Firefox OS may live on in a TV stick and Pi-powered keyboard(engadget.com)
engadget.com
Firefox OS may live on in a TV stick and Pi-powered keyboard
http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/24/firefox-os-leaked-connected-devices/
16 comments
Well, for one they know that default browsers get more users than non-defaults. So being the only browser vendor without control over a OS is a huge disadvantage. They also know that with Gecko and Trident/EdgeHTML having insignificant marketshare on mobile there's a greater chance a monoculture will ensue witch will cause issues in standards development and hinder other implementations.
> Are pensionists more important to Mozilla than the people actually building the web?
"Free and open" can mean a lot more than "obeys FOSS principles." It can refer to making the internet accessible to the disadvantaged, the physically or mentally disabled, and the people who just find the present web too complex for them. There are a number of ways in which you can increase the number of people benefitting from the things the Internet enables by just creating user-agents (in a software or hardware sense) with interfaces tailored to these groups, rather than pushing through HTML5 features or whatever else.
Another way to think about it: imagine the sort of political opinion bubble that someone ends up in if they get all their news from TV/radio/newspapers, and none of it from the Internet. Getting some of these people using the Internet can actually sway (or, more accurately, inform) their beliefs enough to change voting patterns, especially regarding issues like technology, surveillance, and IP-rights policy.
"Free and open" can mean a lot more than "obeys FOSS principles." It can refer to making the internet accessible to the disadvantaged, the physically or mentally disabled, and the people who just find the present web too complex for them. There are a number of ways in which you can increase the number of people benefitting from the things the Internet enables by just creating user-agents (in a software or hardware sense) with interfaces tailored to these groups, rather than pushing through HTML5 features or whatever else.
Another way to think about it: imagine the sort of political opinion bubble that someone ends up in if they get all their news from TV/radio/newspapers, and none of it from the Internet. Getting some of these people using the Internet can actually sway (or, more accurately, inform) their beliefs enough to change voting patterns, especially regarding issues like technology, surveillance, and IP-rights policy.
I agree completely. Firefox is cutting off (or has cut off) its own roots. "Power-users" are not where the money lies--at least, not in their eyes. Making the best, most powerful, user-extensible browser is no longer interesting or glamorous to them. Mozilla is now chasing after fireflies: here one moment, gone the next.
I have come to doubt that Mozilla will exist in 5 years--at least, not in a form that is recognizable as the Mozilla we have known. Mozilla has lost its way; it's having an identify crisis. It seems to me that their decisions are made with respect to maintaining their expensive facilities and furthering social causes, rather than with respect to maintaining their technical excellence and furthering their user-liberating causes.
This can't last much longer. Yahoo is having its own issues, and they are Mozilla's principle patron. When Yahoo's deal expires, how will Mozilla sell itself to its next patron, lacking a clear identity and purpose?
Mozilla needs to be reborn as yet another Phoenix from its own ashes.
Lacking this, I am hopeful that the Pale Moon fork of Firefox will live on and become the "next Firefox." Its developers seem to have good ideas and priorities about stability and extensibility, keeping it based on the pre-Aurora codebase.
But it's always a shame to see a good project go astray and facilitate its own demise.
Signed, Developer, Firefox user, desktop and mobile
I have come to doubt that Mozilla will exist in 5 years--at least, not in a form that is recognizable as the Mozilla we have known. Mozilla has lost its way; it's having an identify crisis. It seems to me that their decisions are made with respect to maintaining their expensive facilities and furthering social causes, rather than with respect to maintaining their technical excellence and furthering their user-liberating causes.
This can't last much longer. Yahoo is having its own issues, and they are Mozilla's principle patron. When Yahoo's deal expires, how will Mozilla sell itself to its next patron, lacking a clear identity and purpose?
Mozilla needs to be reborn as yet another Phoenix from its own ashes.
Lacking this, I am hopeful that the Pale Moon fork of Firefox will live on and become the "next Firefox." Its developers seem to have good ideas and priorities about stability and extensibility, keeping it based on the pre-Aurora codebase.
But it's always a shame to see a good project go astray and facilitate its own demise.
Signed, Developer, Firefox user, desktop and mobile
There is no shame for a FOSS platform in entering an existing market. Firefox was always an alternative to the incumbents, so debuting a Chromecast replacement sounds logical to me.
There's something about chicken and egg going on here too.
The Chromecast was wildly successful because it rode on the back of an already successful browser (50% market share) with support out of the box.
It also featured dedicated support for specifics apps and platforms, like YouTube and Android, both within Google's control.
Coupled with a low price, this was enough to make the stick sell on its own, and that again compelled developers to implement dedicated Chromecast support in their own apps.
In short: Google had both the chicken and the egg. Problem solved.
But if Firefox is to make their own free-er stick... They now have 15-16% browser market share which they can leverage and no on-line services which they can use to further increase the value of that stick.
If they can make it "Chromecast compatible" that's obviously a different story, but that means Chromecast apps now also need to be compatible with the Gecko rendering engine.
Looking at the sorry state of the mobile web in the end of 2015, we can already see a significant amount of developers whose only mobile test-target is Webkit. Some even skip testing Android completely, focusing only on Ios and Mobile Safari.
And do we expect developers to bother 1. getting and 2. testing for a Chromecast-compatible device with a sub 1% marketshare when there are already millions of chromecasts out there?
To me this just smells like Firefox OS all over. Maybe a good idea, but it's too late, and it probably wont win any developer mind share from the established platforms.
The Chromecast was wildly successful because it rode on the back of an already successful browser (50% market share) with support out of the box.
It also featured dedicated support for specifics apps and platforms, like YouTube and Android, both within Google's control.
Coupled with a low price, this was enough to make the stick sell on its own, and that again compelled developers to implement dedicated Chromecast support in their own apps.
In short: Google had both the chicken and the egg. Problem solved.
But if Firefox is to make their own free-er stick... They now have 15-16% browser market share which they can leverage and no on-line services which they can use to further increase the value of that stick.
If they can make it "Chromecast compatible" that's obviously a different story, but that means Chromecast apps now also need to be compatible with the Gecko rendering engine.
Looking at the sorry state of the mobile web in the end of 2015, we can already see a significant amount of developers whose only mobile test-target is Webkit. Some even skip testing Android completely, focusing only on Ios and Mobile Safari.
And do we expect developers to bother 1. getting and 2. testing for a Chromecast-compatible device with a sub 1% marketshare when there are already millions of chromecasts out there?
To me this just smells like Firefox OS all over. Maybe a good idea, but it's too late, and it probably wont win any developer mind share from the established platforms.
These are not juicy "internal documents", these were freely circulated on public mailing lists. Mozilla is very open about product development and direction. I believe these were early concepts, but may actually see some additional prototyping since the change in direction.
Mozilla is not so open as you might think. They make many decisions behind closed doors, without even a hint of the discussion in any public forum. For example, the decision to bundle Pocket, which has been highly controversial and objectionable to many loyal users, came completely out-of-the-blue. There were no publicly visible internal musings, much less public discussion or RFC.
Mozilla has lost its way.
Mozilla has lost its way.
My favorite example is the bug report when they have decided to remove browser.newtab.url from their about:config window. In the bug report[0] they have basically decided to hide every single comment from powerusers that was against this change (including mine) and marked it as advocacy, off-topic or abusive.
0 - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1118285
0 - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1118285
Bug trackers aren't a good place to express advocacy, because there are other forums for that. What's wrong with removing advocacy, off topic, and abusive comments?
There are comments in that bug that are clearly from people who were against the change that were not removed.
There are comments in that bug that are clearly from people who were against the change that were not removed.
Would you be able to point to which mailing lists?
'Firefox conceded that the device "must have DRM and content partnerships to be successful."'
No, it doesn't. Actually the failed Matchstick claimed to be DRM free initially/had DRM as an optional 'stretch goal' that was bolted on and lead to the poor excuses in the end. "We want to support Netflix etc. and failed, sorry people"
Plenty of backers asked for the device, sans DRM, because that's what they (and me) shelled out their money for.
I don't give a damn about DRM and content partners, I wanted a 'beam something to my TV' option. Sad to see that these plans were completely scrapped for another random Chromecast clone..
No, it doesn't. Actually the failed Matchstick claimed to be DRM free initially/had DRM as an optional 'stretch goal' that was bolted on and lead to the poor excuses in the end. "We want to support Netflix etc. and failed, sorry people"
Plenty of backers asked for the device, sans DRM, because that's what they (and me) shelled out their money for.
I don't give a damn about DRM and content partners, I wanted a 'beam something to my TV' option. Sad to see that these plans were completely scrapped for another random Chromecast clone..
I might be mistaken, but I think the FirefoxTV is a kill. Everything they describe about it sounds a lot like the Matchstick. After a strong financial backing, several months being overdue, the team reigned unsuccessful and had to refund backers.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/matchstick/matchstick-t....
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/matchstick/matchstick-t....
Ideas usually fail the first N times. Execution &luck are deciding factors.
What aspects here supports the free & open web? What part about providing a me too web-browsing experience to elderly and late adopters helps promote the free web?
What's worse is that some of their "me too" efforts are already compromised by Mozilla admitting they need to support DRM, so what new freedom do we gain? What's better or freer about their product?
Where is the effort to bring back the power-users which built Mozilla's original user-base? Are pensionists more important to Mozilla than the people actually building the web? I just don't get it.
And the Firefox Hub seems to have nothing to do with any existing Mozilla-technology and only seems to be Firefox in name. That is: until proven otherwise (and the effort with Firefox OS makes this a reasonable position) this is 100% vapourware where the "Firefox"-name is used purely for branding and marketing.
I don't see how any of these would be successful, and if they were, how they would align with Mozilla's stated goals.
Poor Mozilla. They really seem to be struggling for a sense of direction and purpose these days. I wish they would just go back to making a kick-ass browser.
(Signed developer, Firefox user, desktop & mobile)