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!

Firefox OS Powered Flame Available For Pre-order; Ships Globally

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 months ago | from the everyone-has-a-phone dept.

Firefox 109

sfcrazy (1542989) writes "Developers need access to device running the platform for which they develop. Nexus was Google's reference device and now Mozilla is coming out with its own device. Mozilla has opened pre-order for Flame, its Firefox OS reference devices for $170 including free shipping." Specs are, of course, modest: a dual core 1.2GHz snapdragon, 1G of RAM, 8G of flash, an 854×480 4.5" screen, and a 5MP camera. Now, if only they would release a device with a keyboard.

cancel ×

109 comments

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

LOL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47109699)

Now, if only they would release a device with a keyboard

And maybe Ford can start making faster horse-drawn carriages.

Re:LOL (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47109737)

A physical keyboard is far superior to an on-screen keyboard, swype included. Too bad Blackberry sucks.

Re:LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47109805)

And yet consumers don't care. The monumental failure of the Q10 is further evidence of this.

So again, whining about hardware keyboards is like whining about not having better buggy whips and faster horse-drawn carriages. Suck it up and shut the fuck up.

Re:LOL (4, Insightful)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 3 months ago | (#47109851)

Physical keyboard is more akin to a standard transmission. In theory more powerful and flexible,but for a lot of regular people, just kind of gets in the way.

Soft keyboards have gotten good enough I just stopped caring.

Re:LOL (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 months ago | (#47110047)

Exactly. Most people are terrible typists so for them a hardware keyboard provides no noticeable benefit. The speed typists tend to forget that they represent a minority of people.

Re:LOL (1)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 3 months ago | (#47110479)

Exactly. Most people are terrible typists so for them a hardware keyboard provides no noticeable benefit. The speed typists tend to forget that they represent a minority of people.

Every time I read a statement like this, I think of this [youtube.com] .

Minority still have needs (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47111155)

Why should the minority's needs not be met? See Tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Minority still have needs (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about 3 months ago | (#47114365)

Because this is private enterprise in a non-command economy, so producers are free to all pursue soft-keyboard and boner pills if they so chose and dismiss physical keyboards and cures for cancer.

(As an aside, this also highlights the dangers of political theories that assume an economy in equilibrium.)

Entry barrier (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47115223)

It's not a functional "non-command economy" so long as manufacturers abuse patents and carriers abuse their spectrum monopolies. Otherwise a new firm could enter the market and serve the minority.

Re:Entry barrier (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47115893)

It's not a functional "non-command economy" so long as manufacturers abuse patents and carriers abuse their spectrum monopolies. Otherwise a new firm could enter the market and serve the minority.

Picked up on that did you? How can there be a free market as long as anyone that becomes successful immediately works very hard to destroy it You figure that the largest corporations are going to say, Okay, "We'll make less money if we have any competition?" So let's encourage as much coompetition as possible!"

Rules? Regulations? That shackles the free market. So that won't work.

No rules, no regulations? Well then the biggest will eat everyone else for breakfast. So that won't work.

If this was a 60's movie, the computer would now self-destruct.

Re:Minority still have needs (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47115873)

Because this is private enterprise in a non-command economy, so producers are free to all pursue soft-keyboard and boner pills if they so chose and dismiss physical keyboards and cures for cancer.

(As an aside, this also highlights the dangers of political theories that assume an economy in equilibrium.)

You forgot about Brawndo. dude!

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47113321)

Exactly. Most people are terrible typists so for them a hardware keyboard provides no noticeable benefit.

When I think typist, a phone keyboard is the only type of keyboard that I don't think about. I am an excellent typist, I'd say, on any of three different keyboard layouts in two different languages. I still don't want a hardware keyboard on my smartphone.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110075)

Good, glad you have. The wonderful thing is we can release different products for different people.

I'd still like a physical keyboard. Given the number of Blutooth keyboards about I know I'm not the only one. Just as I'd like a stylus. Yeay for differences!

Re:LOL (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 months ago | (#47110159)

Then simply buy a bluetooth keyboard and be happy. If hardware keyboards were really as popular as you're trying to insinuate then there would be more phones that have them. The fact of the matter is that you're a niche minority not worth chasing.

Re:LOL (0)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about 3 months ago | (#47110319)

Yeah, wanting a hardware keyboard on a cell phone isn't a bad thing. Sometimes function > form. My suspicion is that the old buggy whip meme used in this context is by an iphone worshiping ladyboy in a fedora.

Physical keyboards are nice in the sense that you have some god damn feedback about where you're thumbs are on the keyboard. there are occasions you'd like to be able to type something in a search box or dial a number without having to look at the phone. an onscreen keyboard doesn't do this.

Just because something is old does not make it automatically inferior.

Re:LOL (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 months ago | (#47110423)

Yeah, wanting a hardware keyboard on a cell phone isn't a bad thing.

No one said wanting one was bad. The point is that the average consumer doesn't care about the theoretical benefits that they won't see.

Physical keyboards are nice in the sense that you have some god damn feedback about where you're thumbs are on the keyboard. there are occasions you'd like to be able to type something in a search box or dial a number without having to look at the phone. an onscreen keyboard doesn't do this.

This assumes that most people are touch typists. Most people are henpeckers who stare at their keyboards when typing. This is why hardware keyboards only appeal to a niche market.

Just because something is old does not make it automatically inferior.

And just because something is old does not make it better.

Re:LOL (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47115943)

Yeah, wanting a hardware keyboard on a cell phone isn't a bad thing.

No one said wanting one was bad. The point is that the average consumer doesn't care about the theoretical benefits that they won't see.

So I guess in your world,"Here comes Honey Boo-Boo" should be the only program because some folks like it?

If you don't want a hardware keyboard, then don't get one.

But you can also skip getting all preachy about catering to the lowest common denominator like it is something superior.

Re:LOL (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 3 months ago | (#47110559)

The thing is, we are talking about phones. So, in the form factor of a phone, a hardware keyboard would be at best adequate. Typing with 2 thumbs on a hardware keyboard is only marginally better than typing on a screen. And don't forget that the keyboard takes up valuable space. Either you end up with a smaller screen so the keyboard can be always accessible, or you end up with a thicker phone so that the keyboard can be hidden when not in use. Also, and maybe I've just had bad phones in the past, but the keys are always the first things to go. Especially when they are accompanied by mechanisms that let them fold or slide out. The current phone I have is the only one that hasn't broke, and it's because it only has 3 buttons, power, volume up, and volume down. Everything including the android buttons (menu, home, back, search) is input using the screen. Screens crack if you are careless, but that's going to happen regardless of whether or not you have a physical keyboard. Having no physical buttons means that it's ones less thing to worry about breaking.

Re:LOL (1)

GNious (953874) | about 3 months ago | (#47111065)

Adding a keyboard to the design of a phone causes the production-price to go up, resulting either in a costlier product (i.e. less sales, since most buy the cheapest available), or lower profit.
As a result, the manufacturers are disinclined to make such devices, independently of there being a market for them..

Note: No saying that there is a notable market for phones w/ keyboard, only that it has to be a much-desired feature to warrant production.

Re:LOL (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47115919)

Then simply buy a bluetooth keyboard and be happy. If hardware keyboards were really as popular as you're trying to insinuate then there would be more phones that have them. The fact of the matter is that you're a niche minority not worth chasing.

Preach it brother! Yes, because all revolves around the smartphone. I do all my programming on a smartphone, and it works a hell of a lot better, faster, and more accurate than any old school hardware keyboard.

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110287)

Soft keyboard s are a grate idea. I'm used in one rightly now add as you can sea, it workings 100% of the timetable. My co workings have commented one how much more understatement I am now that I have a soft keyboard. The auto correct never mind makes a mistaken! C

Re:LOL (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 3 months ago | (#47111639)

go duck yourself.

(Yes; this is a joke. at no point ever have i ever meant "that ducking rat bastard.")

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110523)

Physical keyboard is more akin to a standard transmission. In theory more powerful and flexible,but for a lot of regular people, just kind of gets in the way.

Soft keyboards have gotten good enough I just stopped caring.

I haven't stopped caring.....then again I still drive a manual transmission.

Re:LOL (1)

pr0fessor (1940368) | about 3 months ago | (#47111255)

Speech to text works great with my rather bland general American accent.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47115493)

'n *mah* speech t' text workin wif mah ebonix, nigga

Re:LOL (1)

Wing_Zero (692394) | about 3 months ago | (#47112305)

i like my slider phone, I think it offers the best of both, full size screen, and a keyboard when you need it.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112567)

I didn't realize it until I read a Blackberry article.

I guess it is common for busy people in business to have a conversation while typing e-mails on their Blackberry. They can't look at the screen so physical keyboards are a must. Especially in a meeting with others where you have to be there for 60 minutes even though you only participate for 5 minutes. You can spend 55 minutes doing actual work without being rude about it.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112641)

Physical keyboard is more akin to a standard transmission. In theory more powerful and flexible,but for a lot of regular people, just kind of gets in the way.

It's more like: The Great Visionary Steve Jobs decided that it doesn't need a keyboard, and then the sheeple felt the need to follow.

Wrt automatic transmission: in most of Europe, 90% of the cars have standard transmission. Are we Europeans less 'regular' people or what?

Re:LOL (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47110351)

A physical keyboard is far superior to an on-screen keyboard, swype included. Too bad Blackberry sucks.

It would also be fair to say a pen is far superior then a computer keyboard... and the statement would be just as accurate as yours. Try and draw a picture of a horse using your keyboard... yea, you could pull it off, but it would be a total pain and would look terrible. That probably summarizes every argument you'd have to backup your statement as well.

Just because you can do more with a tool, doesn't mean that tool is better for every given situation. For what I do on my phone, the touchscreen is the best tool currently out there. If you're doing stuff on your phone that requires a physical keyboard, you're using the wrong tool for the job... and they keyboards not what I'm talking about.

Re:LOL (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 3 months ago | (#47111063)

That's why I don't own touch screen devices : the pen is missing, except for some very rare models (Surface Pro, and a Tegra Note maybe). They had pens in the 90s and the DS had one. It's more precise than using the finger, so it seems useful. Drawing and handwriting is fun and useful too. Let me handwrite on the things! I'd have basically unlimited "sheets", always accessible, backed up and transmitted where I want to.
In particular, you could do maths on it (which requires the ability to draw any arbitrary symbol or letter, and more)

Pen loss, multitouch, and Wacom's patents (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47111635)

Users demanded design around a finger because they would often lose the pen. Users demanded design around multitouch because they wanted zoom and rotate gestures. And making a touch screen that reacts well to both a pen and a finger appears to be expensive, whether in parts or in patent royalties.

Re:LOL (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 3 months ago | (#47111655)

Try and draw a picture of a horse using your keyboard... yea, you could pull it off, but it would be a total pain and would look terrible.

Some of us have great appreciation for ASCII art, you insensitive clod.

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110669)

watch blackberry 10, it's more advanced and faster than android

Re:LOL (1)

Krojack (575051) | about 3 months ago | (#47111877)

That's a matter of opinion. I for one hate physical keyboards. My fat thumbs don't get along with them. The on-screen ones don't require any pressure making them much easier for me.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112435)

Look for the LG Optimus F3Q (LG-D520). The Q is for "Qwerty". It's an Android 4.1.2 phone with a slide-out keyboard released this year. It's reasonably fast and featured. I have one and I like it. It may be the last keyboard phone ever released, so buy one while you can.

Re:LOL (3)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47109875)

Only because something is newer than something else, it is not neccessarily better.

A Keyboard is still the fastest way to enter a text. Perhaps one day there will be brain implants that provide more throughput, but until then the keyboard will be the most superior way to enter information.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110017)

Only because something is newer than something else, it is not neccessarily better.

Great. Who made the argument otherwise? Me smells a strawman.

A Keyboard is still the fastest way to enter a text.

For some people. For many people it either isn't or isn't enough for them to care. Most people using a keyboard are slow, henpeckers not speed typists. Hence why consumers at large don't care.

Re:LOL (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 months ago | (#47110203)

Have you ever actually observed the average consumer using a keyboard? They are very inefficient typists regardless of whether they have a physical or software keyboard. Manual transmissions are also more efficient yet the average car owner prefers an automatic because a stick shift either provides no noticeable gain to them or not enough of one to be worth the effort.

Re:LOL (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 3 months ago | (#47110301)

I have - all my old colleagues who had those old blackberries - looks pants, but held carefully in both hands, their thumbs whizzed about the little keyboard. They looked happy too.

And then we used to have ancient windows mobile devices, pretty shit and I used to laugh at the on-call engineers who had to carry them, but they all chose the fat ones with slide-out full keyboards (like the htc desire z [gsmarena.com] ) and they would tap out mails quite happily.

Most people get what they're told to have by the media. Its got a 200 megapixel camera, and so they want one, even though they only take pictures of themselves looking gormless or shots of their kids taken at a wonky angle. I would like one manufacturer to stop chasing the idea of being the number 1, and instead settle for making the different phone for people who want that kind of thing. The homogeneity of phones is not something to be proud of.

Re:LOL (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 months ago | (#47110375)

I have - all my old colleagues who had those old blackberries - looks pants, but held carefully in both hands, their thumbs whizzed about the little keyboard. They looked happy too.

Biased sample and unrepresentative of the average consumer. The average phone owner wasn't a crackberry user.

Most people get what they're told to have by the media.

*yawn* Not this stupid "sheeple" argument.

I would like one manufacturer to stop chasing the idea of being the number 1, and instead settle for making the different phone for people who want that kind of thing.

You had that with Blackberry who kept releasing phones with hardware keyboards. Their Q10 with a hardware keyboard was an abysmal failure.

Re:LOL (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47116003)

Have you ever actually observed the average consumer using a keyboard? They are very inefficient typists regardless of whether they have a physical or software keyboard\

Tru nf! my sfwr kbds gr8! LOL. This is the biggest difference between the hardware keyboard and the software ones. Wheras with a hardware keyboard, I can easily type out the words, so I do.

On a tablet, it takes a fair amount longer, more mistakes

On a smartphone? It sucks, so I only compose anything if I absolutely have to. Then it's GR8!

Re:LOL (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 months ago | (#47111263)

True that, but not a phone keyboard. If I wanted to write a novel, at the very least I'd bring an ultra-portable. Heck, even long work emails would be tedious on a phone. So it's for people who need that capability in the form factor of a phone, which is putting an awful lot of focus on one particular need. If all I had was hay and no gas, a horse would beat a car. And if I was starving, I'd rather try eating the horse. I'd rather ride through a forest with a horse. What most people want to do is better served with a car though, just like soft keyboards are fine to write short messages like "five mins late" or "buy milk on the way home" and twitter. I mean it would be nice if someone wanted to serve your niche, but when you make it sound like a big product flaw just because they don't serve you, well... nobody cares that a faster horse would work better for you.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111377)

Nokia N900 does not suck and has a keyboard. Too bad Maemo is not developed anymore.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110101)

Does Firefox OS support the MP3 format yet?

Re: LOL (1)

unteer (1095439) | about 3 months ago | (#47114763)

The android platform supports an alternative keyboard called 8pen. It redesigns the interface to optimize for mobile screens. After continual use, i can now type on my mobile screen without even showing letters. Makes it great for confusing any screen watchers in public as well.

Re: LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47115535)

I used to use 8 pen, and while it was interesting, I could never give my phone to someone and expect them to be able to use it without changing the keyboard. And while I admit that a phone is a personal device used by the primary user 95+% of the time, no one could search for anything or look up directions whilst I drove etc... I now use swype it gives the best of both worlds, gesture based typing and being able to give the phone to others and expect them to understand how to use it with no training.

Expensive (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47109795)

I can get a moto g for 179 $ that has more software, a quad core processor and a better screen. This won't cut it.

Re:Expensive (3, Insightful)

X.25 (255792) | about 3 months ago | (#47110683)

I can get a moto g for 179 $ that has more software, a quad core processor and a better screen. This won't cut it.

Apples. Oranges. And all that.

Jesus, now I understand why your leaders call you 'consumers' and not 'citizens' these days...

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47111373)

I for one will skip the flame and wait for the inferno.

Re:Expensive (2)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47111663)

But how well can you use the Moto G to test an application for Firefox OS that you are developing? I could be wrong, but I don't think the Firefox app for Android supports all APIs that Firefox OS supports.

Re:Expensive (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 3 months ago | (#47112275)

The more important question is: Why would you develop for FirefoxOS in the first place?

Re:Expensive (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47112433)

If your application is on the Firefox OS app store, but your competitor's isn't, your user base among users of Firefox OS phones will exceed that of your competitors. Is your core complaint that "users of Firefox OS phones" will be an insignificant user base?

Re:Expensive (2)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 3 months ago | (#47114773)

The more important question is: Why would you develop for FirefoxOS in the first place?

I dunno - maybe because you want to see a more free, more open mobile OS that you have more control over? One that Google doesn't have a zillion hooks into? One that offers the user more control over the permissions that apps are granted?

Asking "why would you develop for firefox", (as opposed to Android, Apple, or whatever), is kind of like asking why one would develop for Linux as opposed to Windows.

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47115133)

Good luck to you. I shan't be an early adopter.

Re:Expensive (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 3 months ago | (#47116021)

Good luck to you. I shan't be an early adopter.

Okay, just don't expect anyone to care.

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112479)

Moto G has a built-in battery and no microSD slot.

And it doesn't have a hardware keyboard either.

In other words, it's a worthless piece of shit.

Re:Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47114683)

Yeah! YEAH!! How DARE they try to start somewhere?!

Too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47109821)

I'm a small developer ad there's no way in hel I'm paying $170 for a reference device for a platform nobody uses.

I'd rather wait and see how it farees against Android nd iOS (haha!!) and ONLY THEN buy a retail device that people actually use so I can test my software on.

Price a bit steep for lowest end platform (1, Informative)

jbridges (70118) | about 3 months ago | (#47109869)

You can get a JIAYU G4S for around $180
It has 1.7Ghz 8 Core CPU
2GB of RAM
1280x720 Display
13 MP Camera

So $170 for something with the specs of a under $100 phone seems lame.

Is this legacy of a design taking too long to come to market?

Re:Price a bit steep for lowest end platform (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47109939)

I think you missed that this is a developer reference device to allow developers to get cracking before the main market hits.

There is a certain advantage to having your product available before the mass market adoption of a platform kicks in.

Re:Price a bit steep for lowest end platform (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47109993)

There is a certain advantage to having your product available before the mass market adoption of a platform kicks in.

You know what else is an advantage before mass market adoption? Specs which will lead to mass market adoption.

These aint it.

Re:Price a bit steep for lowest end platform (1)

jbridges (70118) | about 3 months ago | (#47110105)

If the final shipping price for a unit with these specs is around $60, then it may sell.

I expect a year from now, the no name $60 smartphones with Android will have similar specs.

Re:Price a bit steep for lowest end platform (1)

qubezz (520511) | about 3 months ago | (#47110453)

You can get an almost identically-specified Windows 8.1 Nokia Lumia 520 for $59.99, no contract. The only thing it's missing is a camera flash and a front-facing camera for video chats (Skype still works, it just points the wrong way.)

The latest developer rev of Windows Phone has word flow keyboard, which turns touch-screen typing from painfully intolerable to pretty cool.

Even Blackberry, giving it's Playbooks away to developers, couldn't get the adoption jump-started, so I don't know how an overpriced Firefox phone will succeed, although I would hope it would. Every other smartphone except for Blackberry wants to own your personal data and your life in their cloud and profit from everything sold in their store.

Re:Price a bit steep for lowest end platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112413)

As someone who bought 2 of those $60 lumia 520s, for use with h2o wireless for low-volume prepay usage (like 60 minutes per month just because I needed anonymous phone numbers to protect my privacy) they suck.

The GUI is pretty good and is really snappy. But the phones are so fucking locked down. I couldn't even copy a photo over via USB - I could but then I couldn't see it in any app. I had to put it on my website and download it within microsoft's web browser. And of course there is no firefox for WP8 phones, which means no adblocking or any other privacy protection. There are no free downloads from the app store unless you give up an email address first, I can't even update most of the apps without an appstore account - I mean it tells me there is an update available but it won't actually do the update without it first. And soooo many apps refuse to work without location services.

These phones won't be rooted and carrier unlocks cost like $40. I wish I could get firefox OS on them, at least then I'd have more personal agency.

Re:Price a bit steep for lowest end platform (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 3 months ago | (#47112287)

This gotta be the third or fourth developer-focused FirefoxOS-device. When are there going to be some consumer-focused devices?

No AWS support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47109933)

Still no support for AWS networks. Lame.

Re:No AWS support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110813)

At least it has more space than a Nomad and wi-fi.

I'll be waiting for something without DRM baked in (1)

themusicgod1 (241799) | about 3 months ago | (#47109951)

Sure it may be a comparative alternative to Android; but still, designed to help Adobe hurt the user, even if this hurt is minimized, rather than designed to let the user do what they need. I hear the Jolla is nice, any word on how it compares?

I'll be waiting for something without DRM baked in (2)

gQuigs (913879) | about 3 months ago | (#47110269)

Just FYI, the DRM is only being added to desktop Firefox. Not Firefox OS at this time (they did somewhat leave this open, but have no plans).

Re:I'll be waiting for something without DRM baked (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47111673)

Without digital restrictions management, how do you expect to be able to rent movies and television programs produced by major studios?

Why?? (1)

dalias (1978986) | about 3 months ago | (#47110181)

Why is anyone still making devices with sub-300-dpi screens? Especially when you're trying to launch a new OS -- this is the best way to make your OS look like crap, even if it's otherwise great. Price is definitely not a show-stopper here; the ASUS ZenFone has a high-end screen in the ~$200 range, and cheap Chinese phones like Zopo have had them for a long time at much lower prices. If they're really worried about cost, scrap the 5 MP camera which is a complete joke when your screen is 0.4 MP...

Re:Why?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110489)

You don't seem to understand the purpose of this device, and yet you still have an opinion about it. It's a funny world.

Re:Why?? (1)

dalias (1978986) | about 3 months ago | (#47115171)

Whatever the purpose, presentation matters. If the text on websites is blurry and unreadable, the device looks like crap, regardless of what other positives aspects it might have.

Re:Why?? (1)

Maxwell (13985) | about 3 months ago | (#47111669)

Launching a new OS that only works on $700 smartphones? Good luck with that. How about making sure developers write apps that work on typical, average phones?

Re:Why?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112103)

Try all the $300+ phones are >300dpi.

Re:Why?? (1)

dalias (1978986) | about 3 months ago | (#47115151)

Perhaps you missed the part of my comment where I noted that devices with high-end displays are possible in the $150-250 range and cited specific examples...

Color and digital zoom (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47111713)

scrap the 5 MP camera which is a complete joke when your screen is 0.4 MP

For one thing, the color filter eats at least half your image sensor's megapixels. Digital zoom (essentially, cropping a photo after shooting it) eats another three-fourths of what's left. Now you're down to 0.6 usable MP.

how long will it be supported for? (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about 3 months ago | (#47110265)

1 year? 2 years? I really want manufacturer's to start having a public EOL date at launch. I'm tired of buying phones and having them go into no-update land...

Re:how long will it be supported for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110679)

That really depends on how well they sell.

Re:how long will it be supported for? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110843)

My desktop PC didn't come with an EOL date, and that's the way I like it. If the maker of one OS decides to end support, I can install a different OS. That's because the PC is an open platform. Before I can take phones and tablets seriously, three things must happen: 1) These devices must adhere to a hardware standard that is completely supported by multiple independent operating systems, 2) the same OS must run on hardware made by different manufacturers, 3) fixing software vulnerabilities must not depend on the hardware manufacturer's support and not require replacing the entire OS. (A Linux userland on top of an Android kernel doesn't count as independent operating systems. A separate distribution per device does not count as the same OS on different devices.) Anything else is just an appliance, and I don't pay more than $100 for a toaster.

Re:how long will it be supported for? (1)

Shados (741919) | about 3 months ago | (#47111245)

While too short for taste, Nexus devices at least have a well defined/known EOL, so they're good for that.

Too bad the nexus program is probably not gonna go on for much longer though :(

Re:how long will it be supported for? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 3 months ago | (#47116319)

Asa answered this question elsewhere to the extent that the company supplying the hardware has a 12 month contract to supply updates.

So probably not much official support from the manufacturer but the ability to build from source by being an official Mozilla build target. Hence as much support from the b2g community as Nexus devices do.

Firefox OS uses the Android infrastructure for builds. It is powered by Qualcomm. So should be relatively easy to port Cyanogenmod to it, were one to switch OSes.

Kindle? Flame? (1)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about 3 months ago | (#47110307)

Could they be teasing us by giving us a hint of the future in the name? Kind of scary that all the names remind one of the book Fahrenheit 451.

keyface (1)

rewindustry (3401253) | about 3 months ago | (#47110387)

is the word you wanted, no?

seems gay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110509)

If only Brendan was at the helm I'd consider but this is just too fabulous to be taken seriously.

Shipped devices (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 3 months ago | (#47110525)

I assume I'm not alone in thinking if you order a communications device on-line, there is a slight non-zero chance of it being intercepted during shipment and tampered with by various TLAs.

Of course, I think the odds of this happening is still dependent on who you are. Say, for example, a Guardian journalist with a company-issued laptop.

I firmly believe this is why the GCHQ methodically destroyed certain specific areas within their laptops (not just the hard drives): they were obliterating the components they had tampered with during the initial shipment from the factory.

modest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110779)

Modest?

More like garbage unless they're planning on selling these things as children's toys or in developing nations.

Just what we need. Another mobile device OS. (3, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | about 3 months ago | (#47110789)

Actually, I mean that. More choices, more incentive to improve, more approaches to the same problems.

As long as it interoperates correctly (cellular/network communications, app/application support, etc.) I'm all for it - but I'll be waiting to hear more than a few firsthand accounts regarding usability before I plunk down my hard earned cash for one.

Then again, my Android isn't exactly perfect. Neither is my daughter's iPhone. I don't know any Window phone users and I haven't heard a whole lot about Windows phone user experiences, but I don't get the impression that they're perfect either. Maybe with more competing options, somebody will move beyond "good enough" and at least try for "better".

One big PLUS (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | about 3 months ago | (#47110827)

Unless you're Japanese:

Mozilla has ensured that unlike Google devices, non-US developers won’t be deprived of the devices. The phone will be shipped free of cost anywhere in the world except for Japan

Re:One big PLUS (2)

chefmonkey (140671) | about 3 months ago | (#47111603)

Unless you're Japanese:

Mozilla has ensured that unlike Google devices, non-US developers won’t be deprived of the devices. The phone will be shipped free of cost anywhere in the world except for Japan

This is all explained in plain language here: http://www.mozilla.jp/firefox/... [mozilla.jp]

Can't read that? Then it's probably not your concern. The short version is that government certification is pending, and interested parties are being prompted to sign up for an email notification when the Japanese government finally signs off on the devices.

Bands (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110839)

I've really been wanting to get a Firefox OS device, but sadly none of them support the frequencies for T-Mobile's network (which requires 1700) :(

Verizon (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 3 months ago | (#47110877)

Dang. Why is it that none of these devices are ever available on Verizon? Its the 2nd most popular carrier in the US, and yet we never get these straight-pay phones for it. Their "full price" phones you actually buy from them are prices basically at a premium/penalized rate to get you to renew the contract, while the $200-300 phones from Google and this are unavailable :(.

Re:Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47110901)

That's because Verizon doesn't do SIM cards, like AT&T, T-Mobile, and the rest of the world.

Re:Verizon (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 3 months ago | (#47111047)

That's because Verizon doesn't do SIM cards, like AT&T, T-Mobile, and the rest of the world.

Up until recently that was true, but all 4G LTE Verizon phones have SIM cards too.

Re:Verizon (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 months ago | (#47111805)

Sprint uses a whitelist, allowing only phone models that it has approved to connect to its network. From this page [virginmobileusa.com] : "Only Sprint-approved devices may be used on the Sprint network." I'd be surprised if Verizon didn't have the same policy. They can get away with this because CDMA2000, the technology stack used in Verizon and Sprint service areas without 4G coverage, allows it.

Works for me.... (1)

Maxwell (13985) | about 3 months ago | (#47111527)

if your are targeting the 'average phone' this is a reasonable spec. Developing for the S5 only is a small market.

This sounds a lot like my samsung galaxy s2x (aka hercules). Bought it xmas 2012 for $150. It has 16G and 8M camera. The screen is 4.5 x 850ishx480ish Super Amoled+ and it looks fantastic. Seriously. It compares well the the wifes N5. Si far no lag.

Seems reasonable for a low cost entry to development to me.

No, thanks. (1)

mnt (1796310) | about 3 months ago | (#47112407)

I'm not found of my ZTE Open. The touchscreen sucks, Reception is abysmal and so on. Oh, and there is only one thing i hate more than the ZTE Open: FirefoxOS itself. I dont mind the feature set, i bought this for development and stuff, but FFOS (1.2, or 1.3 or 1.4) is just too unstable. I'm stuck at the lockscreen way too often, and given the current state of the development tools it's very hard to debug the source. My opinion regarding getting a FFOS phone is: Wait.

Mozilla? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47112443)

They routinely shit all over my webbrowser-based productivity, and now they want people to use a system with a whole operating system by them?

Fuuuuuuuuuuuck that!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>