×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mozilla Plans Mobile App Store

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-of-many dept.

Mozilla 118

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

118 comments

Its (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302536)

in it's annual report
 
It's its.

Re:Its (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302572)

3
It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who cares about grammar.

Re:Its (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302994)

4
It's nice to see slashdot eating < signs.

Re:Its (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302658)

Cousin It actually has an annual report.

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

Re:Its (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302820)

And I'm sure being molested by the TSA doesn't matter to you either. Maybe you should fuck off so the rest of us don't need to live with the results of your apathy.

Re:Its (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303108)

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

Re:Its (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303322)

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

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

Re:Its (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305860)

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

Re:Its (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34303306)

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

Your turn.

Re:Its (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302874)

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

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

Re:Its (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303200)

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

Re:Its (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302908)

it's a sign-writer's apostrophe.

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

Re:Its (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307180)

it's a sign-writer's apostrophe.

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

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

Re:Its (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302938)

"an unique" is wrong, too. Unique begins with a y-sound. It should be "a unique."

Store? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302556)

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

Re:Store? (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302652)

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

Re:Store? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302674)

Shut the fuck up, communist scum. Faggots like you don't understand that open sauce is a health hazard to the economy.

Want an application that doesn't spy on you? Good luck. Free apps have made it expected and accepted.
Want an application that is reliable? Good luck. Free apps with paid support models are going to make programming poorly the goal of the application vendor.
Want an application that is effective? Good luck. Free apps justify more price cutting. Low paid developers build the shit that their shitty pay entitles.
Want an application that is innovative? Good luck. Free apps will not foster the R&D cycle once ads and information services, their only revenue models, tighten up.

Free software will end the computer, and we'll go the steve jobs way of buying devices with a single purpose instead of using multiple services on a single device. Better way for the big corporate rapists to rape your wallet a bit more, too.

Re:Store? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302796)

What?

My company was running Windows and we lost a significant portion of productivity and security. Then we switched to Linux and our shit ran really fast. When our competitors saw our tangible gains, they wondered how we did it. We offered them a tour and nudged-elbows urging them to upgrade and compete with us on a level playing field.

The women in their programming and sales teams suck our dicks, man. Even the men sucked our dicks. Mustachioed motherfuckers looking like like Mario, Luigi, and Freddy Mercury...all sucking dicks. Our dicks. You mentioned Steve Jobs, he also sucks dicks. Not our dicks. Yet. But some other gay dude's dick, in those upscale bathhouses, with the butts bumping and the scrotums slapping. Hairy ones, too.

So open source is the panocha to all of our problems. The big, closed software shops are shitting their fucking pants because their bureaucratic inerta is heavy like Lexington Steele's [lexsteele.com] dick. Those motherfuckers are going down. Deal with it, you jackbooted Natszi thug.

Re:Store? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302854)

Just because windows was programmed by members of the black power movement does not mean that free software is the answer. The reason that shit like linux has been able to thrive is situational; a mere product of the tech boom of the last 40 years along with its gay ass academic development.

Free software is not a sustainable market. You will understand in the future when you're paying back by sucking the dick of your hermaphrodite of a sister because she bought the logs that incriminated you for looking at that furry shit you like so much.

Re:Store? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302942)

Ha.

We'll see about that, when your economy goes to shit an' you an' all of the closed-source software vendors' former employees are turning tricks an' selling their children to rich Arabs to put ramen noodles on the table. Shaka, when the walls fell. The future is every bit as open as your gaping butthole is.

You sound like some pants-shitting PL/I programmer on your high-horse because the C/*NIX power-duo ate your fucking lunch.

Re:Store? (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303164)

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

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

Re:Store? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304486)

Hand in your geek card and go read Selling Free Software [gnu.org].

Re:Store? (1)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307294)

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

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

Re:Store? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307458)

You mean the part of the license which says

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

?

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

Re:Store? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34303176)

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

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

Firefox: Memory and CPU muncher (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34303298)

"... Firefox does not have memory management issues."

He's joking of course. Open a lot of windows and tabs, and Firefox will munch memory until it takes all the available memory, and then it will crash. Before that Firefox will be sloooow. The memory munching continues even when you aren't using your computer.

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. The memory gobbling, CPU gobbling was reported more than 8 years ago, and still hasn't been fixed.

Re:Firefox: Memory and CPU muncher (0)

wisty (1335733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303364)

"... Firefox does not have memory management issues."

He's joking of course. Open a lot of windows and tabs, and Firefox will munch memory until it takes all the available memory, and then it will crash. Before that Firefox will be sloooow. The memory munching continues even when you aren't using your computer.

Firefox is the most unstable program in common use. The memory gobbling, CPU gobbling was reported more than 8 years ago, and still hasn't been fixed.

It's even better if you combine it with flash heavy websites.

Re:Firefox: Memory and CPU muncher (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305078)

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

Bad moderation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34303782)

It's a fact, not a troll.

Re:Store? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307230)

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

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

Re:Store? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304330)

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

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

And (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302558)

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

Re:And (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302644)

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

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

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

Re:And (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302692)

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

Re:And (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34305234)

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

There's an AP...I for that.

Seriously, offline storage is a part of HTML5, and the iPhone will let you save a web bookmark as an app.

Re:And (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304226)

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

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

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

Re:And (1)

POWRSURG (755318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305530)

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

What you're looking for are called W3C Widgets [w3.org]. W3C Widgets currently run on Opera, and Vodafone, while T-Mobile and the Nokia S60 have have near standard W3C Widget implementations. It looks like Android is working on it, but Apple is doing everything in their power to fight this (all while touting how great HTML5 is).

Is this really needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302584)

I can see the use of promoting an app store to make it easier to purchase apps for Linux and maybe Windows, but cell phones are a different animal. Maybe it is just me, but cell phones seem to require more involvement by at least one party to ensure quality control. A cell phone company may not have to go as far as Apple in providing a sandbox, but it doesn't make sense to leave creating an app store to a third party.

Re:Is this really needed? (3, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302628)

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

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

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

Re:Is this really needed? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302934)

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

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

No problems.

Re:Is this really needed? (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307156)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds dreadful (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302602)

Also, Steve Jobs will say no.

Re:Sounds dreadful (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303916)

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

Re:Sounds dreadful (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304696)

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

Compatability Testing? (1)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302606)

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

Re:Compatability Testing? (1)

NoSig (1919688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303162)

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

i have an appstore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302616)

Its called the frickin world wide web.
a billion "app stores" and more...

Re:i have an appstore (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302862)

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

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

Re:i have an appstore (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307970)

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

So this is why Firefox 4 is delayed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302618)

Seriously, stop making useless gimmicks and work on releasing this already, or IE9 is going to be Slashdot's browser of choice.

Re:So this is why Firefox 4 is delayed (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 3 years ago | (#34308192)

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

You know what I want? (-1, Offtopic)

Dee Ann_1 (1731324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302660)

Ad blocking on my iPhone.

I resent ads being injected into EVERYTHING on my iPhone.
And I do not even use the internet through the cell system, I use it as a WIFI ONLY device and as a cell phone.
When I'm not around my WIFI or a WIFI that I have permission to use, I have no internet, I have cell phone service only, BY MY CHOICE.

But the ads, I'm sick of it. Why doesn't someone take iOS and GUT the ad injection capability from it?

If nothing else, how about Mozilla for iPhone with Adblock Plus ?? I could dig that.

Re:You know what I want? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302752)

Can't agree more. Adblock Mobile would be more than welcome.

Re:You know what I want? (1)

byronblue (855499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302786)

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

Re:You know what I want? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302902)

try send me some $$ some time, heh... (I've purchased few, that I really liked)

the point is that those 'free' apps that have those ads included ... some of them are just taking way too much of the iPhone screen 'area' and ...it becomes 'annoying' and at that point I'm not willing to depart from my $'s anymore.
- yea, I know that it's the way some dev's can actually make $, but .... pls design the thing in a way that the ads won't be annoying ... BTW ... no such thing as ad injection ... dude... stop insulting, pls, have you ever tried to USE the safari browser on iPhone4 to surf freely and... you'll find out ... ads ...

Re:You know what I want? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302790)

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

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

Re:You know what I want? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302980)

O'rly and still they allow the adblock plus ... on FF

Re:You know what I want? (0, Offtopic)

Dee Ann_1 (1731324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303816)

Sweeeeeet! Thank you!

My iPhone is jailbroken and unlocked.

When I got my first one, I was a loooong time Centennial Wireless customer and was very happy with their service. Very happy.
My son bought a new iPhone and gave me his 1st gen which I promptly popped my OLD Centennial SIM into (I had an old Nokia) then unlocked and jail broke it to work on Centennial. It worked like a charm though I had no wireless internet, never had it on the Nokia, never wanted it on the Nokia, it was too basic.
So I had internet in my house, McDonalds, etc.. Good enough for me.

My BFF dropped it and broke it though and I bought another one just like it and repeated it all over again. Everything still cool.

Then I got tired of the slowness of the 1st gen and bought a used 3GS in like new condition on ebay. Again, I jailbroke it and unlocked it with Spirit.
Still using the old Centennial / Nokia SIM. And still, no internet except via WIFI. Fine with me.

See, I have an awesome plan that they grandfathered me in on when AT&T (SUCKS) bought Centennial. For $29 a month I get 200 minutes a month outgoing and unlimited 24/7 incoming minutes. People can call and talk to me 24 hours a day and it doesn't cost me a cent. Why would I want to change that?

If I fess up to them that I have an iPhone they will force me into a new $100 a month plan that I do not want, can not afford and have no use for.
I do not need internet when I'm driving. If I need internet when I'm away from home I'll pull into a McDonalds and use their WIFI and have a burger and a diet coke in exchange. But pay $40 a month for a limited voice plan and another $40 a month for a VERY LIMITED internet plan, NO WAY.

They can KMA.

I love that my phone is jailbroken so that I can customize it in anyway I want. I'm not giving up my Tinkerbell theme for anyone, they can go to hell.
I'm still using 3.1.3 because I do not at all trust the new iOS4. I have heard they have a kill switch built into it to brick JB/UL'd phones.

I'm on Cydia however and I can not find the "SBSettingsAdBlockToggle" app.. :(

Copy others much? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302698)

I had high hopes for BeOS, and it was awesome, because it was different. I wish open source would do something new and stop copying others.

Re:Copy others much? (1)

lluBdeR (466879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307910)

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

As a Nokia fan boy ... (0, Offtopic)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302728)

I have a N90, a N95, and an N800, etc. I loved being able to write apps on my laptop, and transfer them over to my hand held device . . . even though that I can't program myself out of a paper bag!

I loved flicking the N90 so much, that my girlfriend said: "Quit playing with it! You might break it!"

Insert Beavis and Butthead text here.

So this MeeGo stuff has me all curious . . . just wait, don't buy.

I'd like a taste (3, Insightful)

zeroRenegade (1475839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34302768)

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

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

Re:I'd like a taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302840)

30%, fully agree, If and only if the rules are made clear, what gets accepted and what not (public voting maybe on 'app store' (like / dislike style) ? and /or only after it's liked app (hmmm. how would I know, without testing / actually downloading the app or do I judge just based on app description?) ... That would make huge difference and I bet a lot of developers would change their direction to this. ( I would) ... well, the opposite of orange takes that 30% regardless ...

Re:I'd like a taste (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303586)

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

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

Re:I'd like a taste (2, Informative)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304546)

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

Nope, AAA games are not the future (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307980)

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

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

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

Re:I'd like a taste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34303598)

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

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

Re:I'd like a taste (2, Interesting)

duguk (589689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305306)

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

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

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

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

how about shipping the browser first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34302782)

Great. Let's boil the ocean with an open source app store. How about actually shipping an open source mobile browser first on a platform that people actually use?

Re:how about shipping the browser first? (1)

mrawhimskell (1794156) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303190)

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

Already being done... (3, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303048)

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

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

Re:Already being done... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34306082)

i tried the browser, but quickly deleted it. it won't recognize when i hit the shift or alt key, so i can't use capital letters, or special characters. so i can't log into anything. ever.
as soon as they fix that problem, i will be overjoyed. i love firefox, and was stoked when i heard it was on android.
motorola droid running 2.2

when can I get a fart app? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34303084)

I can't wait till the flood of Fart Apps for the mozilla app store arrives. FART FART FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT

Browser with JS device API + Open store (4, Interesting)

Mandrel (765308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303154)

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

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

Web apps mean open - how not? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303572)

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

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

Re:Web apps mean open - how not? (2, Interesting)

Mandrel (765308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303678)

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

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

Re:Browser with JS device API + Open store (2, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303892)

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

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

PhoneGap (2, Interesting)

Mandrel (765308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304046)

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

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

Re:PhoneGap (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304694)

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

And it sucks.

Guaranteed Fail (3, Insightful)

digitaltraveller (167469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303548)

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

Re:Guaranteed Fail (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303738)

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

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

Walmartization of app space..? (1)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 3 years ago | (#34303610)

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

Bad grammar in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34304300)

"...an unique..." should be "...a unique..."

"unique" is pronounced with a 'y' at the front, so the indefinite article should be "a", not "an".

Cart before horse (4, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34304456)

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

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

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

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

Re:Cart before horse (1)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34305276)

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

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

And I'm not sure they can deliver that.

Re:Cart before horse (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307464)

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

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

And I'm not sure they can deliver that.

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

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

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

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

Gotta' love software companies.. (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 3 years ago | (#34306034)

..and their tendency to abuse every software paradigm.

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

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

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

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

Re:Gotta' love software companies.. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34307562)

..and their tendency to abuse every software paradigm.

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

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

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

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...