Beta
×

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 Partners Up With LG To Combat Apple and Google

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the competition-is-a-good-thing dept.

Firefox 163

MrSeb writes "At Mobile World Congress, which begins in three days, Mozilla will finally take the wraps off the Mozilla Marketplace and allow developers to submit their open web technology (HTML5, JavaScript, CSS) apps. While the Marketplace will play an important role in keeping Firefox in step with Chrome, these apps will actually play a far more important role: Boot to Gecko (B2G), Mozilla's upcoming smartphone and tablet OS, will also use the Marketplace. For B2G to succeed it must have apps, and to create apps you need developers. That's why, at MWC, according to a source close to the matter, Mozilla will also be announcing that it has partnered up with LG to make a developer-oriented B2G-powered mobile device. Even more interestingly, Brendan Eich, Mozilla's Chief Technology Officer, says that it will unveil other partners at MWC as well — probably carriers, who are eager to use the open B2G and its Marketplace to escape the huge control that Apple and Google currently exert in the smartphone space."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hope this is true opensource. (2)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147701)

Dear Mozilla,

I have been a tester from mozilla M18.

I hope this is true opensource and a good product.

Sincerely,

I hope it's actually something that makes sense (3, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148481)

I hope it makes sense and is well done. I guess the sign of it becoming real is when google applauds it at the same time as apple/microsoft sue Mozilla. So, 6 months? Again, how it is designed is going to be important. Anyone can clone the whole smartphone layout as it exists but they're going to need to do something *different* for it to be worthwhile.

I should also point out that apple and google are considered competition, but Microsoft is not (as microsoft is not relevant in the smartphone market). Quite a telling point.

Eager (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39147735)

probably carriers, who are eager to use the open B2G and its Marketplace to escape the huge control that Apple and Google currently exert

I suspect B2G comes somewhere behind WebOS and possibly even Windows Phone 7 and whatever the Linux flavor is called these days (not Meego, the other one(?) that came after it) in degree of carrier eagerness. If carriers are rushing to escape Apple and Google then they do have choices.

Barcode scanner app (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147737)

How would one make a barcode scanner application for this platform? I was under the impression that web browsers had no standardized, widely implemented way to (ask for the user's permission to) read from the camera and microphone (if any) connected to a device.

Re:Barcode scanner app (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39147815)

Mozilla is building a WebAPI open standard along with B2G so you can access hardware from html / javascript. Check this out http://arewemobileyet.com/

Re:Barcode scanner app (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149915)

Good luck decoding barcodes from images in real time with Javascript.

Re:Barcode scanner app (1)

James Carnley (789899) | more than 2 years ago | (#39150003)

We can already detect porn images in real-time using JavaScript [patrick-wied.at] so doing something simple like reading a barcode will be trivial.

Re:Barcode scanner app (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39150447)

I have no idea how well that nudity detector works. But the demo is taking about 4 seconds to process a frame on my laptop. Realtime would would process 25-60 frames per second. Your example Javascript app is at least 100 times too slow to be real time.

You just underlined my point.

And don't think scanning barcodes from video is an easier problem, unless you've tried it.

Re:Barcode scanner app (1)

bigbangnet (1108411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147823)

It's called w3c. Those standards are there for a reason. unfortunately, not a lot of web browser dev don't use it 100%. That's one reason we got so many open alley in our pc's via the web browser today. I can't blame them 100% but theres a small percentage that goes to them of course. Theres also the fact that the bigger the code you got, the bigger holes you MIGHT have.

Re:Barcode scanner app (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148125)

It's called w3c.

Excellent. So after about twenty years of political bickering and bureaucratic deadlock, we'll have a half-written standard for camera access whose capabilities will be twenty-five years out of date to what everyone will be actually using at the time and won't be adopted by anyone but the most frothing and hardcore of open-source zealots who will be in a constant state of bewilderment as to why nobody wants to adopt this new "standard"? I can't wait!

Re:Barcode scanner app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148319)

Actually WAC is a better acronym... See www.wacapps.net

Re:Barcode scanner app (4, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147935)

Flash can do that and more. Maybe HTML5?

Oh yay, another market place. Just what I wanted. Apps for my apps. Or apps for the plugins of my apps.

Re:Barcode scanner app (3, Funny)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148139)

I can't stand the term apps. You're post means I now have to go to the pub(s) after work and drink a Friday worth.I didn't want to go. But now I must.

Re:Barcode scanner app (5, Funny)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148225)

I can't stand incorrect usage of your/you're. Which pub are you going to? Perhaps we can meet up.

Re:Barcode scanner app (3, Informative)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148563)

:( Fair point well made. Here -> Canary Wharf, London - Fullers

Re:Barcode scanner app (4, Informative)

jesser (77961) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148001)

Device APIs are a key part of the B2G effort. Mozilla is making those APIs [mozilla.org] and getting them standardized [mozilla.org] .

Re:Barcode scanner app (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148031)

Excel has teh functionality built inside it. You can with a Windows 8 tablet with a scanner hooked into the usb port

Re:Barcode scanner app (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148427)

Perhaps the Mozilla Marketplace will be the perfect catalyst to speed up the development of methods to accomplish this. If it catches on, developers will want to be able to do many of the same things as native apps and some may work towards implementing solutions and submitting them to appropriate standards bodies.

Actually... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147745)

Come to think of it, the 'LG XULRunner' would actually be a better-than-average name for a cellphone...

Re:Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148455)

LOL! True! What's with the new share link next to the "Reply to This"?

Re:Actually... (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149999)

What's with the new share link next to the "Reply to This"?

It now hides the obnoxious twitter / facebook / whatever things unless you click on the link. It's not as good as simply not having them at all, but it's better than having them visible on every post.

This Isn't To Stick It To Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39147747)

If LG is doing it, the point is to stick it to Samsung. Those companies hate each other even more than Apple hated Microsoft in the 1990s...

too bad i switched to chrome....... (-1, Redundant)

who_stole_my_kidneys (1956012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147749)

used to love firefox, now its so bloated and non functional, moved on to chrome so they can steal my info, but at a much faster pace.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147817)

Give me a call when Chrome has NoScript and isn't developed by a company that has grown notorious for its privacy issues, user web tracking, and targeted ads.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148085)

NoScript is not that big of a deal as it once was. It was mainly used for XSS filtering and cross domain scripting protection. All the major browsers do this by default now in their javacript engines and security features without it.

I used to install NoScript and simply disabled it, which left it open to run AJAX but blocked global cross domain scripting. Now I do not need to do this.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148363)

That sounds like your personal experience which isn't a reflection of the general NoScript user. I never used it exclusively for XSS filtering. Yes, it was a major bullet point, but lets not pigeonhole it into being the only relevant feature just because you're a Chrome fanboy trying to justify your decision (at least that's how your post comes across to me).

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148519)

"Give me a call when Chrome has NoScript and isn't developed by a company that has grown notorious for its privacy issues"

What privacy issues? Seriously, be specific. This meme of Google-evil-privacy-invader has grown up, but without any real substance. I think it's the result of a very successful FUD campaign because when I look for actual problems there's not much there.

I can think of two real privacy issues Google has had. The logging of packet content during Wifi scanning, and the Buzz decision to automatically connect people to others in their contacts. Those two mistakes were serious, but they hardly show a pattern.

There have also been lots of complaints about the StreetView cameras, but it's pretty well-established that what can be seen from public roads is not private. Google goes beyond the legal requirements by blurring faces, license plate numbers and other items that could potentially raise privacy concerns.

What else? Anything?

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149223)

they hacked my safari to steal my data against my explicit decisions for them not to do so.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149987)

I accidentely modded you down...

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

Jessified (1150003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148749)

No doubt. I would switch in a second if it wasn't for that. Firefox is so tedious though. It crashes once a day on my computer (apparently it's some problem specific to this type of laptop graphics card driver on Windows 7). Nonetheless all the other browsers seem to work without crashing...

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148849)

NoScript and AdBlock have been available forever for Chrome. If you don't trust Google free free to use Chromium (as I do), the fully open source version. It turns out Google doesn't care about people who care about their privacy because there aren't enough of us to matter to their bottom line.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (4, Informative)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147891)

same here, but then I switched back sometime around FF10. Much happier with it than back in the 3.x days. I now go back and forth without much concern.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148011)

Well, ever since FF10 it keeps crashing constantly. So now im switching to Opera.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148051)

Does it still freezes up every few seconds? I know it uses less resources.

Even IE 8 is feels faster and more responsive than FF 3.6. FF had some bad releases

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

NotBorg (829820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148673)

Does it still freezes up every few seconds?

Not as often as your grammar checker does.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149237)

IE9 is awesome. on par with the other browsers.

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148479)

The 3.x days? You mean last year? (Seriously, 4.0 was only released in March 2011.)

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148927)

Yes because One year is such a short time in software developement nowadays...

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39150735)

In browser time yes. Remember how IE 9 was competitive and was the fastest browser under any benchmark except Google's V8 javascript one?

Now it is slow and only half as fast as Chrome and FF. FF realized this and would be killed as users would look at the html 5 spec support and benchmarks and within weeks would be behind the competition again.

FF 3.6 really is slow. I fired it up last week and the scrolling up and down was glacial compared to the more modern browsers. Google Maps were painfull too

Re:too bad i switched to chrome....... (4, Informative)

LaRainette (1739938) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148873)

When did you last use FF ? v3.5 ?

  I use both right now, on win7, Linux Mint and CrunchBang. My FF always has 20-30 tabs opened, it's my main browser, I only use Chrome when have no browser opened and I don't want to wait for FF to start with my 30 opened tabs.

  Based on my experience, FF 10 isn't bloated at all. It's as fast as Chrome and has way more useful plugins.

  On an unrelated note I trust mozilla a gazillion times more than I trust google.

Another smartphone OS (-1)

davidshewitt (1552163) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147771)

Why another smartphone OS? It seems like so many companies just copy what is doing well in the market, and the resulting product flops within a few years. Mostly Apple products are being copied (look at Mircosoft, the Gnome project, and now Mozilla). I would rather like to see some original innovation. Not an Apple fan, just my $0.02

Re:Another smartphone OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148213)

uhhh, I don't like Microsoft's practices either, but WP7/8 look nothing like they copied anything out of anyone's software... I've never see the Metro UI anywhere else. As for gnome, you might have a fighting chance at that... but then again, how else do you propose to have a task switcher? All the common ideas have been implemented by the big two desktop OSes

Well, there's a new marketplace (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147793)

I think a company announcing they're NOT doing a marketplace would probably get bigger headlines these days.

Re:Well, there's a new marketplace (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148045)

How about a marketplace that efficiently clears?

Re:Well, there's a new marketplace (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148071)

Just wait until I launch my Marketplace Marketplace, where you can browse for Marketplaces through one streamlined, friendly interface.

Re:Well, there's a new marketplace (1)

toxonix (1793960) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149063)

Stand the shit back I think you've got something there. A META-Marketplace! I'm filing a paaaatent as I type this

Re:Well, there's a new marketplace (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149255)

yo dawg, i hear you like marketplaces, so I put a marketplace up in your marketplace so you can shop while you shop. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=yo+dawg&qpvt=yo+dawg&FORM=IGRE [bing.com]

Re:Well, there's a new marketplace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39150289)

Fuck bing and fuck you, heretic!

Re:Well, there's a new marketplace (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149925)

I think a company announcing they're NOT doing a marketplace would probably get bigger headlines these days.

SCO, a well-know leader in the software field, is just about to announce theirs. They only have one app so far, and it costs $699.00.

Wish (2)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147803)

I just wish I could open up a wormhole, and send this headline to the version of myself who existed 10 years ago. That would be one confused sonofa...

Vendor lock-in from the open source guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39147807)

As anyone who has ever hosted their own extensions knows, you can forget about self-hosting once there is an "app store". Great. You can still host your own software, but nobody's going to find it, and if you want to be found, you have to accept the middleman. This is a game that I won't play. Fuck the middleman.

Re:Vendor lock-in from the open source guys (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149075)

And that is different than the way its always been how?

People weren't search for your extension before because they didn't know about it, guess what .. if you hosted it yourself today, its the same problem.

The app store doesn't hurt you, it helps, it gives you a place to be found.

Do you think you'd have better luck selling your farm grown veggies on your own farm ... or at the farmers market?

The only people that are going to COME FIND YOUR APP on YOUR WEBSITE are people who already know and want your product. By not being in an AppStore you just cut yourself out of free advertising and product placement.

The only people that make comments like yours are people who have never actually sold or had a successful software product in their lives.

Re:Vendor lock-in from the open source guys (1)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39150127)

I think he regrets that with an official app store in place, he either has to accept being subject to the rules dictated by whoever runs the one official app store, or suffer the competitive disadvantage of not being on the one official app store where his potential customers will probably look first.

Re:Vendor lock-in from the open source guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39150621)

No, you've clearly never experienced the difference from a developer point of view. People will not find your apps in any reasonable size app store if they're not steered towards them, but other than real world recommendations from your friends, the recommendations in app stores are manipulated to hell and back. Have you never wondered why there is tons of truly free software for PCs (Linux and even Windows), but on your phone your only choices seem to be for pay or advertising supported (each with a good helping of spying on you)? Even the simplest of programs come with one or more ad trojans, and of course the stores are perfectly fine with that. The whole concept is get-rich-quick driven on all sides.

What was wrong with portal web sites in the 90s is still wrong with app stores today. It's the same parasitic model where someone inserts themselves between the producer and the consumer by promising a bigger market to one side and less work to the other side. What everybody gets is less choice: The producer has his choices reduced to one middleman and the consumer has his choices reduced to the most profitable apps (and guess who pays for all that). Do not believe for a moment that Apple's 30% of everything isn't an introductory offer. The music industry isn't content with just 30% of sales and neither will Apple or any other of the middleman be.

App providers can pull apps (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147811)

The application cache and DOM storage allow web applications written in JavaScript to be installed on a device and used offline, just like native applications. But as described here [mozilla.org] , the developer can force a web application to be removed from devices:

If an application's manifest file is removed from the server, the browser removes all application caches that use that manifest, and sends an "obsoleted" event to the applicationCache object. This sets the application cache's state to OBSOLETE.

Re:App providers can pull apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148063)

Why on earth would we need marketplace for AppCache Apps?
That makes no sense at all. You simply navigate to the site and cache whatever the manifest says -- upto the AppCache size is limit.

Mozilla already has a marketplace of sorts for browser extensions/plugins It seems logical that they'd use that as the basis for their OS App Marketplace. These should be persistant, more privileged apps than a mere JS browser app, complete with OS API access and allowed to have a larger file system footprint (upto say, 2GB) and be able to do potentially insecure things if blessed with users permission.

The real issue I see is how to enforce a common UI -- existing Mozilla plugins are all willy-nilly for their UIs.
And while that may be ok for a web browser extension, it wont cut it for OS apps, mobile or otherwise.

Re:App providers can pull apps (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148209)

Why on earth would we need marketplace for AppCache Apps?

To give developers a way to feed their families while developing applications.

You simply navigate to the site and cache whatever the manifest says

But if you use the application while online and the browser discovers that the application has been deleted from the site, then the application ends up deleted from your device.

upto the AppCache size is limit

Which poses problems for games, which might quickly exceed a limit of 5 MB per origin.

Re:App providers can pull apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39149509)

Do you have an iphone, an iPad or Android device?
A native app can use the devices SQLite DB for data storage and create files in its app directory (not browser appcache)
I suspect you've never done mobile development and therefor don't understand the supreme advantages over native apps vs limited browser sandbox apps.

Moreover, forcing all websites to use a marketplace instead of being freely available in the browser as they presently are would kill this endeavor before it even began. What idiot would expect websites to go through some marketplace to do what they can already do in any modern web browser?

I think you have failed to understand the issue at hand here. They want to create a full fledged Mobile OS with native apps and an AppStore, not force the Internet to go through a marketplace to use the w3 appcache standard.

Re:App providers can pull apps (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149767)

Do you have an iphone, an iPad or Android device?

I don't own an Android phone or an iPhone because smartphones cost a hefty chunk of change per month.

A native app

The article is about an alternative to native apps. Native apps can use only the Web Storage API, which is likewise limited to a quota that is as small as 5 MB on some devices.

I suspect you've never done mobile development

You suspect correctly.

and therefor don't understand the supreme advantages over native apps vs limited browser sandbox apps.

The big disadvantage of native apps is more difficult deployment. With iOS, you have to pay just for your beta testers to be able to run your pre-release app on their devices. And then you have to get the app and each bug fix past weeks-long approval process.

Re:App providers can pull apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39150079)

The deployment caveat on iOS has it's advantages.
Android, which is far more fast and loose is rife with malware, while iOS is not.

And you don't pay for beta testers on iOS, you are limited to 100 per year, per developer license.
Services like testflightapp make deployment to beta testers and bug reporting a pretty slick process actually, and it's free.

And FYI: the Web Storage API is for websites, not native apps. It gives a JS based website the ability to make use of a DB to store name/value pairs. 5Mb is far more expansive than the 14kb cookie limit (forcing sites to create hundreds of cookies and custom code to store complex data)

Native Apps have no need for AppCache or WebStorage, they get sandboxed DB and file system access with far more size and privileges than a mobile browser app.

Free and Fragmented? (1)

Merk42 (1906718) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147813)

How is something like B2G going to be both FOSS and yet prevent OEMs from modifying the hell out of it so it's inconsistent and incompatible with other B2G devices a la various Android?

Re:Free and Fragmented? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148087)

How is something like B2G going to be both FOSS and yet prevent OEMs from modifying the hell out of it so it's inconsistent and incompatible with other B2G devices a la various Android?

I doubt there's any plans to prevent it being modified and made inconsistent. Where did you get that from?

Re:Free and Fragmented? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148307)

The fuck you mean a la Android? More FUD spewing? I have more Android devices laying here than I can shake a stick at everything from an Android powered wristwatch to a tablet running ICS hooked up to a monitor with bluetooth keyboard/mouse running as a desktop replacement and they all run 99.99 percent the same applications in the same way. PLEASE FIND NEW FUD.

Re:Free and Fragmented? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149635)

How is it FUD? Motorola, Samsung, HTC, etc all slap on their proprietary skins and crapware on their phones.

Re:Free and Fragmented? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39149907)

Er, are you stupid? The skins don't make the devices incompatible any more than changing the theme on your desktop and using different icons makes your workstation incompatible. What is with the influx of low IQ slashdotters?

Re:Free and Fragmented? (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39150741)

They do install crapware that can't be deleted by normal means (like the Sprint only apps like Sprint NASCAR, or Sprint TV), you either have to root it or install another flavor of Android to get rid of it, not something a lot of people feel comfortable with. And I know of someone that has to routinely go through the "delete all exercise" when his cheapie Android phone resets itself, reinstalls all of the crapware by default (the kind that can be deleted by normal means) and takes up all of the storage space on said cheapie device.

Not sure about the incompatible FUD, but they already do things that make the device difficult to modify for non-device-stability reasons. They have business model stability reasons, sure, and we all know which reasons will overtake which if a for profit corporation or a cabal for profit corporations is left to its own devices.

It's the basics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39147873)

Firefox crashes too often. Each release fixes a stunningly large number of bugs. But as stability doesn't noticeably improve, each release must be introducing a comparably large number of bugs.

I used to beta test Mozilla back in the early days when nobody else use it. It is kind of discouraging that it is still the most unstable app I use, all these years later.

Re:It's the basics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39147921)

What are you doing to make it crash? I don't remember it ever crashing except when flash took it down. Lately flash crashes on its own and firefox keeps running.

Re:It's the basics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148145)

Trolls don't always tell the truth.

I think it's more accurate to say... (3, Interesting)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147911)

Mozilla has found another source of income in addition to Google. With LG's money, Mozilla will be able to add features that counter Chrome's increased share in the browser marketplace. I assume FirefoxOS will counter ChromeOS and webOS more than Android and iOS.

Wether or not this adversely affects Mozilla's ability to increase user satisfaction with FireFox being used as a browser remains to be seen. I hope and wish them the best, but am concerned that they will lose focus on their core product which should be a web browser people would actually like to use (or in my case continue to use).

Re:I think it's more accurate to say... (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148123)

Actually, the bookmark syncing between your desktop(s) and mobile devices is a great browser feature. Firefox navigation on Android is way superior to the stock browser, too. The only thing currently missing is Flash - it was scheduled to happen in Q1 this year. If they manage to do that, I'll use Firefox exclusively on my Android phone.

Re:I think it's more accurate to say... (1)

RebelWebmaster (628941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148295)

Flash support should arrive with version 13 if they end up shipping with the Native UI enabled as is currently the plan.

Re:I think it's more accurate to say... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148713)

I disagree; ChromeOS is dead, it has been superseded by Android, particularly after the launch of the Transformer and now Chrome itself [telegraph.co.uk] . Sergey Brin had already said in 2009 that the two would likely converge at some point in the future and in my opinion, that's mostly done.

Re:I think it's more accurate to say... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148759)

Okay then just WebOS.

Re:I think it's more accurate to say... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148909)

I disagree; ChromeOS is dead,

After I elliminated ChromeOS as a possible competitor, I just found that ChromeOS is being updated soon to solve a WiFi problem, Samsung is still pushing the newest Chromebook, and there are features being developed in the dev and beta branches of the OS. Apparently ChromeOS and Chrome share much of the same source code (makes sense).

Anyway I place ChromeOS back in the arena.

Performance? (1)

luke923 (778953) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147925)

If B2G is as slow and has the memory leaks of Firefox, I don't think I'd want to develop for it. Right now, it often requires 1GB of RAM dedicated to Firefox with Firebug running -- and that with only one page open! Imagine what will happen when you have your app running for a significant period what that would do to the device along with other programs running in the background.

Re:Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39147981)

I see the trolls and liars are out in force.

Re:Performance? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148151)

Well he is right. ... however he fails to mention all browsers will use a gig of ram when running Firebug or some intense developing app with loads of jquery or some bloated ajax library.

Responsive wise for kicks I installed and played with FF 3.6 from last year. WOW, is it a dog compared to IE 8, IE 9, Chrome, and future versions of itself. Smooth and faster scrolling and less bloat have helped in later releases. I am still not running the later versions of FF as I do not trust htem nor agree with Asa's release schedule.

I could change. I did start using IE 9 after 9 years of quiting IE 6 cold turkey.

Re:Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39149615)

Well he is right.

No, he's not right. He's pointing to a corner case and claiming that it's somehow fundamentally relevant. It's a LIE. It's like pointing to research which says that potatoes are good for you and then going on to say that Fries and Potato chips are good for you. The very credible research about potatoes doesn't make the lie that follows true. His intent was to deceive and that makes him a troll and a liar which is not "right."

Also, the "Left for Chrome" trolls and the "rapid release is bad" trolls are incompatible. It's hard to take you seriously when you praise Chrome and then say something about not trusting the release schedule.

BTW, most spell checkers will catch typo's like "htem." Does IE not have such a feature because it's making you look like a jackass.

Re:Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39150477)

I am at work

Re:Performance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39149177)

2004 called they want your gig of ram back

Meanwhile... (4, Funny)

virgnarus (1949790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39147957)

Windows Phone 7 is peering through a window to watch the fight, eyes welling with tears.

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149391)

And RIM is watching Windows Phone 7 through binoculars from 2 miles away.

Windows Phone 7 is just a stepping stone (0)

LostMyBeaver (1226054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39150759)

Don't get me wrong. Microsoft and Nokia advertise the hell out of it and are doing whatever they can to sell it. But, as an iPad to Windows 8 tablet convert for the past 3 months, I have to say that if Microsoft does get Windows 8 Phone up and running on an x86 platform with moderate battery life, I'll consider dumping iPhone as well. See, on my Windows 8 tablet, I run iTunes desktop which lets me keep all my music, movies and videos. I have apps like TomTom for U.S. and Western Europe which were big investments I'll need an iPhone for, but the rest of the apps were a buck or two and most of the ones I actually use are free. So, I really think I'd be happier with a Windows 8 Phone than a iPhone if the Windows 8 Phone is like the Windows 8 tablet which gives me the ability to plug it into a screen and keyboard and use it as a PC as well.

I'm looking forward to a time when I can have the power of a dual core Sandy Bridge Core i5 as a telephone running Windows 8 with the phone interface when I carry it and the desktop interface when it's docked. A single device to do everything. Then I can have some sort of laptoppish dock for when I need a desktop on the road. This way, I can find a dock with the perfect screen and perfect keyboard and then find a PC/Phone with the perfect specs and only upgrade one or the other when I find something much better.

I type this now from an AWESOME Asus N53SV notebook with a Core i7, 16 Gigs of RAM and dual 400GB 525/500 MB/sec SSDs... it has the worst keyboard and trackpad EVER!!!! though. I would love to buy the ultimate keyboard and screen dock... use it until I'm 150 years old and then just upgrade the computer part which would effectively be my phone as well.

So... bash Windows Phone all you want.... but the way things are going, Windows 8 Phone will almost certainly be the first truly converged device operating system. Able to run Windows Metro, Windows Desktop, Android, etc... apps. Able to run practically every program made since 1978. Able to work on phone, tablet, laptop, desktop and TV all equally well. Etc... Sure, it could end up being a niche, but I'm pretty sure that this is what people will demand in the years to come.

And when you get home (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148015)

Your tablet will be out of date

Oblig Xzibit Meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148327)

YO DAWG, I herd you like apps, so we put a marketplace in yo app so you can use apps in yo app!

LG? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148345)

LG? I've owned LG phones in the past. While they were inexpensive, they were the cheapest (quality wise) phones I've ever owned, and simultaneously lacked features common on competing products. Mozilla could have made a better choice by going with pretty much any other company.

Re:LG? (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148725)

I have to agree with this. The last LG phone I owned was back in 2003. It was a horrible piece of crap. I was so happy to get a new phone, I took the old LG out in the back yard and smashed it to bits ala Office Space. It is the last LG product I will ever own.

Lots of these lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148501)

B2G is just ane of the attempts at creating a "web" OS, or actually an environment for which applications can be written in HTML/JS.
We already had HP WebOS, Blackberry WebWorks, JIL, BONDI, ChromeOS, PhoneGap, Appcelerator, WAC and finally Tizen.

Nothing new here. Move along.

Wait a minute . . . (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39148521)

Um, am I right in thinking this will give carriers more control over my phone?

From TFA, "Basically, Apple and Google have so much control over the smartphone landscape that carriers have effectively become nothing more than retailers. Worse than that, their infrastructures have been reduced to that of a dumb pipe, where it is Apple and Google who ultimately decide how the network will be used."

I don't know about other countries, but the last thing I would ever do in the US is give a mobile carrier more control over my phone. It that is the case, I'll pass.

Re:Wait a minute . . . (1, Interesting)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149241)

That's exactly the point, but not really the way you're thinking. TFA says that Apple and Google basically control, more or less, how the phones using their OSes are used. Mozilla doesn't want to give carriers more control over your data or freedom. Rather, they want to give carriers more freedom to make something unique that can give them a potential advantage over competitors. Whether or not a carrier will use that to allow an open device is besides the point.

Re:Wait a minute . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39149795)

So basically they are giving the carriers free reign to lock things down. Woot? If they don't think the carriers will do so and wont just modify B2G to give themselves tracking ability then the Mozilla people are tremendous retards.

Geeks can be amusing (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 2 years ago | (#39148823)

It's cute to watch a certain type of geek when he's delusional enough to think that a plan such as this will work. They don't understand the way business incentives actually work, which makes it even funnier when their predictions don't come true. ;-)

Web apps = Fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39149101)

Mozilla claims that they are 'the good guys' because they promote an 'open' Web, versus Apple and Google's 'closed' Web.

First of all, I'm sick of this 'open Web vs walled gardens' argument. The important thing is the Internet, not the Web. As long as we have interconnected networks, everybody can use them for whatever they like, be it the HTTP protocol or some other alternative.

Second, the usability of the web apps simply sucks, because the web wasn't designed for them. I prefer an app with an interface that takes all the advantages that the hardware offers, although it lives in a walled garden.

Re:Web apps = Fail (1)

DavidinAla (639952) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149633)

Quit being reasonable and making sense. There's no room for that in the Church of Openness. ;-)

Re:Web apps = Fail (2)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39150505)

The important thing is the Internet, not the Web. As long as we have interconnected networks, everybody can use them for whatever they like, be it the HTTP protocol or some other alternative.

Only if "there's an app for that".

Second, the usability of the web apps simply sucks, because the web wasn't designed for them.

It wasn't designed to let you read emails, view videos, listen to music, consult maps, play games, talk to your friends, buy books, either.
But since it was designed to be open and extensible, it was improved over the years and now you can do all that stuff pretty well. Can't see why this process of extension and improvement should be halted now, and left to proprietary architectures.

Compete not Combat (1)

jockm (233372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149447)

Look LG & Moz aren't doing this to fight some evil in the world. They are doing this because they have a product (and/or services) they want to sell. I am not saying this isn't a good thing, but this is good old fashioned competition, not a holy quest.

Patents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39149759)

Isn't everything about mobile phones patented? How is Mozilla planning to survive the lawsuits?

Boot 2 Gecko (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39149781)

Will it also save you 15% on your car insurance?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?