exist. If you disagree then try and explain the tangible, concrete benefit this will have.

Consider that the major vendors need to adopt this and application developers need to adopt this. What is your argument to convince them to do so?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

you can't name a single thing a consumer would care about

What? I thought I made that fairly clear. Or do you think consumers don't care about those issues?

At this point, I can only assume that you'll dismiss anything I name and then continue to claim that I "can't name a single thing a consumer would care about".

Put up or shut up, name some features that a consumer would care about that have absolutely NOTHING to do with, or depend on, the words "free" or "open".

I do believe I've already done that. If you'll simply take a minute to read my previous post.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

Like I said, I can't help you understand the problem if you deny that it even exists.

What are you trying to accomplish anyway? You seem to be trying to convince me that the problems I've pointed out don't exist. The trouble, of course, is that nothing you've said addresses the issues I've put forth! All you've done, essentially, is assert that the status quo is sufficient. It obviously isn't, as it doesn't allow for the same possibilities as those afforded by the proposed solution.

I recommend you read my posts again. You're missing the important bits.

Consider that the major vendors need to adopt this and application developers need to adopt this. What is your argument to convince them to do so?

I don't expect Apple to do anything. They don't play well with others.

Microsoft and BlackBerry, being smaller players, obviously benefit from supporting FXOS apps as its an easy way to expand their markets. There's no need to convince them, the benefits are obvious -- and the investment far less than what it took BB to support Android apps.

Google is questionable. You can already run FXOS apps several ways on Android devices, though they have no reason to embrace it fully. We'll likely see full support introduced from manufacturers like Amazon, who obviously stand to benefit in multiple ways, and other smaller Android device manufacturers who haven't been blessed with Google Play. Ultimately, Google may be forced to support FXOS apps due to user demand as it spreads across the Android landscape.

The take-away here is that, despite your disbelief, it's already happening. The benefits to the smaller players are obvious, which is good for the market overall. An innovative and diverse marketplace (great for consumers) might not be helpful to Apple and Google, but Google doesn't control the entire market for Android phones.

We're already starting to see new mobile OSs appear, and attracting developers has become increasingly difficult. Supporting a standard app package (no porting, repackaging, or even uploading required on the developers end) means you don't need to convince anyone to support your ecosystem -- they've already participated in it before you've hired your first engineer. That's a pretty compelling reason to add support. It's a win for the new player, and a win for their customers. I expect we'll start seeing support come to these new platforms in the coming years.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

Like I said, I can't help you understand the problem if you deny that it even exists.

What I'm saying is the "problem" isn't anywhere near significant enough to outweigh the proposed solution's shortcomings.

So far your responses haven't answered these questions, if you think you have then just copy/paste the answers inline (this is next to no effort thanks to computers so you don't have to complain about that :P). For anybody who knows what they are talking about and understands the challenges involved these would be very easy questions to answer.

0. Demonstrate - objectively with facts - that this is a problem that smartphone users have. I don't think it is significant at all, you theorize that it is so are there case studies or some kind of evidence to support your theory? So far it's just hand-waving but if you have evidence I'd be interested to see it.

1. If it can't implement new features in a timely manner then developers will just write native apps. So how do you propose to change the standardization process for HTML5 to move at a pace comparable to that of the vendor's ability to deliver features on their platform?

2. Cross-platform applications do not have the native look and feel that users expect, part of the reason most desktop applications are not written in Java. How is this going to be resolved?

3. How do you convince developers to support it? It isn't on iOS, Android or Windows Phone and it's far more limited than those native environments so how do you solve the chicken and egg problem?

4. If this problem of people being "locked in" to a platform because of native apps then how does this solve that problem? Presumably all the native apps need to be re-written and that cannot happen until the HTML5 standard is feature comparable.

5. You talk of a vast app catalog that new OSes can tap into, where does this come from? What drives development? It needs to compete with all the existing Android and iOS applications and we know HTML5 is too limited to do that.

And a more open-ended one:
6. Do you think developers will just write native apps when a new feature is introduced? Or wait until the feature has gone through a standardization process, rolled out to existing platforms and then write a HTML5 version?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[hairyfeet]

Thanks again for proving my point as you cannot name a single feature without simply parroting "free and open" over and over.

And I'm sorry but I have all of computer history on my side, from Linux on the desktop (which has never gone beyond 2% in 22 years, despite the competition cost over $100 USD) to Open Pandora game consoles, From OpenMoko to that open GPU that is on life support if the only thing you have is your definition of free and open you are DEAD, because NO CONSUMER CARES nor will they take a shoddy half ass worse.in.every.way. experience so they can have something "free and open".

So lets hear it, I gave you a list of features that the competition has...can you name ONE THING, just one, that a consumer that is NOT a developer will give a single flying flipping fuck about? I'm betting you can't, which means we'll be here reading about the death of FXOS in a year or two, when Moz gets tired of pissing money down a rat hole for something nobody cares about. Hell they can't even try for the "free as in beer" angle as any company can sign up and get Android and WinPhone for free, BOTH of which has more and better quality apps.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

Thanks again for proving my point as you cannot name a single feature without simply parroting "free and open" over and over.

Again, I've already done that. See my previous posts. At this point, you're just in denial.

can you name ONE THING, just one, that a consumer that is NOT a developer will give a single flying flipping fuck about?

Add-ons for apps.

I'm betting you can't

That would be foolish.

when Moz gets tired of pissing money down a rat hole for something nobody cares about

You'll find that a lot of people care about FXOS. You seem to care a great deal about FXOS, and really wish it would just go away. I can't begin to guess why you have such strong feelings when you seem to know so little about it.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

0. If you don't believe vendor lock-in is a problem, then there's nothing I can say in a few words that will convince you otherwise. I'd recommend you just do a google search for the term if you're interested in understanding the issue from multiple perspectives.

1. This is simply unnecessary. The implication you make is that some unnamed new platform features will become essential very quickly to a large number of new apps in the future. This is unrealistic, especially considering that the APIs we have now are sufficient for the majority of apps you'll find in other marketplaces and on other platforms, including the desktop. See 6 for more.

2. There's no reason to believe that 'native look at feel' is somehow essential outside core apps, where there are obvious benefits to that consistency. Looking at apps on other platforms, particularly popular apps, very few seem to have the 'native look and feel' you seem to think is essential. If it was important, why do so many popular apps eschew this and keep the appearance of their app the same when porting between platforms? Why is this a criticism so often levied on Android by Apple users when it's clearly not hurting Android? Even on the desktop, you'll find very little consistency between apps. This is a red herring.

3. Thousands of developers already support it, there's no need to start from scratch. Most importantly, it solves this "chicken and egg" problem for new platforms! The standard app package Mozilla is promoting means you don't need to attract developers to your new platform, you can immediately benefit from the wealth of existing apps.

4. Again, the APIs we have now are sufficient for the majority of apps you find on any platforms You've got this odd 'all or nothing' mentality. There's room for native apps, despite the problems, and standards apps. Standard apps reduce the pain for everyone.

5. This is several questions. 5.1 They come from thousands of developers, all around the world. Big and small companies and even individuals. 5.2 Some are driven by need, others by greed. Some just because they want to support the platform, some because they just like writing apps. 5.3 You're living in 2010. See 4 and 1.

6. Who knows? It depends a great deal on the feature. Though there may not be as much lag as you believe there to be. If you want a recent example, consider that there's already a draft for WebVR and experimental implementations from multiple vendors. What's nice about the standard app package is that includes a list of required APIs, so you don't need to worry about older hardware without the new feature or a sluggish roll-out.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[lott11]

Why would anyone support Firefox. They betrayed there user by folding to governments push for DRM implementation. http://betanews.com/2014/05/14... and this is Firefox https://support.mozilla.org/en... So do you think that they would not do same with the stick or the tablet OS. If you want a stick PC you are better of with Intel compute stick with Linux or Windows. At least this is a complete OS just ad Kodi or Plex and you have your HTPC, just configure it and you done. Or just buy a mini PC from China Intel base, they all cost a bought the same From $129.00 to $179.00! Most of those Mini PC come with android but there some have windows 8.1 & Android 4.2 – 5.01 some even have a display. Intel compute stick start at $149.00 and windows is $179.00 your choice. At least you know what you are getting, and you will have the options of the software.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

I thought the DRM compromise was well thought-out. It's neatly isolated, and easily disabled. Having no compromise certainly wouldn't have benefited users, it would have simply driven them away. What would you have suggested they do? I can't think of a better option.

Still, even if you find the DRM compromise morally reprehensible, where do you turn? To Google's spyware browser? To closed, and behind-the-times, offerings like Opera or Safari? They didn't give a second thought to DRM. There was no consideration for their users, their principles, or their privacy.

As you won't support Mozilla because of the DRM compromise, who will you support? What browser are you using now? How do you justify using it, given your distaste for DRM?

As for the rest of your post, I should probably let you know that the Matchstick was neither a Mozilla product or a "compute stick".

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

0. If you don't believe vendor lock-in is a problem

That is not an answer. I said to demonstrate it is a problem smartphone users actually have, which you didn't do. Even if it exists, how would this stop those people from being locked in?

1. This is simply unnecessary. The implication you make is that some unnamed new platform features will become essential very quickly to a large number of new apps in the future.

No, not essential, but useful in a reasonable amount of time. HTML5 does not implement new features in a reasonable amount of time thus these will not be used in cross-platform applications so native apps will be written instead and this "standard app container" will not be used.

2. There's no reason to believe that 'native look at feel' is somehow essential outside core apps, where there are obvious benefits to that consistency.

If you have native core apps then people just get locked in to those, they don't want to lose their SMS or iMessage or Hangouts for example. Companies just add native apps to their platform and that locks users in, the "standard app container" fails again.

3. Thousands of developers already support it, there's no need to start from scratch.

All of these developers just wrap their apps in platform-specific containers for iOS, Android and Windows Phone so how is this "standard app container" solving the problem?

4. Again, the APIs we have now are sufficient for the majority of apps you find on any platforms You've got this odd 'all or nothing' mentality. There's room for native apps, despite the problems, and standards apps.

So what apps specifically are causing this "vendor lock-in" then? Demonstrate the problem with an example and then explain how this "standard app container" solves the problem because it's pretty clear you haven't thought this through.

5. This is several questions. 5.1 They come from thousands of developers, all around the world. Big and small companies and even individuals. 5.2 Some are driven by need, others by greed. Some just because they want to support the platform, some because they just like writing apps.

If developers can manage with the limitations of HTML5 then they just wrap a version in a native container for iOS, Android, Windows Phone and then just use the app container for FirefoxOS like they do now. Yet again the "standard app container" provides no benefit and isn't used.

6. Who knows? It depends a great deal on the feature. Though there may not be as much lag as you believe there to be. If you want a recent example, consider that there's already a draft for WebVR and experimental implementations from multiple vendors.

This is precisely the problem, you end up with a draft and a bunch of different implementations from different vendors that takes years to actually get into the standard. Can you give an example of a feature that has been added to the standard in a timely manner?

What's nice about the standard app package is that includes a list of required APIs, so you don't need to worry about older hardware without the new feature or a sluggish roll-out.

So what can platform vendors offer? This standard just sets a very low bar and everything else ends up as a native app and you get the same vendor lock-in.

You clearly haven't learned from all the previous examples - like Java - of "write once, run anywhere" and you're making exactly the same mistakes and then pretending that they don't matter. We have seen they matter, these cross-platform solutions have failed precisely because these things matter and you can't seem to learn from all the past failures. And in those cases there we no incumbent platform gatekeepers like you have to deal with now and cross-platform was a lot harder than it is now. Why can't you learn from these mistakes?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

On 0: I don't need to prove vendor lock-in is a problem for the same reason I don't need to prove evolution happens. It's well-established already. If you don't believe it, the onus is on you to show that it's not an issue. I'll still provide you with an example, if for no other reason than my completely misguided hope that you're simply uninformed.

All of these developers just wrap their apps in platform-specific containers for iOS, Android and Windows Phone

This is why I don't think you're being genuine. I made it perfectly clear that those developers are deploying their apps using the standard app package Mozilla has proposed, which already enjoys cross-platform support.

I'll add to this: The ability to repackage apps does not offer the same benefits. The example I've used over and over again are new platforms struggling to attract developers. See, those developers need to repackage their apps for each new platform, which means new platforms still need to attract developers!

By using a standard app package, existing apps from existing marketplaces will be instantly available on new platforms that opt to support the standard package.

This is precisely the problem, you end up with a draft and a bunch of different implementations from different vendors that takes years to actually get into the standard.

Which, of course, is silly nonsense. Things are moving faster than every before, and we're seeing unprecedented cooperation between vendors on these new standards. I've already given one example, you need only do a quick search to find many more.

This also ignores the most important point: For most applications, on desktop and mobile, the existing standards and their implementations are already sufficient.

You're living in the past. It's not 2010 anymore.

. Yet again the "standard app container" provides no benefit and isn't used.

This is, of course, completely false and you know it. It is being used by thousands of developers ranging from big name shops to individual hobbyists. To deny this is to deny reality. I've told you this already. You can see this for yourself. It's not a big secret. It's out in the open for all to see. On benefits, see below.

Demonstrate the problem with an example and then explain how this "standard app container" solves the problem because it's pretty clear you haven't thought this through.

Fine, I'll play this ridiculous game. If for no other reason than the benefit of others who happen to have the misfortune of stumbling in to this pretend conversation. I will not, however, bother to explain this very simple thing to you again.

Alice wants to buy the new Wizbang 3000 mobile, but it runs SpiffyOS. Her current mobile, a Neat-o-rama GX2, runs ZippyMobile. She has about $100 worth of apps and games that she doesn't want to lose.

What can Alice do? She can pass on the Wizbang and buy the new Neat-o-rama GX3. It isn't as cool, but she'll be able to keep all her apps and games. The Wizbang has all those apps and games, of course, but she'll need to buy them again for the new platform, essentially adding an extra $100 to the cost of her new mobile.

Bob wants to buy the new Wizbang 3000 as well. He has a TrendyThing X5 running WarpOS2. Bob also has about $100 worth of apps and games.

Fortunately, for Bob, most of his apps and games were purchased from Appermart, which distributes apps using a standard package. As the WizBang 3000 supports those, being new to the market and all, he just needs to login and reinstall his apps. He'll still need to re-purchase FruitMatcher3 for $2.99, however, as he got it from WarpOShop, WarpOS2's proprietary marketplace.

Alice is suffering from vendor lock-in. She's made a big investment in one ecosystem and essentially needs to pay to escape it (either buy giving up her apps and games or paying for them again). B

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

On 0: I don't need to prove vendor lock-in is a problem for the same reason I don't need to prove evolution happens. It's well-established already.

We know it exists, nobody is disputing that. Are you dense or can you not parse basic English? I said prove it is a problem that users have, but you fail again. You assume that because vendor lock-in is a thing that it must be a problem that everybody has everywhere, this is a false assumption.

All of these developers just wrap their apps in platform-specific containers for iOS, Android and Windows Phone

This is why I don't think you're being genuine. I made it perfectly clear that those developers are deploying their apps using the standard app package Mozilla has proposed, which already enjoys cross-platform support.

Well no, when they are deploying to iOS, Android and Windows Phone they are not using Mozilla's app package...those platforms do not support it, they are only using it to deploy to FirefoxOS.

I'll add to this: The ability to repackage apps does not offer the same benefits. The example I've used over and over again are new platforms struggling to attract developers.

That is not a problem for existing vendors, developers or users. It is only a problem for new platforms.

Which, of course, is silly nonsense. Things are moving faster than every before, and we're seeing unprecedented cooperation between vendors on these new standards.

Citation.

I've already given one example

False. It's pretty clear you are being disingenuous as you know very well that your example is a draft, it is not in the standard.

For most applications, on desktop and mobile, the existing standards and their implementations are already sufficient.

Wrong.

. Yet again the "standard app container" provides no benefit and isn't used.

This is, of course, completely false and you know it. It is being used by thousands of developers ranging from big name shops to individual hobbyists.

See now you aren't even reading and are quoting out of context. If you take it in context you see that this "standard app container" is only used on FirefoxOS hence is not used in 99.9% of real situations, making it virtually useless.

Alice wants to buy the new Wizbang 3000 mobile, but it runs SpiffyOS. Her current mobile, a Neat-o-rama GX2, runs ZippyMobile. She has about $100 worth of apps and games that she doesn't want to lose.

No, not a made up example. A real example, which you fail to do because your ideas are purely theoretical and so the only example you can come up with is a made up one. Try again.

A very common real-life example of vendor lock-in would be a sizable investment in iTunes.

iTunes is a desktop application, this is not targeted at desktop applications so you're wrong again.

See, you really are living in the past! While you've been stuck in 2005, the rest of the world has been busy developing and deploying cross-platform apps successfully in spite of weak standards with sketchy vendor support.

And by and large they do so using cross-platform tools that target native platforms because the WORA method doesn't work.

You simply don't trust the promise of cross-platform apps.

Because it has a proven track record of failure time and time again and every new promise still fails to address the failures of the last one. You are demonstrating that you can't learn from previous mistakes. You can't even provide a real example of the problem you are trying to solve, it's all just made up.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[lott11]

It all depends on what OS I am using. Konqueror Epiphany Lynx Elinks Dillo Vivaldi Maxthon SeaMokey and a few others it depends. And I know it the match stick was to be an open source project. But like all projects this days they are broken by DRM influences. Lets leave it at that, and to the point breaking down to Netflix on Firefox there where options. I develop security software and so there are ways of getting a round dose limitations. It's like windows 10, do you think that you will have any privacy at all, dream on. It's like now they are making recalls for Mopar and Renault, Gm has had this same problem since 1985 on the Buick and Cadillac. The BCM and ABS all the way back to Tavis 4, all of them can be access from out side access points. The fuel economy whom do you think it is regulated it, the government, yea!! I had reprogram so many cars under so called recalls for proms or emissions. All they do is reduce your economy for GM, Mopar, Isuzu, Nisan, Suzuki, Mazda, and on and on. The point of all this you can take a LZ1 and increase horse power from 489 to 797 by just reprogramming and with out a super charger. It is the same with Firefox there are ways but no., DRM and all the open points java that where install. That is what made it just like Opera or Chrome and all the others, Just try this, install disconnect me and see if it works the same. And look at running processes in the back ground, then you can judge. From Version 21 to 35 just do it.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

I've taken the liberty of converting your made up example into a real one so you understand the problem:

Alice wants to buy the new Apple iPhone mobile, but it runs iOS. Her current mobile, a Samsung Galaxy S5, runs Android. She has about $100 worth of apps and games that she doesn't want to lose.

What can Alice do? She can pass on the Apple iPhone and buy the new Samsung Galaxy S6. It isn't as cool, but she'll be able to keep all her apps and games. The Apple iPhone has all those apps and games, of course, but she'll need to buy them again for the new platform, essentially adding an extra $100 to the cost of her new mobile.

Substituted with real things rather than made up ones. This is the problem, yes? So how does Mozilla's "standard app container" help Alice?

Bob wants to buy the new Apple iPhone as well. He has a Lumia running Windows Phone. Bob also has about $100 worth of apps and games.

Fortunately, for Bob, most of his apps and games were purchased from Appermart, which distributes apps using a standard package.

Whoa...let me just stop you there. Bob can't do that, because Windows Phone doesn't support "Appermart". Even if Bob were running FirefoxOS he wouldn't be able to run his apps on his new iPhone or his new Galaxy or his new Windows Phone. In fact none of the operating systems that comprise 99% of the market support apps from "Appermart". So if you're in the 99% of smartphone users that use iOS, Android or Windows Phone or want to transition from FirefoxOS to any of these platforms then this doesn't solve your problem at all.

The question you should be asking isn't "where can I buy the Samsung Galaxy S6", but "is this something that happens in real life?" The answer is a resounding "yes".

Ok but given that in real life 99% of the market has iOS, Android or Windows Phone, how does this solve the problem?

Even if developers create HTML5 apps and target iOS, Android, Windows Phone and FirefoxOS that still doesn't solve the above problem, you still can't take your FirefoxOS apps and run them on iOS, Android or Windows Phone.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

Let's keep this short.

If you take it in context you see that this "standard app container" is only used on FirefoxOS

You couldn't be more wrong on that point, as I've already explained. FXOS packages already enjoy support on other platforms. The goal, of course, is to continue to increase the number of platforms that support the app package.

No, not a made up example. A real example

I anticipated this absurdity, so I handily provided a common real-world example. Did you miss the bit about migrating from iOS to Android? I doubt it. You simply chose to ignore it so you can continue to argue.

You clearly don't have any interest in what I have to say. What, exactly, do you hope to accomplish with this pretend conversation?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

You couldn't be more wrong on that point, as I've already explained. FXOS packages already enjoy support on other platforms.

Ok but not on 99+% of the platforms actual people use. Which is why I asked who - in the real world - has the problem that this solves?

The goal, of course, is to continue to increase the number of platforms that support the app package.

Well sort of, you can have it supported by 100 platforms but if 99+% of people don't use those platforms then it doesn't really help anybody. So you need to get it on iOS, Android and Windows Phone but if developers continue supporting those platforms in addition to the Mozilla standard then those vendors have even less reason to support it. See what I mean?

Did you miss the bit about migrating from iOS to Android?

No, but explain to me how a user that is "vendor-locked" to iOS can transition to Android thanks to this standard app container.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

You know this already, but I already provided that example. You simply chose to ignore it as you're not interested in discussion, just in arguing.

You've also ignored the entire point of that and the subsequent illustrations. To show you that vendor lock-in is a real problem that affects users negatively. This is what you asked me to provide, I've delivered.

You also asked me to show how a standard app package helps to solve this very problem. I've done that as well, though the example you mangled. It should be obvious to you that Bob would be well-served by a standard app package.

Does Mozilla have a viable offering? As I've pointed out countless times already, FXOS apps are supported on platforms other than FXOS. Yes, you can even access the marketplace and install FXOS packaged apps on Android. As support grows, which appears very likely, it becomes an increasingly viable solution.

You seem upset that it isn't a perfect solution today. Well, that's why people who don't want to be locked in to a platform (which is pretty much everyone ever bitten by vendor lock-in) should through their support behind the project. Let's face facts: it's the only game in town. Love it or hate it, it's certainly better than the status quo.

I've said this before: If Mozilla wins, we'll see support for their packaged apps across a broad range of platforms (Apple likely being the hold-out). That's a win for users, developers, new or smaller platforms, and third-party app markets. If Mozilla loses, we gain absolutely nothing while moving further toward homogeneity.

Why would you pick the losing path? There's nothing for you to gain, and it's ultimately harmful to everyone. Even if you don't like the winning path, where so many enjoy real benefits, why fight against it? You lose nothing while so many others gain something of value -- you could very well be included among those beneficiaries, directly or indirectly.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

Ok but not on 99+% of the platforms actual people use.

I didn't realize Androids market share had shrunk to less than 1%... Oh, wait.

who - in the real world - has the problem that this solves?

My answer hasn't changed. Anyone with a sizable investment in apps that wants to switch platforms. That's a lot of people. Before you say "specific" How about this: Specifically, any iOS user who wants to migrate to Android that faces either losing their collection of apps or repurchasing them on Android. I know two people who have this exact problem right now.

So you need to get it on iOS, Android and Windows Phone but if developers continue supporting those platforms in addition to the Mozilla standard then those vendors have even less reason to support it. See what I mean?

Well, it's very unlikely that Apple with support them. Microsoft continues to struggle with attracting developers, so it's a real possibility for them. They already work on Android, so it's more a matter of improving integration there rather than adding Android as a platform. So, depending on where you get your numbers, you can run FXOS apps on about 78% of devices world-wide. I don't see that figure as being a terribly good indicator of the viability of FXOS apps as a solution to the vendor lock-in issue.

The number of platforms seem to be far more important. The goal, after all, is to enable users to move freely between platforms. That means smaller platforms are essential. If you want to try the new Ubuntu or Tizen phone you should be able to take your apps with you. These smaller platform simply aren't viable without a decent app ecosystem. A standard app package benefits those platforms as much as it benefits users.

We're suffering now from a lack of diversity, with iOS and Android dominating the market. New players, no matter how interesting, struggle to gain marketshare due in no small part to the effect of vendor lock-in on users.

You can't topple a giant without a lot of momentum, but that doesn't need to come from a single platform, it can come from a range of smaller platforms, all viable options for users as they share the same open ecosystem. The ecosystem, after all, is what keeps the giants on top.

Even if you're a die-hard Android or iOS user, you stand to gain from this as well. With diversity come innovation, with homogeneity comes stagnation.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

Does Mozilla have a viable offering? As I've pointed out countless times already, FXOS apps are supported on platforms other than FXOS.

Except it's not on any of the ones that matter, not on any of the ones used in 99%+ of the market.

You also asked me to show how a standard app package helps to solve this very problem. I've done that as well, though the example you mangled. It should be obvious to you that Bob would be well-served by a standard app package.

Wrong again. I used real things instead of made up ones, because your solution doesn't work in reality which is why you had to made up non-existent things like "WizBang 3000" and "WarpOS2".

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

I didn't realize Androids market share had shrunk to less than 1%... Oh, wait.

Android does not use this app package, you're completely delusional if you actually believe people are going to worry about whether their $2 impulse buy is going to be a safe long-term investment and then see if it is available on a 3rd party store on the chance that in future they may want to switch platforms and that future platform might then also support this app.

My answer hasn't changed. Anyone with a sizable investment in apps that wants to switch platforms. That's a lot of people. Before you say "specific" How about this: Specifically, any iOS user who wants to migrate to Android that faces either losing their collection of apps or repurchasing them on Android. I know two people who have this exact problem right now.

And you actually believe Apple will support this "standard app package"? You really genuinely believe that?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

Except it's not on any of the ones that matter, not on any of the ones used in 99%+ of the market.

As I've already pointed out, you can browse the market and run FXOS apps on Android. I'm pretty sure they're market share is greater than 1%.

Wrong again. I used real things instead of made up ones,

Fun fact: So did I. I even pointed this out to you after your first "mistake".

It's like you didn't read a single thing I wrote. Or you just don't care, and would rather repeat nonsense. I just don't understand your motivation. What could you possible stand to gain?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

And you actually believe Apple will support this "standard app package"?

Did you miss this gem: "it's very unlikely that Apple with support them."? I seriously doubt it, as I seem to remember saying this several times already. Why bother to lie about this? What possible purpose does that serve?

Android does not use this app package

Not internally, that's something that needs worked out. I can browse the marketplace (or any FXOS marketplace, vendor site, etc.) and download and install an FXOS app and have it appear along side other Android apps. That they're automatically repackaged as part of the install process isn't relevant here at all. The point remains, I can use FXOS apps on Android as easily as I can use them on FXOS. If that bugs you, you can alternately run them inside B2GDroid on Android without the intermediate conversion step.

For all practical purposes, Android supports FXOS apps. It's like saying BlackBerry doesn't support Android apps because it runs them in a container! Why deny this simple fact?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

As I've already pointed out, you can browse the market and run FXOS apps on Android. I'm pretty sure they're market share is greater than 1%.

And nobody does it and the default is Google Play with APKs. The fact that nobody wants to use it shows that nobody wants it, how much more proof do you need?

Wrong again. I used real things instead of made up ones,

Fun fact: So did I.

Rubbish. "Wizbang 3000", "SpiffyOS", "Neat-o-rama GX2", "ZippyMobile", etc. Do not exist, but I see why you needed to make them up because your example fails with real products.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

Did you miss this gem: "it's very unlikely that Apple with support them."?

Right so your assertion that I "don't trust the promise of cross-platform apps" would be well founded. That promise is broken already as it doesn't work on the most common and best selling smartphone in the world, the iPhone.

Not internally, that's something that needs worked out.

How? What's your sell to Google and to developers? Google - the dominant player - gets a way for people to move away from its platform (the customers with ability to move to its platform comprise of less that 0.5% of the market) and developers get paid once for all platforms rather than once for each platform.

That they're automatically repackaged as part of the install process isn't relevant here at all.

Of course it is, how do I move from Android to Firefox OS and take everything with me? Even if my app were available on FirefoxOS what about all the application data? This "app container" fails to take that into account and that is a massive part of vendor lock-in.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

how much more proof do you need?

Proof of what? I still have absolutely no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

Rubbish. "Wizbang 3000", "SpiffyOS", "Neat-o-rama GX2", "ZippyMobile", etc. Do not exist

Obviously. Now, if you continue to read that comment, you'll find the "real-life" example of users migrating from iOS to Android. The example that you claim I never gave you, despite direct evidence to the contrary. Again, I've already told you this. You know that it's true, having seen it yourself. Pretending it doesn't exist won't change reality.

Why do you continue to deny this obvious fact? What do you possibly stand to gain?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

That promise is broken already as it doesn't work on the most common and best selling smartphone in the world, the iPhone.

So, because it's not going to work everywhere, it has no value? That's absurd. As long as it works across a range of platforms, it's useful to a range of users migrating between those platforms. Just because it's not helpful to iOS users doesn't mean it's useless to everyone. That's completely irrational.

I'm reminded of a guy I knew years ago who thought that any resources directed toward security were a waste, as we were unlikely to achieve perfect security.

I should remind you that iOS is far from the most common platform, sitting at a healthy, if slowly declining,18%. I say "remind" because you already know. You clearly quite carefully worded your assertion so that you could say something true which could be very easily misunderstood to mean that iOS holds the dominant marketshare. That's simply dishonest.

What's your sell to Google and to developers?

Horray! I get to repeat myself, yet again!

I expect that we'll see better integration not from Google directly, at least not initially, but from smaller Android device manufacturers who don't have, or don't want, access to Google Play. Amazon would be an example of such a vendor as it clearly benefits them.

Again, for developers, the advantage is an expanded market, which clearly outweighs any imaginary lost revenue from users who take their apps to other platforms. (It's not a serious consideration as users move between platforms infrequently -- a consequence of vendor lock-in -- and app profitability tends to decline very rapidly. Revenues from repurchased apps are signal noise.)

Of course it is, how do I move from Android to Firefox OS and take everything with me? Even if my app were available on FirefoxOS what about all the application data? This "app container" fails to take that into account and that is a massive part of vendor lock-in.

Transitioning from one platform to another while keeping your data is no different than transitioning between devices that use the same platform. Locally stored data merely needs copied. Data stored remotely would be immediately accessible when the user logs-in with their credentials. How the app is packaged, as far as application data is concerned, simply doesn't matter.

To be perfectly clear. On the issue of migrating application data, there is no difference between moving between platforms and devices. How an app is packaged is simply irrelevant to that aspect of migration.

You know this, of course, so why bother with such a ridiculous claim? What are you trying to accomplish?

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

how much more proof do you need?

Proof of what? I still have absolutely no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

That people don't want it. It's there and people aren't using it. And you are still begging me to give you some validation that users want it.

Rubbish. "Wizbang 3000", "SpiffyOS", "Neat-o-rama GX2", "ZippyMobile", etc. Do not exist

Obviously.

Proof that this is only a solution to an imagined problem. If you put in a real life solution, like iOS user wanting to switch to Android the "app container" does nothing for you.

Now, if you continue to read that comment, you'll find the "real-life" example of users migrating from iOS to Android.

If you're referring to this:

"If you need me to take this as far as possible, consider the difficulty an Apple user with a sizable investment in apps and games considering an Android phone."

All you point out is the vendor lock in problem you think is such a big problem, so how does the "app container" solve that specific problem? Oh right, it doesn't.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[exomondo]

So, because it's not going to work everywhere, it has no value?

No, it fails in its mission of being cross-platform when it doesn't support the most popular smartphone in the world and indeed the platform of one of the biggest content providers.

Just because it's not helpful to iOS users doesn't mean it's useless to everyone.

But the only thing you have given me that is even close to a real life example is of iOS users trying to migrate to Android.

I expect that we'll see better integration not from Google directly, at least not initially

Ok so you have no sell to Google, the MAJOR platform vendor and you have no sell to Apple the other major platform vendor...not a good start.

Amazon would be an example of such a vendor as it clearly benefits them.

Amazon is a TERRIBLE example, they benefit from selling you apps, if you can move to their platform without buying your apps from them that's pointless to them.

Again, for developers, the advantage is an expanded market

Rubbish, your key selling point for this is so that people can move platforms without buying their apps again, a net loss to developers. Targeting other platforms is trivial, it's a problem nobody has, as you pointed out already it's so trivial you can wrap it in the installer for Android.

Revenues from repurchased apps are signal noise.

Citation? I'll bet this is yet another thing you haven't done your research on though.

Transitioning from one platform to another while keeping your data is no different than transitioning between devices that use the same platform. Locally stored data merely needs copied.

And where on the local storage is the app data stored exactly? Tell me exactly what I need to copy from Android - and where - to Firefox - and where. You're overlooking the important details that cause these things to fail.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[narcc]

We seem to be having two different conversations. I'm saying that vendor lock-in is a problem, and that a common app package is a good solution, with many additional benefits.

You deny that vendor lock-in is a problem (in the face of evidence to the contrary) and that a common app package is an unworkable solution because Java didn't work out as well as promised.

That people don't want it. It's there and people aren't using it. And you are still begging me to give you some validation that users want it.

You seem to be talking about FXOS specifically here. As it's a growing platform, I'd say that people do, in fact, want it. People are clearly using it. I'm not asking you for any validation. I am, however, deeply curious as to why you're so adamantly opposed to something that you believe won't impact you in any way.

If you're speaking more generally, I'll assert that people do, in fact, want their apps to run on whatever platform their interested in using. Are you claiming that people don't want their old apps to work on their new phone? As people are using apps that run across multiple platforms, including mobile phones, I'll also assert that people are, in fact, using them. The number of people using them continues to grow, as it turns out, which indicates to me that people both want them and use them.

how does the "app container" solve that specific problem? that specific problem

You wanted an example that shows that vendor lock-in is a problem. That's all that example was intended to illustrate. I gave you exactly what you asked me to provide.

Can a common app package solve that kind of problem? If you're moving between platforms that support a common package, then the answer seems to be a resounding yes. You disagree, though I have no idea why. It seems impossible to deny.

If you must have a real world examples of a common app package on mobile solving the problem of vendor lock-in today I can give you two: Moving from FXOS to Android and moving from Android to BlackBerry. Though it's completely irrelevant. There could be no current real-world examples and it wouldn't change the obvious fact that a common app package is a viable solution to the problem of vendor lock-in.

All you point out is the vendor lock in problem you think is such a big problem, so how does the "app container" solve that specific problem? Oh right, it doesn't.

As you've just seen, when you put my example in a real world context, even as things stand today, without a comprehensive solution in place, it still solves the "specific" problem.

Why you're so stuck on this is beyond me. It's completely irrelevant.

Re:The Firefox OS project needs to be terminated.

[hairyfeet]

LOL you didn't say a God damned thing that did not in some way contain free or open. Which part of DO NOT GIVE A SHIT is so damned hard for you to understand?

Your competition is iOS, Android, and WinPhone...Name ONE feature, just one, that does not involve the words free or open in which your chosen OS is better. And don't waste our time with html v5 bullshit, because guess what? they COULD run HTML V5 bullshit apps but they DON'T, because native runs better, surprise surprise..

So you have had multiple posters tell ya put up or shut up, what are you waiting for? is it because you can't? Your posts didn't say a fucking thing other than "blah blah devs (nobody cares, not a developer), blah blah blah HTML V5 (shown to be a bloated pig, nobody cares) blah blah free and open (nobody cares about your politics)" so lets hear it, name a single feature that FXOS beats the competition, if you can't? Thanks yet again for proving my point.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[amiga3D]

The stuff I get off TPB and KA are topnotch quality. I'd love a chromecast that was Digital Restriction Mangled free. Do I really need another Amazon Firestick wannabe? No. I'm tired of buying crippled hardware. I bought a chromecast when they came out and shortly after I got it they crippled it with an "update." It went in a drawer and resides there still.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[amiga3D]

It's a chicken and the egg thing. I bought lots of DRM content for many years. My asshole hurt and I got tired of MPAA and RIAA sperm and my blood dribbling down the backs of my legs so I stopped.

Backers don't want DRM

[adisakp]

If you read the comments on the project, nearly all of the recent comments are backers that would be perfectly happy with a device that didn't have any DRM. Why don't they just completely the device development as is and skip the DRM? It's what most of their backers want anyhow.

Re:Backers don't want DRM

[adisakp]

Really, it seems like the ability to do AdHoc WiFi is the biggest feature backers wanted.... not DRM.

Re:Backers don't want DRM

[NaCh0]

Because the vast majority of people saying they want a device without DRM don't understand that all of the CONTENT that they want (netflix, hulu, amazon video, etc) is using DRM.

So while firefox was smart enough to end a product that will be universally panned by reviewers, they are stupid to think that they can copy whatever Google does.

Re:Backers don't want DRM

[CanEHdian]

Because the vast majority of people saying they want a device without DRM don't understand that all of the CONTENT that they want (netflix, hulu, amazon video, etc) is using DRM.

Yeah, right. I guess we all understand around here that a lot of the content they want (YouTube, *Tube, D:\Downloads\Videos\) is not using DRM.

Re:Backers don't want DRM

[IamTheRealMike]

YouTube uses various forms of DRM. You aren't supposed to just write arbitrary new frontends for it, even though people do ... but Google has both the right and the ability to crack down on that any time they like.

Re:Backers don't want DRM

[narcc]

You do know that while the Matchstick ran FXOS, it was not a Mozilla project, right?

Re:Backers don't want DRM

[steveg]

If you read the comments on the kickstarter, most of the people who are saying "We never wanted DRM" have specific reasons for wanting a non-DRM device. Mostly having to do with playing from their own internal sources.

None of those were interested in Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon etc. for *this* device. Several commented that there are inexpensive devices available for that kind of content if they wanted it, but that wasn't why they backed this project.

So you're wrong that most of them did not understand what they wanted.

Re:Kickstarter refunds?

[plover]

"Satisfaction guaranteed, or we will refund the unused portion of your money."

This is why I funded Airtame

[duckintheface]

This is the exact reason I participated in the Airtame Indiegogo funding instead. Airtame is designed to reproduce anything that appears on your computer screen via wifi to your TV or other computers. No extra charges by 3rd parties. No walled garden.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really doubt that amiga3D is an executive at a large media company.

Two reasons this failed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Two reasons this failed:
1) Chromecast
2) Amazon Fire
While we are at it...Roku, Netgear Neo, Slingbox.....etc

Re:Two reasons this failed.

[sectokia]

I don't know why they start the project so early. For hardware projects, you should have a finished working product, and the kick start should be to get volume mass production. I am sick of projects that talk about a product as if it actually exists. Typically they will claim a product does X and show a video of it. Then you find out they haven't even designed it or programmed it, and haven't even got a quote to manufacture its parts. It's just an idea with more spent on video to sell the idea. Basically far too many kick staters outright lie.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[Darinbob]

The government support of PBS is minor. The majority of funding comes from individual donors and corporate donors. Actually some of the biggest PBS supporters in congress come from sparsely populated areas, like Alaska, because such services like PBS and NPR are much more valued, even though such areas tend to swing towards limited taxation and limited government. And those are also the areas where most of the government support to BPS/NPR goes.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[amiga3D]

I still remember the good old days of Electronic Arts games on the C-64. I bought one that literally hammered my 1541 disk drive into misalignment. Over 5 minutes to load the game when games without DRM loaded in less than a minute. The funny thing is, it did absolutely nothing to stop piracy. It ruined the experience only for the people that purchased the legitimate software. I still have an old C64 setup and that very game with the bullshit stripped out of it loads in 38 seconds. I buy books from Baen online. They publish their books with no DRM whatsoever in any format you care for. Epub, PDF, RTF, HTML, and several others. I love giving them my money because what I buy is usable on any device I want to use it on. I bought a book from Amazon once and that was the last time. I wont buy crippled shit anymore.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I remember all of the "type in word 45 from paragraph 7 of page 23 in the manual" the codewheels and the code sheets that were printed so lightly in order to prevent photocopying that you could barely see them. Then it was the disc checks. Then Securom. Then Starforce. Then always connected phone home bullshit. It just kept getting worse and worse.

All the while the pirates were enjoying the same things without the hassle.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[hairyfeet]

If you don't want a crippled DRM stick? Then accept you are gonna need an HTPC. You can get one of the Chinese ARM boxes but I find they are rather limited on the amount of software you can run on 'em, a better choice IMHO would be to get one of the AMD Socket AM1 chips which is what I've been using at the shop. Crazy low power (average around 8w-12w according to kill-a-watt), GPU powerful enough to do 1080P with no sweat or lagging, and if you don't want to spend $$$ on an OS you can slap on OpenELEC and have a 10 foot UI OOTB.

But if all you want is the cheap stick? You are gonna have to accept they are nothing but DRM delivery medium, your only real choices are the cheapo Chinese ARM nettops (which again severely limited on apps, no OS updates make them vulnerable to hack, limited playback and media options) or go with a full blown HTPC. Considering that HDMI makes everything plug and play, the AM1 makes an APU powerful enough and ULV while being cheap easy to come by, and the sheer amount of options an HTPC gives you from serving media to your entire house by slapping a multi TB drive and having your entire media library always accessible to streaming and casual gaming makes the HTPC a no brainer IMHO. I know a lot of my HTPC customers start with the sticks then quickly get tired of the limitations and want to "trade up" to something with more options.

Try one, I bet you'll find it does all you want it to do.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[Cito]

That's why I use a Raspberry PI with RUTorrent web front end and XBMC

instant content, categorized with the torrent plugin full drm free content

and best of all AD FREE! No shitty spam tv advertisings.

Funny when 1 hour tv shows without ads are only 30 mins

i got rid of spam tv back in 2001.

been a ftp/newsgroup/dcc/rapidleech/torrent user since on all my tv's, tablet, etc.

plus with dd-wrt firmware on router I installed adblocklist that blocks all ads online for all my devices including it blocks ads on mobile apps

No Netflix, No Sale.

[westlake]

This would be an excellent example of Mozilla not being willing to compromise their principles to satisfy the media conglomerates obsession with DRM.

I know this always come as a shock to the geek, but without access to subscription services, protected media content, HD video and theatrical quality sound, you do not have a commercially viable product.

Best Buy has the Amazon Fire Stick on sale for $25.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[ncc74656]

If you don't want a crippled DRM stick? Then accept you are gonna need an HTPC. You can get one of the Chinese ARM boxes but I find they are rather limited on the amount of software you can run on 'em, a better choice IMHO would be to get one of the AMD Socket AM1 chips which is what I've been using at the shop. Crazy low power (average around 8w-12w according to kill-a-watt), GPU powerful enough to do 1080P with no sweat or lagging, and if you don't want to spend $$$ on an OS you can slap on OpenELEC and have a 10 foot UI OOTB.

With something a little more powerful, you could also throw a Plex server on there and stream your own library to a Chromecast while on the road. My home media server runs on a headless A4-3300. One TV is driven by an nVidia ION nettop and another is driven by a Raspberry Pi; both run OpenELEC. The combined setup might use a little more power, but it's definitely more flexible. The server, for instance, uses Greyhole to manage storage across multiple disks with varying levels of redundancy (more for documents and photos, less for movies and TV shows).

Even though your monitor's equipped to handle HDCP-crippled content, your Linux box works just fine with it. Likewise, there are non-DRM content options (including serving up your own media) for gadgets like the Chromecast and Fire Stick.

Re:Kickstarter refunds?

[moronoxyd]

Actually: Not that nice at all.

The original plan was to release a Matchstick without DRM support. That version was ready to go in production and that was the version that the Kickstarter backers pledged to support.

But some months in, when the original product should already have been in production, Matchstick decided to revise their plans and to redesign the hardware to support DRM. So the backers where told that they would receive a different product then originally announced at a later date.

This was when I decided to get out and asked for my money back.
Todays announcement shows me I was right.

Matchstick should have stayed with their original plan and added DRM vor version 2.

HDCP breaks Airtame

[tepples]

Airtame is designed to reproduce anything that appears on your computer screen via wifi to your TV or other computers.

Unless one of the apps on your computer has asked the operating system to turn on HDCP. HDCP breaks Airtame.

Re:Fraudulent Kickstarter?

[westlake]

If DRM was actually needed to create a commercially viable product as you claim, then you are implying that the Kickstarter was fraudulent.

Fraudulent, no. Delusional, yes.

AIDE for Android

[tepples]

You want freedom on a 4" computer that can't be used for serious things anyway.

I want freedom on a 4" computer that I can connect to a Bluetooth keyboard and HDMI monitor when I get to a desk.

So there's no Android SDK for Android.

You were saying? "AIDE supports developing Java/Xml based Android apps using the Android SDK. The AIDE app comes bundeled with a mobile version of the Android SDK, so there is no need to install anything else."

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[interval1066]

The government support of PBS is minor.

No, its not: Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Still, I think the CPB and everything it funds is worthwhile. Taxes are necessary if we want such things.

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[JackieBrown]

Yeah, I remember all of the "type in word 45 from paragraph 7 of page 23 in the manual" the codewheels and the code sheets that were printed so lightly in order to prevent photocopying that you could barely see them.

I hated this one since I sucked (and still suck) at keeping manuals.

This stopped me from replaying Dark Sun: Shattered Lands (or avoiding those places that would result in giving me the manual challenge). That was my first open world game and go me hooked on the concept.

Re:DRM excuse

[narcc]

Not only are they returning the money to their backers, the hardware is completely open

Re: Why not just forgo paid content?

[Darinbob]

15.5% comes from federal funding in 2010, so that's a minor part of their budget. It would hurt to go without it, especially small stations, but it could weather that storm. If people are upset about government waste of taxpayer money, then this is amazingly low on the list of things to worry about and only gets used as a proxy for elitist values (and it fails badly for that purpose too).

Re:DRM excuse

[steveg]

Your link is broken.

Try http://www.matchstick.tv/developer/hardware/