If a guy doesn't want a camera, or any other piece of someone else's property on his land, he has a right to remove it. How else you gonna do that with a drone, except shoot it?
Can you think of no other way?
To start, I'd recommend talking to the owner of the drone. If he is unknown, can't be located, or is not receptive to your concerns, you can take further steps. You could file a report with the local police, for example.
Shooting it down should be the last resort, not the first.
Hey, lets be honest about this. That guy was just itching for that drone to fly past his house. It's clear from the facts now that this was the first time that drone flew over his property, and that it wasn't even over his property when he shot it down. He's a bad gun owner that makes other gun owners look like nuts. He should not be defended.
Google Play is a different issue entirely. You'll find countless Android devices that don't have access to Google Play either. It has nothing to do with compatibility, only with Google's artificial restrictions. Not that it matters, as you'll find little worth-while that isn't also available through other channels, like Amazon's App Store.
As for support, it looks really good to me. My wife is the big app user, and she has yet to find an Android app that didn't run, or even one that ran poorly compared to the same app on her Kindle Fire. (She's found that they often run better.)
Stop struggling and just let your ridiculous beliefs go. Embrace reality. It's okay that a company you don't like for irrational reasons makes a product that works well. Rest assured, no harm will come to you.
Because your personal interpretation of one guy's political viewpoints on a single case is sufficient for you to generalize the thoughts and opinions of an entire demographic on a complex issue?
Moving on: Can we at least agree that shooting the toy probably wasn't a good idea and that he should have explored other potential solutions first?
It seems like the wrong approach. If the war on drugs has shown us anything, it's that targeting the larger pool of users isn't terribly effective. Unlike the war on drugs, however, we wouldn't be fighting a hydra. I would doubt that there's a huge hierarchy, with a host of lieutenants ready to step in to the lead role. Targeting producers, then, is likely to have a far greater impact.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why quirky third-party candidates are so much fun to watch. You never need to take them seriously, of course, so the crazier the better.
If a guy doesn't want a camera, or any other piece of someone else's property on his land, he has a right to remove it. How else you gonna do that with a drone, except shoot it?
Can you think of no other way?
To start, I'd recommend talking to the owner of the drone. If he is unknown, can't be located, or is not receptive to your concerns, you can take further steps. You could file a report with the local police, for example.
Shooting it down should be the last resort, not the first.
Hey, lets be honest about this. That guy was just itching for that drone to fly past his house. It's clear from the facts now that this was the first time that drone flew over his property, and that it wasn't even over his property when he shot it down. He's a bad gun owner that makes other gun owners look like nuts. He should not be defended.
Google Play is a different issue entirely. You'll find countless Android devices that don't have access to Google Play either. It has nothing to do with compatibility, only with Google's artificial restrictions. Not that it matters, as you'll find little worth-while that isn't also available through other channels, like Amazon's App Store.
As for support, it looks really good to me. My wife is the big app user, and she has yet to find an Android app that didn't run, or even one that ran poorly compared to the same app on her Kindle Fire. (She's found that they often run better.)
Stop struggling and just let your ridiculous beliefs go. Embrace reality. It's okay that a company you don't like for irrational reasons makes a product that works well. Rest assured, no harm will come to you.
Because your personal interpretation of one guy's political viewpoints on a single case is sufficient for you to generalize the thoughts and opinions of an entire demographic on a complex issue?
Moving on: Can we at least agree that shooting the toy probably wasn't a good idea and that he should have explored other potential solutions first?
How about recognizing that these feelgood solutions are more for getting it outta sight outta mind than for actually stopping the abuse of children?
I had not considered that. A shame you posted AC, as this is well-deserving of a +5 insightful.
More than just the high potential for abuse, it's worse-than-useless.
It seems like the wrong approach. If the war on drugs has shown us anything, it's that targeting the larger pool of users isn't terribly effective. Unlike the war on drugs, however, we wouldn't be fighting a hydra. I would doubt that there's a huge hierarchy, with a host of lieutenants ready to step in to the lead role. Targeting producers, then, is likely to have a far greater impact.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
Please, spare use the revisionist history and face facts: No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But we already have that.
You honestly can't see the massive differences between those things?
I can't help you.
It turns out that rumor wasn't true. Just wishful thinking from a fanboy without any technical competence.
Not only are they returning the money to their backers, the hardware is completely open