I know that Mozilla aren't on the same realm of level of revenue as Apple or Google, and that they can't spend a fortune on marketing.
However, that must've been one of the least inspiring product demo videos I've ever watched. It does nothing on selling me on the virtues of the phone, just running through some extraordinarily anonymous features. I realise it's extremely affordable, but that hardware looks like it does almost nothing well. While I want to develop mobile apps, I don't particularly want to develop for this device, despite the HTML/CSS/JS support fitting neatly in my skillset.
The app store is probably the most curious thing, but that's hidden away and quickly glossed over.
If this starts reaching developing nations, with mobile internet etc, then I could see the benefit, and that's something that I'd love to engage with. At the moment it just seems like a weird brand exercise.
Firefox OS is one of the most obviously-wasteful and doomed efforts we've seen in a long time.
There is no compelling reason to use it, or for it to even exist. It offers no tangible benefits that we can't get elsewhere. What it does offer is pretty lousy.
The only two arguments we see used to support its existence are both badly flawed:
1) Devices running it are "affordable". Maybe this is true in some absolute sense, but relative to other mobile OSes and devices this "affordability" comes at a very steep cost in terms of usability and practicality.
Used Android and iOS devices can also be acquired quite cheaply these days (even in poorer nations), but unlike Firefox OS and its devices these used devices are comparatively powerful and much more practical to use.
2) It's "open". This argument is academic at best. We can already use HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and other so-called "open" technologies on Android, iOS, BlackBerry OS, and many other of the less-common mobile OSes. Android and some of the other mobile OSes are already open source software, so it's not like Firefox OS has any advantage in that sense, as well.
The whole reliance on JavaScript makes Firefox OS even less-open, in my opinion. When it comes to using Android or iOS, for instance, at least we have the option of using mature, non-JavaScript languages. No, I don't really consider CoffeeScript, TypeScript or Dart to be anything but JavaScript with a prettier syntax and/or slightly better type checking.
The effort put into Firefox OS would have been much better spent fixing desktop Firefox, or Firefox running on existing mobile devices. Even putting it toward Thunderbird would've been useful. But it has instead been wasted on an eighth-in-line mobile OS with limited capabilities and a severe lack of usability compared to its competitors.
All the previews I've read say that Firefox OS needs high-end hardware to deliver a responsive UI.
"Its unresponsive screen makes typing a laborious process requiring painstaking precision. Every action from swiping to tapping onscreen controls takes a beat until you see results, so using the phone for a prolonged period steals minutes of your time. Lag carries into the camera, which is slow to launch, snap, and reset."[1]
For $90, I would rather have a refurbished iPhone 3GS. A 3GS has 16GB of internal storage vs this phones 512MB and runs Apple's latest iOS 6. With native performance you get a silky smooth experience from the homescreen to apps even on budget hardware.
There's something wrong with your quote and/or the previews that you have read.
For one thing, the link you provide doesn't contain that quote anywhere that I can see. Perhaps you intended to post a different link?
Secondly, I have been using a Firefox OS developer preview phone for several months (one less powerful than the ZTE, I believe), and the UI is extremely snappy. As all 1.0s it still has rough edges that I only hope will be softened by future upgrades, but I find the user experience generally pleasant.
Finally, you can certainly grab a refurbished iPhone if you prefer. iOS 6 is certainly visually nicer than Firefox OS 1.0. But the whole point of FirefoxOS is freedom from silos. One of the consequences is that the appstore will not simply drop support on you whenever Apple (or whoever owns your silo) decides that they want to force you into buying a new phone. Unless I'm mistaken, another of the consequences is that any application bought on FirefoxOS will still belong to you if decide to move to an Android phone or to your Windows/MacOS/Linux personal computer (sorry, no iPhone support, Apple wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen). Oh, and of course, with a Firefox OS phone, you can just write and deploy your own apps without having to ask anybody's permission. I wrote a (small) game during a conference and released it a few days later, before the Marketplace was even open. If visual effects are more important to you than this kind of freedom, yes, by all means, go ahead and buy a refurbished iPhone.
As a user of GP Peak I can testify the UI is almost snappy enough, but once you open up Firefox (or any other app that relies on web) everything slows down considerably, the devices freezes or is extremely slow to respond to input and the battery is hammered. Half an hour of attempts to browse the web and do stuff can halve it.
Other than that, the phone itself performs it's basic functions just fine and the battery life is quite good if you don't touch any of the "smart" features.
Having said that, the device is a developer preview and I like Mozilla and their mission and I hope they will succeed with subsequent versions.
At some point we will really need be careful when talking about "native performances". FirefoxOS is written in JS on top of Gecko which is as "native" as it can be. if an app's UI is well written, all of the computationally expensive stuff happens in gecko. A good way to see that it is not about being native it is to compare Android and FirefoxOS on the exact same phone.
"native performances" still makes sense if you are talking about building physics engines or whatever kind of heavy simulations, but not for 90% percent of the smartphone apps today.
Releasing only low-budget hardware is probably not the best strategy to break into the existing market. That is, phones like these are doomed to be used by people who aren't even aware of what kind of OS the phone uses as long as it's labeled smartphone and comes with a cheap plan and a facebook app.
I don't know. It sounds like a good strategy to gain market-share in a post economic-crisis, recession-stricken Europe.
You wont get a generation of still-unemployed-at-30 spaniards to buy your €600 phone when they have trouble getting ends to meet. A €60 smart-phone however, that stands a chance.
I agree , in my opinion this phone is(should be a) a geek phone. People in developping countries usually have feature phones or cheap android phones ( that can get as cheap as 60 USD .
Maybe this is me being delusional, but Geeksphone's models were running much more smoother than this (this being the Alcatel phone in the demo). I think the OS is fine and it'd work nicely on a good hardware, but it just needs time. It's gotta be hard to sell a phone that's cheap and has a good hardware. But I'm hopeful and rooting for Mozilla to pull this off.
The war with Tizen only get started. Yet, it's funny how those two OS will end up being almost 100% compatible (at least for webapps), and so in the end, it won't really matter which one you'll be using.
Maybe this will start a new trend of "web phones", and will push android towards becoming more of a "chrome os".
This "war" you speak of is between two mobile OSes making up literally a small fraction of one percent of all mobile users.
BlackBerry OS and Windows Phone, which are nearly irrelevant compared to Android and iOS, are absolutely huge compared to Firefox OS, Tizen, and the other mobile OSes.
Firefox OS and Tizen will have absolutely no impact on Android.
I'm surprised by the early launch. I've been using a Geeksphone Peak as my primary phone for a couple of weeks and FirefoxOS is far from ready. There are bugs, missing features, apps that won't do basic things... Here I was thinking FirefoxOS needed an extra year of development and they're already launching devices!
There's still room for an alt, "hacker" OS that's seen as not in the pocket of Google: a Linux of the smartphone world. Tizen, being Samsung's beast, doesn't quite fit that description. So between Firefox OS, Ubuntu Mobile, Sailfish OS, Open webOS, (any others?) I'm wondering which one will capture the hearts and minds of the hacker community, if not any relevant marketshare.
Besides being the phone all others are compared against, iPhone is standardized to fit a variety of 3rd party components; lenses, camera mounts, car mounts, etc.
Dependability is another aspect that should not be neglected to save a few $. If it's something you depend upon every day, you don't want to be disappointed when it matters most.
I guess a free Firefox OS phone would be great for homeless or families too poor to afford a decent phone.
> I guess a free Firefox OS phone would be great for homeless or families too poor to afford a decent phone.
Or people who value freedom over eyecandy. Or people with principles and ideals. And maybe even people who can see outside the San Francisco hipster smug.
People with long term visions, like the people who originally created the WWW had. We definitely need more people like that and we need the tech crowd to support them.
I am always confused by the race to the bottom approach in electronics. These are device that people will spent hundreds of hours on, what is $60 dollars of savings stretched over the course of a 2 year contract?
I understand that in developing nations like Ethiopia or India this might be significant but in Spain?
Google doesn't charge you to use Android and Mozilla doesn't charge you to use FF OS. So how will FF OS be able to deliver cheaper phones?
It seems if they are able to bring down prices by introducing this "no-contract cheap phone option" into the market (which may be a good thing), then nothing stops the same exact manufacturer from releasing the same exact hardware running Android for the same exact price sine the OS doesn't play into the cost in either case.
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that Google does charge the companies that build these devices, so that cost is propagated somewhere to the consumer.
However, the real cost saver is the fact that, in my experience, FirefoxOS largely outperforms Android on many tasks, and generally is usable on hardware that is much cheaper than anything Android requires to run these days.
Does anyone know how feasible it is to use a Firefox OS phone with no data plan? Using GSM for voice calls and SMS, but forcing it to only do data over wifi?
1. Knowledge resources available to team and experience of the organization in the subject matter far exceed what the WebOS team had.
2. Was free/open and somewhat collaborative almost from the beginning. I say "somewhat collaborative" because the priority of the team was to create an operating system for a phone, with other forms (like a computer connected to other devices) taking a far backseat.
However, I agree in that, despite optimizations, it has a long way to go to compete with Android which almost "owns" the market it is after.
Politically, the timing is fairly good this announcement, though. Right after Google's black eye over privacy concerns, people might be slightly more likely to embrace Mozilla products. But, who knows. Competing in Android's turf is going to be a serious uphill battle.
It will succeed if:
1. They really embrace community input and provide incentives for people to get involved. That is part of being Mozilla. They don't need to be Apple or Google.
2. They need a charismatic leader with the vision of Jobs, someone with the design talent of Jony Ive, and someone that is capable of recruiting and organizing community talent like _______ (a name doesn't come to mind).
[+] [-] jwarren|12 years ago|reply
However, that must've been one of the least inspiring product demo videos I've ever watched. It does nothing on selling me on the virtues of the phone, just running through some extraordinarily anonymous features. I realise it's extremely affordable, but that hardware looks like it does almost nothing well. While I want to develop mobile apps, I don't particularly want to develop for this device, despite the HTML/CSS/JS support fitting neatly in my skillset.
The app store is probably the most curious thing, but that's hidden away and quickly glossed over.
If this starts reaching developing nations, with mobile internet etc, then I could see the benefit, and that's something that I'd love to engage with. At the moment it just seems like a weird brand exercise.
[+] [-] PommeDeTerre|12 years ago|reply
There is no compelling reason to use it, or for it to even exist. It offers no tangible benefits that we can't get elsewhere. What it does offer is pretty lousy.
The only two arguments we see used to support its existence are both badly flawed:
1) Devices running it are "affordable". Maybe this is true in some absolute sense, but relative to other mobile OSes and devices this "affordability" comes at a very steep cost in terms of usability and practicality.
Used Android and iOS devices can also be acquired quite cheaply these days (even in poorer nations), but unlike Firefox OS and its devices these used devices are comparatively powerful and much more practical to use.
2) It's "open". This argument is academic at best. We can already use HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and other so-called "open" technologies on Android, iOS, BlackBerry OS, and many other of the less-common mobile OSes. Android and some of the other mobile OSes are already open source software, so it's not like Firefox OS has any advantage in that sense, as well.
The whole reliance on JavaScript makes Firefox OS even less-open, in my opinion. When it comes to using Android or iOS, for instance, at least we have the option of using mature, non-JavaScript languages. No, I don't really consider CoffeeScript, TypeScript or Dart to be anything but JavaScript with a prettier syntax and/or slightly better type checking.
The effort put into Firefox OS would have been much better spent fixing desktop Firefox, or Firefox running on existing mobile devices. Even putting it toward Thunderbird would've been useful. But it has instead been wasted on an eighth-in-line mobile OS with limited capabilities and a severe lack of usability compared to its competitors.
[+] [-] slacka|12 years ago|reply
"Its unresponsive screen makes typing a laborious process requiring painstaking precision. Every action from swiping to tapping onscreen controls takes a beat until you see results, so using the phone for a prolonged period steals minutes of your time. Lag carries into the camera, which is slow to launch, snap, and reset."[1]
For $90, I would rather have a refurbished iPhone 3GS. A 3GS has 16GB of internal storage vs this phones 512MB and runs Apple's latest iOS 6. With native performance you get a silky smooth experience from the homescreen to apps even on budget hardware.
[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57591716-94/firefox-os-phon...
[+] [-] Yoric|12 years ago|reply
For one thing, the link you provide doesn't contain that quote anywhere that I can see. Perhaps you intended to post a different link?
Secondly, I have been using a Firefox OS developer preview phone for several months (one less powerful than the ZTE, I believe), and the UI is extremely snappy. As all 1.0s it still has rough edges that I only hope will be softened by future upgrades, but I find the user experience generally pleasant.
Finally, you can certainly grab a refurbished iPhone if you prefer. iOS 6 is certainly visually nicer than Firefox OS 1.0. But the whole point of FirefoxOS is freedom from silos. One of the consequences is that the appstore will not simply drop support on you whenever Apple (or whoever owns your silo) decides that they want to force you into buying a new phone. Unless I'm mistaken, another of the consequences is that any application bought on FirefoxOS will still belong to you if decide to move to an Android phone or to your Windows/MacOS/Linux personal computer (sorry, no iPhone support, Apple wouldn't want that kind of thing to happen). Oh, and of course, with a Firefox OS phone, you can just write and deploy your own apps without having to ask anybody's permission. I wrote a (small) game during a conference and released it a few days later, before the Marketplace was even open. If visual effects are more important to you than this kind of freedom, yes, by all means, go ahead and buy a refurbished iPhone.
Caveat: I'm a Mozillian.
[+] [-] ohwp|12 years ago|reply
You might be surprised (as I was) but Windows 8 is the most responsive mobile OS I've ever seen. Maybe it's even the best mobile OS at the moment.
You can get a new Nokia Lumia 521 for about $150. A very underestimated phone.
[+] [-] Nux|12 years ago|reply
Other than that, the phone itself performs it's basic functions just fine and the battery life is quite good if you don't touch any of the "smart" features.
Having said that, the device is a developer preview and I like Mozilla and their mission and I hope they will succeed with subsequent versions.
[+] [-] john61|12 years ago|reply
Also an iPhone is the opposite of a free phone, so this is no competition for Firefox OS.
[+] [-] nical|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tehwalrus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stranger2013|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marban|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josteink|12 years ago|reply
You wont get a generation of still-unemployed-at-30 spaniards to buy your €600 phone when they have trouble getting ends to meet. A €60 smart-phone however, that stands a chance.
[+] [-] camus|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dombili|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsaul|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PommeDeTerre|12 years ago|reply
BlackBerry OS and Windows Phone, which are nearly irrelevant compared to Android and iOS, are absolutely huge compared to Firefox OS, Tizen, and the other mobile OSes.
Firefox OS and Tizen will have absolutely no impact on Android.
[+] [-] anon1385|12 years ago|reply
Can you disable Javascript?
[+] [-] patrickaljord|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jare|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juandopazo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Apocryphon|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abraham|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panacea|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marban|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] menubar|12 years ago|reply
Besides being the phone all others are compared against, iPhone is standardized to fit a variety of 3rd party components; lenses, camera mounts, car mounts, etc.
Dependability is another aspect that should not be neglected to save a few $. If it's something you depend upon every day, you don't want to be disappointed when it matters most.
I guess a free Firefox OS phone would be great for homeless or families too poor to afford a decent phone.
[+] [-] josteink|12 years ago|reply
Or people who value freedom over eyecandy. Or people with principles and ideals. And maybe even people who can see outside the San Francisco hipster smug.
People with long term visions, like the people who originally created the WWW had. We definitely need more people like that and we need the tech crowd to support them.
Your comment adds nothing of value.
[+] [-] bzbarsky|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frozenport|12 years ago|reply
I understand that in developing nations like Ethiopia or India this might be significant but in Spain?
[+] [-] dhs|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] particlewave|12 years ago|reply
It seems if they are able to bring down prices by introducing this "no-contract cheap phone option" into the market (which may be a good thing), then nothing stops the same exact manufacturer from releasing the same exact hardware running Android for the same exact price sine the OS doesn't play into the cost in either case.
[+] [-] Yoric|12 years ago|reply
However, the real cost saver is the fact that, in my experience, FirefoxOS largely outperforms Android on many tasks, and generally is usable on hardware that is much cheaper than anything Android requires to run these days.
[+] [-] karussell|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yoric|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtetzner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewcooke|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elehack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Yoric|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoncow|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andylei|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] pjmlp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] garysweaver|12 years ago|reply
1. Knowledge resources available to team and experience of the organization in the subject matter far exceed what the WebOS team had.
2. Was free/open and somewhat collaborative almost from the beginning. I say "somewhat collaborative" because the priority of the team was to create an operating system for a phone, with other forms (like a computer connected to other devices) taking a far backseat.
However, I agree in that, despite optimizations, it has a long way to go to compete with Android which almost "owns" the market it is after.
Politically, the timing is fairly good this announcement, though. Right after Google's black eye over privacy concerns, people might be slightly more likely to embrace Mozilla products. But, who knows. Competing in Android's turf is going to be a serious uphill battle.
It will succeed if:
1. They really embrace community input and provide incentives for people to get involved. That is part of being Mozilla. They don't need to be Apple or Google.
2. They need a charismatic leader with the vision of Jobs, someone with the design talent of Jony Ive, and someone that is capable of recruiting and organizing community talent like _______ (a name doesn't come to mind).
[+] [-] lurchpop|12 years ago|reply