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!

$33 Firefox Phone Launched In India

samzenpus posted about 2 months ago | from the cheaper-by-the-dozen dept.

Mozilla 83

davidshenba writes Intex and Mozilla have launched Cloud FX, a smartphone powered by Mozilla's Firefox OS. The phone has a 1 GHz processor, 2 Megapixel camera, dual SIM, 3.5 inch capacitive touchscreen. Though the phone has limited features, initial reviews say that the build quality is good for the price range. With a price tag of $33 (2000 INR), and local languages support the new Firefox phone is hitting the Indian market of nearly 1 billion mobile users.

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

33 Bucks?!? (4, Informative)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 months ago | (#47770575)

If I didn't already have a $300 smartphone, I'd snap one of these up in a heartbeat. It does make and receive phone calls, right? Amazing...

Re:33 Bucks?!? (1, Informative)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 months ago | (#47770637)

You do know that you can trot on down to WorstBuy and get a $40 LG tracfone. And yes, it does actually make phone calls. And text. And all that other crap.
Is it limited as compared to your $300 smartphone? Sure. But its only $40.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 months ago | (#47770737)

You can shop around and find a Virgin Mobile smartphone for $40 too. Even an Android 4 one. Then the voice/data plan is $35/mo with no contract.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (2)

afidel (530433) | about 2 months ago | (#47770933)

Or spend $149 on a Moto G on Republic Wireless, use the $25 plan and save money in less than a year (or if you don't mind just using WiFi for data go with the $10 plan and you're saving money by month 5), plus you get better service because unlike Virgin Mobile, Republic roams to Sprints partner networks.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 2 months ago | (#47771807)

Keyword is 'plan.' I like having zero commitment.

I take weeks at a time off from having a smartphone. My 30 days starts up again as soon as I plop down another $35. If you don't renew, you've still got a good wifi pocket computer, far cheaper than an iPod touch, and with an sd slot.

But anyways, all cheap mobile data options rock, it's great that they exist.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (2)

afidel (530433) | about 2 months ago | (#47771939)

No, Republic is prepaid just like Virgin Mobile. I use plan as that's the monthly rate for that service level, in fact Republic is much more flexible than anyone else in the industry, you can change your plan twice per month, so you can be on the $10 call and text only plan and if you find yourself away from WiFi and in need of data to look up some important bit of information you can change over to the $25 3G plan, grab what you need and then revert to the $10 plan and your monthly bill will be around $11.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47772185)

God damn you Americans have to pay a lot for your voice and especially data... As a European, I hope our Communist/Marxist practice of free competition and anti-competitive practice laws never go away.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 months ago | (#47770753)

Yeah, not a bad deal. It's just that I don't ever want to go back to being charged for each minute/text message, been there done that.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 months ago | (#47770777)

Is it limited as compared to your $300 smartphone? Sure. But its only $40.

yes, but it's also limited as compared to this $33 phone. It's a feature phone, which today might as well be a dumbphone.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | about 2 months ago | (#47770847)

Well...the original comment seemed to be based on " does make and receive phone calls". So yeah, it does.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771687)

These $40 phones run Android 4 and typically come from Alcatel. They're supposed to be pretty good.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 2 months ago | (#47782421)

Alcatel also makes a range of 'One Touch Fire' models that run Firefox OS.

The hardware is likely 99% identical to the Android models.

Re:33 Bucks?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770693)

For 3 years I lived with Virgin Mobile's $150 OptimusV phone, and the specs on this phone are mostly just a bit less, save the better processor and battery capacity. :

Display

3.50-inch

Processor

1GHz

Front Camera

No

Resolution

320x480 pixels

RAM

128MB

OS

Firefox OS

Storage

46MB

Rear Camera

2-megapixel

Battery capacity

1250mAh

This almost makes me wish I lived in India.

Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770891)

I was really excited about Firefox OS when it first came on the scene, but since then I've heard nothing but awful reviews of the devices that have been released so far. All of the reviews say that they're slow, the software really sucks, and they just can't even compete with ancient iOS, Android, RIM/BlackBerry and Windows phones. I've watched some vids of people using these Firefox OS phones and they've looked really slow and underpowered to me. Having to write all of the apps in a slow language like JavaScript probably doesn't help I'm sure. So I'm really skeptical that these new phones won't be total shit like the earlier ones were.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 2 months ago | (#47771783)

The Flame developer device is snappy enough but with way better specs.

Mozilla want to condemn the 'developing world' into using 128MB of RAM, which will obviously throttle performance.

I'd be curious to know how much half a gig would add to the price.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771983)

>Mozilla want to condemn the 'developing world' into using 128MB of RAM

What? Where did Mozilla say that? Last I checked, they just want to be able to support 128MB devices, because they have to go with the whims of the actual device manufacturers. In fact, I remember the 128MB configuration being something the devs tabled a long while back (on Bugzilla anyway), thinking 256MB was going to be the minimum.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 2 months ago | (#47772117)

Maybe 'condemn' is the wrong word, then.

But they're complicit in bowing to 'the whims of the actual device manufacturers'. The device may run in 128MB in its Tarako config but the phone won't deliver an optimal experience.

I'm just reflecting that I can't imagine the difference in price between 128 and 256MB modules would be that huge in 2014. Even the $25 Rpi model A shipped with 256MB back in 2012.

Would a $38 phone sell any worse if a 256MB module were $5 extra?

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47773513)

I don't know, but I still fail to see the real problem. I agree that it sucks that they would deliver a degraded experience, but that's assuming that the cost of another 128mb of RAM truly is negligible, to both the manufacturers and the users. Plus, if the user's experience is so degraded by it, no one will buy the phone and the manufacturer will either learn or go out of business. But Mozilla has to try what they can to gain adoption, and that includes taking risks on potential failures. They can't play it safe here.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (1)

nashv (1479253) | about 2 months ago | (#47772021)

This is why they are setup for imminent failure. The best selling mobiles in India [knowyourmobile.in] are what the western world would call mid-range, like the Lenovo VIbe X.

And even then most are mid-range only in price and build-quality. Chipset-wise the Chinese phone-makers are bringing in some rather speedy models. And this already in a country that has 87% mobile penetration.

If they think that India is a market that will swallow up junk because it is so poor, or even if they think it is the 'developing world', they are delusionally out-of-touch.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 2 months ago | (#47772355)

The indian market is 1 billion people, most in some state of poverty. You can "do well" there, by western standards, without touching more then a tiny fraction of it. Apple don't have 100% of the US population as a market, and don't have 100% of the market. In India, if both those things were true, it would only represent about 30% of the total population.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (2)

nashv (1479253) | about 2 months ago | (#47773801)

I fail to understand what you are saying. My point is that India is not a market for extremely low-end devices like the Intex shown here. In fact, Indians being too poor to own existing smartphones is a myth since it already has 87% penetration and most of those are mid-range smartphones as of today.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (1)

nashv (1479253) | about 2 months ago | (#47773813)

It's a tad late but India has a poverty level of only about 20% roughly. The problem in India is actually that the gap between poor and rich is vast. Most Indians (esp. urban populations) can easily afford mid-range smartphones.

Re:Is it total shit like earlier Firefox OS phones (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 2 months ago | (#47781983)

Right: so still, think about those numbers. 30% of India's population is over 100% of the US in terms of sheer number of people. So a low-end phone is exactly the right device to target there.

1 Billion Mobile Users? (5, Informative)

sdguero (1112795) | about 2 months ago | (#47770649)

Umm... I guess this assuming that 80% of the people in India are smart phone users. That last i heard, smart phone usage in the USA was around 65%.

The average income in India is $1,500 USD/year vs the USA where it is $50,000 USD/year (roughly 33 times higher). $33 dollars doesn't sound like much to people in the USA, but that is 2.2% of the average Indian person's annual salary. That 2.2% number would be around $1100 outlay for the average American worker.

Perspective is everything when you try compare the consumer market between countries like the USA and India.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770713)

But we all know that potential customers are actually customers! that's why we jail people who dowload stuff!

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (2)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47770727)

And yet... that 80% mark is probably correct to some degree. Some villages only have one cell phone that everyone shares, but in the cities, that's how people communicate.

So think of it as each person in India putting out $1100 for their phone, which they use in lieu of land line, TV and computer. Assuming it lasts as long as the Nokia phones they used to have, I can see this getting a high adoption rate, with a new phone, say, every 5 years.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771843)

So think of it as each person in India putting out $1100 for their phone, which they use in lieu of land line, TV and computer.

If you go back three years, that's pretty much what happened in Africa with the $80 Huawei Ideos Android phone.

Android phone for $80 takes Africa by storm
Huawei's Ideos phone has helped spearhead the movement, selling no less than 350,000 handsets in Kenya. Amazing given that nearly half the population makes do on less than two dollars per day.

http://www.pocket-lint.com/new... [pocket-lint.com]

Cheap Android phones have changed the way people work and live there, despite Android apps needing relatively beefy hardware to develop. Firefox OS and this phone will have the potential to bring the same real-life improvements, with the added advantage of a much simpler app development pathway.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (5, Informative)

jma05 (897351) | about 2 months ago | (#47772189)

> Some villages only have one cell phone that everyone shares

You don't seem to be talking from experience and seem to be simply conjecturing. I am in India. I have never heard of any village sharing just one cell phone. It is not even plausible. Now, it used to be, several decades ago, that there were just a handful of landlines per village. But a cell tower will not be setup unless the provider is sure that there is demand for enough to make an economic case. And there always is. Mobile phones are not expensive (but not cheaper than the cheap options in US). Mobile plans are however incredibly cheap compared to US. I know poor ($13 rent for a family of 4) families in India who have multiple mobile phones, one per working adult.

> So think of it as each person in India putting out $1100 for their phone

Poor people are not buying smartphones yet (its the lower middle class and up that is driving smart phones now). They still buy Nokia dumb phones and are now beginning to shift to cheap Android phones at $100. Firefox Phone helps by further lowering that barrier of entry. The minimum monthly talk refill plan I know is 30 *cents*... very cheap. You may not get many outgoing minutes, but you don't get charged for incoming calls, unlike US. So everyone in India who needs one, can afford a mobile phone plan.

$1100 for a phone is very expensive in India. I know several people who have them, but they are all rich. And it is often a status symbol rather than for an actual need.

> which they use in lieu of land line, TV and computer

No one in India uses a smart phone in lieu of a TV. Having cable TV (60-80 channels) in India is very cheap ($3 per month in poor neighborhoods). Indian mobile data plans start very cheap ($2) but are not robust enough to be used for routine video consumption yet. They won't be replacing TV anytime soon. Anyone who owns a $1100 mobile phone already has a pricey HDTV.

Mobile phones are also not replacing computers yet since most of the phone users, unlike US, were not computer users to begin with. People here use cheap service stations nearby, to pay bills online, where the operator sits in front of an online PC, accepts cash and pays bills for a few cents of service charge. This is much simpler for most people than using data plans and mobile web apps, for now. Around here (a small town), there is such a tiny store for every neighborhood and they provide small jobs that serve populace that is not yet computer savvy enough.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 2 months ago | (#47772379)

You don't seem to be talking from experience and seem to be simply conjecturing. I am in India. I have never heard of any village sharing just one cell phone. It is not even plausible.

It isnt? I know several towns in Western Europe that used to share a single cell tower. There are different types of towers, and the big ones used in rural areas have much longer range (in km) than those used in cities (100m). The main limit is how many concurrent connections the tower can handle.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

jma05 (897351) | about 2 months ago | (#47772509)

> I know several towns in Western Europe that used to share a single cell tower.

You are talking about having a single cell tower. The parent and I are talking about having a single shared cell phone for the entire village. It used to happen back in the land line era when a village might have had just one or two pay phones, but not now.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47777469)

Which part of India are you in? My info is all second/third hand, but I'm not talking about the cities or surrounding areas -- that's why I made the comment about the Nokia phones for those areas.

Any way you look at it, Nokia rules the airwaves, and smartphones will still be for the richer, unless the prices continue to come down. But some people I've talked to have indeed switched from TV to smartphone, and that's in the city outskirts. If they want to see a sporting event, etc. they go to a friend's place.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

jma05 (897351) | about 2 months ago | (#47781475)

> Which part of India are you in?

South.

> But some people I've talked to have indeed switched from TV to smartphone, and that's in the city outskirts.

Yes. So have I (I am in the outskirts of a small town, BTW). I do not watch any TV here and entirely consume my video via Internet (from my residential connection). But I do not represent an average Indian and would be a statistical outlier. So would the Indians that you are in contact with likely be. The Indians who work in engineering and science, especially those who do some overseas work (assuming it is these that you are in contact with), either perhaps moving back and forth or working with western clients, have developed country preferences and have similar ideas as slashdotters. But we are just a small demographic.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

enter to exit (1049190) | about 2 months ago | (#47770769)

Apparently the less affluent use their phones in lieu of a PC/radio/TV. Some parts of the world even use phones to manage microfinancing [wikipedia.org] .

Phones are ideal for these people in many ways especially in rural areas, where a constant electricity is rare.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (4, Insightful)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47770793)

But it's significantly less than competing smartphone alternatives in that market. The price is even lower than many feature phones (most, if you only count dual-sim models) at just Rs 2000.

It's still a big investment, sure, but you're getting a LOT more bang for your rupees.

They already buy used Android and iOS phones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770855)

A lot of people in developing nations like India and various African countries already buy used Android and iOS devices that have been shipped over from wealthier nations. These phones are typically available for less than $30 ($8 to $10 is common), and likely work even better than even the best Firefox OS phones. Even if they're running older versions of Android or iOS, they can still at least run some apps that will never run on Firefox OS.

Firefox OS really is pointless. It's targeting devices that are already considered low-powered even in developing nations. Worse, these Firefox OS devices are more expensive than the better performing and more useful second-hand Android and iOS phones that actually run the apps that people want, in addition to running the web technology apps that Firefox OS supports.

I just can't see how Firefox OS hopes to compete when it doesn't offer anything at all that's better than years-old Android and iOS phones, and especially when Firefox OS is worse than those old versions of iOS and Android in so many ways.

Re:They already buy used Android and iOS phones. (1)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47770991)

You've missed the point of Firefox OS -- They win when other platforms allow their app packages.

Philosophically, not financially, of course.

Re:They already buy used Android and iOS phones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771011)

Uhhhhh, Android and iOS have been able to run HTML5/JS apps for years now. They could do it before Firefox OS even existed! How does Firefox OS "win" by imitating what iOS and Android could do years ago?

Re:They already buy used Android and iOS phones. (1)

narcc (412956) | about 2 months ago | (#47771299)

The goal is a single, standard, package that runs across all the major platforms.

That's a very good thing.

Re:They already buy used Android and iOS phones. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771163)

>especially when Firefox OS is worse than those old versions of iOS and Android in so many ways.

I've tested low-end Droid phones and FirefoxOS ones, and frankly speaking the difference is marginal at best. Refurbished low-end/old Droid devices often have the additional hurdles of being loaded with crapware, having battery issues, and not supporting all of the radio features and modern standards that Firefox OS can, though it's still close. As those older devices are no longer supported by worthwhile OS updates, this difference will only diverge. It's a judgment call: buy a Droid device that could be end-of-lifed anytime, or a FirefoxOS device that should receive support for a few more years, should only improve in terms of performance, and has ready supplies of the batteries and other things that can be hard to come at a reasonable price when importing into India or other such countries.

Maybe your logic is wrong...Like insanely wrong (2, Informative)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 months ago | (#47770937)

I noticed this comment had got a five early on...basing on assumptions that the big powerful USA has all the money its smartphone ownership percentage should be highest, I find this astonishing.

The link at the bottom is linked to(Slashdot will not accept a direct link) to Googles amazing tool where TNS have released their survey data on 54 countries and ownership of smartphones, and guess what USA is only the 19th country of percentage of smartphone ownership per person, drawing with Canada. India is already at 7%, and that is without phones dropping to $30; Google is targeting India with the Android One(A reference phone) at cheaper than Motorola E prices. India already has 7% smartphones that is 85.9 Million smartphone owners(Looks Like A billion mobile users realistic)...to put that in perspective the USA has only 148.5 Million.

Tomi provides unnecessary commentary to this data. The http://communities-dominate.bl... [blogs.com]

The ignorance of American people on the world is astonishing.

Re:Maybe your logic is wrong...Like insanely wrong (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 2 months ago | (#47771365)

86 million smartphones means that 1000 million phones of any type is realistic? I don't get your logic at all.

So I read the link you provided, meaning I'm no longer ignorant unless you are intentionally hiding relevant information, but I still don't think this paints a picture of a billion users being realistic.

Comparing American and Indian markets doesn't make a lot of sense, but it does give a point of comparison.

And we have someone like by Em Adespoton above, suggesting that this phone will replace phone, TV, and computer, which makes it financially more reasonable. For that to happen, smartphone adoption has to go from 7% to 80% for your numbers to make sense.

How realistic is it that a population of 1.2 billion will go from 7% to 80% any time soon? If you have some market insight there, given that this seems expensive, I'd love to hear it. We all would.

Specifically, if you are saying that nearly a billion people have dumb phones, will the infrastructure that will be available in the next year or two support a billion users converting to smart phones? How about to the point of replacing phone, tv, and computer? How many people are spending this much money on technology already?

These are the types of things I'd want to know to make a judgement on how realistic this sounds.

Re:Maybe your logic is wrong...Like insanely wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771855)

The ignorance of American people on the world is sad and quite disturbing, but also very familiar and expected.

FTFY.

Re:Maybe your logic is wrong...Like insanely wrong (1)

Herschel Cohen (568) | about 2 months ago | (#47772987)

    • I am astounded of your ignorance of Americans, when I know you should be saying U.S.A.(ians).
    • However, you are to be excused, because we know we really are the only Americans that count.
    • Furthermore, we know the Earth is the Center of the Universe and the U.S. of A. acts as its bull's eye.
    • Moreover, we know that scientists are feeding us phony facts. Who cares if some third world contiries are flooded out - it's God's will or it would not happen.
    • Another fact, unlike the ignorance shown by all those not living in this World leading bastion of Freedom we knell to no one. We might bow a little to finance another war, but we are doing it for you and a bit of oil to lubricate our economy.
    • Finally, where else would you find the honesty of our political parties? We once had a party called the Know Nothings and we are proud of it and its a principle we stick to.
    • Now that should correct your ignorance.of us and the U.S. of A.

Re:Maybe your logic is wrong...Like insanely wrong (1)

n1ywb (555767) | about 2 months ago | (#47774299)

The ignorance of people is astonishing.

FIFY. I've been around the world and in my experience people from other countries know as little about the USA as people from the USA know about other countries. Also America is a pair of continents, not a country. Canada, Mexica, and Brazil are all in "America".

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (2)

lippydude (3635849) | about 2 months ago | (#47771081)

"$33 dollars doesn't sound like much to people in the USA, but that is 2.2% of the average Indian person's annual salary"

Well somebody can afford them. In 2013: 4.14 million tablets sold, nine million iPads sold and 80.57 million [thehindu.com] smart phones by year end.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (4, Interesting)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47771405)

It's 1 billion mobile users, not smartphone users. When I was in Africa, everyone had a feature phone... everyone. You could buy them at Kiosks for less than $10, and phone cards to fill them with minutes. A $300 phone would be completely insane there... but a $33 phone? Yea, they'd have to save up but that's doable. Especially when a lot of people I ran into were using the feature phone like a desktop... running entire businesses off the things.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 months ago | (#47771723)

Not even 1B mobile users. Indian has a relatively younger population than US and other first world countries. I'd expect that, because of poverty, most mom and pops there (who themselves own/share a cellphone) would be unwilling to spend extra to equip their children until they reach the where they can earn enough to at least work for their airtime. So no vanity sexting there, just the necessary communication.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 2 months ago | (#47771789)

Wikipedia says 904,510,000 mobile phones in India. Round it off to a billion. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 2 months ago | (#47772131)

I'd be skeptical in correlating the number of phones vs the number of users.

A number of countries on that list have more phones that people. I'm not sure the %age of folks that have more than 1 active handset...

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 months ago | (#47783771)

Well, the statistic cited by the parent is interesting. I might be wrong in assuming that Indian kids don't get their own cellphones (maybe majority of them do have their own dumb/feature phone). Since India is a poorer country than the US, where people seem to have more of one device per device category, I'd expect a closer to 1:1 correspondence between number of cellphones to number of users, since more people wouldn't have the money to buy a second or third phone.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 2 months ago | (#47788285)

If you're a company selling phones or making firefox os, the number of phones is probably more interesting than the number of people.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771619)

Average numbers aren't very useful in this context. Actually, they aren't very useful in many contexts. I imagine the income distribution in India is vastly different to what it is in the USA.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771775)

Ok ... Indian here. 2000 rs is very very affordable to the average urban Indian. The average day laborer in South India gets ~500 rs / day if unskilled, and ~750 rs if skilled. That is about $10 - 12 /day. They already spend between 2000 and 5000 rs on the phones today. Even though this is a substantial amount, most people still go ahead with the purchase because it is really a one time cost. On most networks incoming calls are free and outgoing is about 1rs/ minute or lower. The rental plans are about 100rs / month ... this affordability is the reason for huge adoption of mobile phones in the last few years.

Whether this particular phone would be a hit is debatable thought ... it has to compete against a lot of android-based makes and models in the same price range that exist today.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

twistofsin (718250) | about 2 months ago | (#47771871)

They don't have mandated POTS service to every residence, so for many (most I'd wager) wireless is the only phone service available.

What percentage of Americans do you think have at least time type of phone service?

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | about 2 months ago | (#47772263)

When I worked for a mobile app startup, we saw major usage spikes in Indonesia, India and the Middle East, as well as some African countries. They required data. Part of this is that they pretty much skipped the whole landline thing for the majority of the populations, so they could jump ahead on the technology curve.

I would not be surprised to see the 80% figure being true, even with the income difference.

HTML5 (1)

thechanklybore (1091971) | about 2 months ago | (#47770655)

Much as I respect Mozilla as an organisation, even a quad core phone is worse at interpreting web-stack apps than byte-compiled or actual compiled code. I don't understand how lower processing power and higher processing requirements are going to solve anybody's problems.

Re:HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770775)

Much as I respect Mozilla as an organisation, even a quad core phone is worse at interpreting web-stack apps than byte-compiled or actual compiled code. I don't understand how lower processing power and higher processing requirements are going to solve anybody's problems.

Access to the world wide web (tm) can be life changing.

Re:HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771137)

Bear in mind that modern Javascript isn't just interpreted anyone. It's just-in-time compiled at the least, with relatively advanced techniques to help go the extra mile and gain near-enough-to-native performance for the bulk of your non-data-intensive apps. Mozilla's engine isn't quite as advanced as the JVM, but it's close enough for HTML5's purposes. Better still, the more performance-hungry APIs do use native code, and if you want a compromise between the two, there's always asm.js (as that matures enough to be useful). It's not quite the same game as it was even 5 years ago, let alone back when PalmOS tried the same thing.

VS a top of the line 3 year old phone... (0)

brunes69 (86786) | about 2 months ago | (#47770675)

Why would someone buy one of these when you could just buy a top of the line 3 year old phone like the Galaxy Nexus for the same price while absolutely blowing it away on specs...

Re:VS a top of the line 3 year old phone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770719)

Why would someone buy one of these when you could just buy a top of the line 3 year old phone like the Galaxy Nexus for the same price while absolutely blowing it away on specs...

Maybe because even a three year old Galaxy Nexus i

Re:VS a top of the line 3 year old phone... (5, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | about 2 months ago | (#47770745)

Try to sell the Galaxy Nexus across India in volume and maybe you can tell us the answer :)

Re:VS a top of the line 3 year old phone... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771539)

Possibly newer hardware (even if it's lower-end), support for newer cell specs and regional cell standards, newer parts, better warranty, replacement parts won't ding you as much on imports, more likely to keeping getting updates for a longer period, updates promise to improve performance rather than burden the hardware with more cruft, less likely to have crapware loaded on it by default to fight with, none of the stigma of using a hand-me-down.

1 Billion Mobile Users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770739)

Umm... I guess this assuming that 80% of the people in India are smart phone users. That last i heard, smart phone usage in the USA was around 65%.

The average income in India is $1,500 USD/year vs the USA where it is $50,000 USD/year (roughly 33 times higher). $33 dollars doesn't sound like much to people in the USA, but that is 2.2% of the average Indian person's annual salary. That 2.2% number would be around $1100 outlay for the average American worker.

Perspective is everything when you try compare the consumer market between countries like the USA and India.

Re:1 Billion Mobile Users? (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 2 months ago | (#47771173)

cool dupe bro

Dollars (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770749)

Please don't list the price in American dollars unless I can use dollars to buy it. List the price in rupees so I can imagine Indians smashing pots and cutting grass with a sword to buy a phone.

Meanwhile, Firefox is dying off. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47770751)

While Mozilla squanders resources on this shitty mobile OS that nobody actually wants, Firefox, the only product of theirs that sees any sort of use these days, is dying off. They've done nothing but fuck up one release after another, introducing awful changes that existing Firefox users hate. Good God, the whole Chrome imitation UI they released a few releases ago was a huge slap to the face of every Firefox user out there.

Firefox's users are getting tired of being shit upon time and time again by Mozilla. Instead of innovating and creating a better browsing experience, the Firefox devs have just chosen to copy Chrome. Meanwhile, they haven't bothered to fix the persistent memory leaks and unjustifiable CPU usage that Firefox suffers from.

As should be expected, Firefox's users are getting sick and tired of being mistreated by Mozilla, and they're sick and tired of the shitty browsing experience that Firefox has been delivering. They're doing the only sensible thing they can do: moving to a different browser.

Wikimedia's stats are a good measure of how Firefox is dying off. Just look at the decrease in market share:
January 2013: 15.06% [wikimedia.org]
January 2014: 11.53% [wikimedia.org]
July 2014: 9.78% [wikimedia.org]

Firefox's usage is likely under 10% now! I think that this is a total disaster. Firefox is the only viable alternative to Chrome for many people. Yet by wasting effort on stupid shit like Firefox OS, and making one stupid decision after another with Firefox, Mozilla is absolutely killing Firefox.

Please, Mozilla, I beg of you, stop this stupidity. Stop wasting resources on stupid software like Firefox OS that will never be able to compete. Please, Mozilla, salvage Firefox before it's too late. Please don't destroy Firefox in this pathetic quest to weakly take on Android and iOS!

Spinning Statistics (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 months ago | (#47770993)

July 2014: 9.78% [wikimedia.org]

I don't like the posting of netmarketshare as gospel especially when they adjust their data, but quoting wikipedia as a measure is simply spinning figures in a "I don't even give a fuck about reality way" A quick look at statcounter shows firefox usage slightly down http://gs.statcounter.com/#bro... [statcounter.com] and at 18%. Netshare shows firefox slightly down at http://marketshare.hitslink.co... [hitslink.com] as 15%. Not a million miles from each other, but the trends basically show firefox usage is pretty flat. Even these figures are less of a reflection of how badly firefox is doing, but how well chrome is.

Re:Spinning Statistics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771065)

Mozilla only has influence because of Firefox. None of its other products, aside from maybe Thunderbird, has seen any significant adoption. Regardless of the exact numbers, as proportionally fewer people use Firefox, Mozilla's influence over web standards decreases. As Firefox's market share keeps dropping, Google, Microsoft and Apple will have less and less reason to consider what Mozilla wants. Google already pretty much does what they want, with little opposition. Firefox becoming increasingly irrelevant will only solidify Google's grasp over the web. What's worst of all about this situation is that Mozilla did this to themselves. They made one obviously bad decision after another, like they're systematically trying to destroy their own product and the influence it brings them.

dis place be overrun wif wintrolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771097)

Yo dis here place be overrun wif wintrolls what 'chew trippin foo'

Re:Meanwhile, Firefox is dying off. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771249)

Don't be mental. Desktops are dying off, and Firefox with them. Once you adjust these stats to only show desktops, Firefox isn't dying at all.

So, given that their Android offering isn't seeing any uptake, like ALL non-stock Android browsers, where does that leave Mozilla? They can't compete on iOS or Windows - the former won't let them run their own browser, just a reskinned MobileSafari that's doomed to run slower than the built-in one, and the latter is a truly dying platform that ALSO won't let them freely run their own browser engine.

In other words, Mozilla is doing precisely what they should in order to keep their browser engine alive. I know you anti-Australis and anti-Chrome guys just can't fathom this, because you want to be right and want Firefox to do whatever will please YOU, but if that's the route they took then it would be doomed to die even faster. You're a niche of a niche these days.

So beg all you want, but Mozilla have their eyes on survival. If the best you can do is throw them under the bus because you dislike having to install a couple more addons to get your square tabs and complex UI back, then you really have no right to call their decisions stupid, nor are you contributing anything to the cause: you're just being selfish and myopic.

Re:Meanwhile, Firefox is dying off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771527)

So how exactly do Mozilla's recent and current actions lead to their survival?

Nobody is adopting Firefox OS. Nobody is adopting Firefox for Android. Firefox has been losing 25% of its user base every year lately thanks to idiotic changes. Mozilla have no other products of significance other than Firefox.

Where does survival come in? For all intents and purposes, Mozilla is currently irrelevant within the mobile space, and that clearly won't be changing. Their influence within the desktop and laptop market is rapidly diminishing. Once that's gone they'll have nothing.

Why will anyone pay any attention at all to an organization which offers products that almost nobody uses?

Why will a company like Google seek out agreements (that provide basically all of Mozilla's funding!) when almost nobody uses Mozilla's browsers?

Re:Meanwhile, Firefox is dying off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771767)

Um, they are doing all they can: making their own mobile platform out of their product. What else can they do? Any bright ideas? I honestly fail to see any alternatives that will help them gain users while improving their platform. More users = more clout, especially with the likes of Google. Even if they can only gain a few million here and there, that's more than they're losing now.

Besides that, their existing userbase is increasingly toxic. It's rife with blow-hards who help very little, ask for more than is possible, and have no ideas on how to draw more users in besides "exactly what *I* want!!" Given that, I can hardly blame them for doing everything in their power to draw in a less rancid userbase.

Staying the course will not make them more relevant. Improving just their desktop browser will only kill them faster. They can't get a foothold on competitor's OSes, because it's been shown that very few users want to use anything but the built-in browser, and despite that two of the three remaining major OSes have blocked them out entirely.

So again: any actual bright ideas? Or are you just moaning because they aren't doing everything for you perfectly enough?

Re:Meanwhile, Firefox is dying off. (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 2 months ago | (#47772963)

Um, they are doing all they can: making their own mobile platform out of their product. What else can they do? Any bright ideas?

They could fix the bloat, bugs and crashes instead of trying to add new features that nobody wants (except maybe Chrome users, but they'd just use Chrome anyway).

As a Firefox user since way back when it was called Phoenix, all I really want is Phoenix 0.5 with complete and optimized support for modern HTML/CSS/etc.

Re:Meanwhile, Firefox is dying off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47773637)

>all I really want is Phoenix 0.5 with complete and optimized support for modern HTML/CSS/etc.

Rose-colored glasses much? What exactly about Firefox 31 is any more crashy, bloated, and buggy than Phoenix was for its time? Seriously. Try using Firefox 1, 1.5, 2, 3, etc and compare them against "modern" Firefox, if you can even browse the modern web with them, let alone without them freezing up all the time and gobbling up your RAM because of badly-engineered addons.

To support all those modern things you want, it had to "bloat up". To support modern OSes it needed a newer UI engine. To optimize support for HTML/etc, it had to hardware accelerate, multi-thread, etc. All of which make things less stable for a while. If you're not sure what I mean, Firefox 4-7 were MUCH crashier and memory-slobbering than 31 is for most people, save for a few still running out-of-date addons and plugins, crashy video drivers, and other things bound to cause crashes. There's a reason more people switched to Chrome back then, and it's not because Firefox was a superior product to what it is now.

Besides that, you clearly have no idea just how many bugs, crashers, memory leaks, and other such issues they've addressed in the last few years. In fact it doesn't sound like you're aware of ANYTHING they've done except the things you don't like. And better yet: NOBODY wants these features? Who the hell are you to arrogantly say this? Perhaps a few thousand self-professed "power users" of Firefox feel this way, but their voices are slowly being drowned out by the voices of people who actually came back to Firefox because of these "features nobody wants", especially Chrome users who clearly don't WANT to use Chrome anymore. Stop rejecting reality just because it doesn't bend to your whims all the time.

Meanwhile, Firefox is dying off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771323)

It's truly heartbreaking to see the browser that was once fast, light, and speedy turn into a ugly slow piece of shit that it once aimed to replace.

Fuck Asa Dotzler and fuck Firefox. Hopefully Pale Moon becomes a fully-featured fork. It's either that or Seamonkey.

you insens1tive clod! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771101)

Crrek, aby5mal [goat.cx]

Makes sense ... (1)

DaveyJJ (1198633) | about 2 months ago | (#47771105)

The last UX conference I was at we had a speaker that demonstrated that the next 1-2 billion "smart" phone users were coming from Africa and Asia where more modern devices didn't stand a chance in the majority of the market. From a cost per device point of view, sure, but more from the fact that we are creating first world apps, UIs and OSes that might not have anywhere near the traction they have here because of completely different needs. He saw an incredible opportunity there.

(y) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771513)

Clever girl !

yws but what does the service cost ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47771787)

100 years ago Kodak gave Brownie cameras away fro free - it was the film and processing that the owner had to pay for (you sent in the whole camera which could shoot about 100 pictures and would get back another preloaded with film - you paid for the photos you got back )

So just like the cheap (and not so cheap) phones WE can get here - its the service that the user takes the big hit.

So how much does THAT cost (its ignorant hype to simply say "OMG !!!cheap phone!!! .... so wonderous !!!!!"

Re:yws but what does the service cost ?? (1)

davidshenba (2536122) | about 2 months ago | (#47773299)

To be exact, the phone is without contract and Indian pre-paid mobile services costs around $2 a month for average users.

Charge stations gonna BOOM! (1)

VTBlue (600055) | about 2 months ago | (#47771813)

Can't wait to see how the market for chargers batteries and charge stations take off. There everyone is so use to 10 day standby.

Yip, sounds like FF (0)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47772245)

It's just released, and it's already on version 33?

Will be a disaster (1)

me551ah (1549423) | about 2 months ago | (#47776047)

A phone with 128mb of RAM running apps written in javascript on an ARM processor. Good luck with that.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?