
Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device - ukdm
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119571-mozilla-partners-up-with-lg-to-combat-apple-and-google-with-its-own-device
======
slowpoke
As much as I appreciate the efforts to build a successful, truly open mobile
OS, the "browser as an OS" approach is an incredibly dumb idea. It's another
step away from general purpose computing, and I don't like this direction one
bit. Some people here on HN might not really want to hear this, but _web apps
aren't the future_. You just fundamentally _cannot_ put everything on the web.
It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it.

What would interest me more in B2G is whether the Linux base underneath it is
fully functional. And not just a slightly advanced "bootloader" for B2G. A
fully functional, mostly free GNU/Linux system that gets widespread adoption,
even just as a smartphone OS, would be a great blessing to the efforts of the
Free Software community.

~~~
arturadib
_is an incredibly dumb idea_

Ouch.

 _It's another step away from general purpose computing_

Not if the web platform itself is taking enormous strides towards general
purpose computing, particularly in the mobile realm of B2G:

<https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#New_APIs>

In fact, in my opinion the web stack is becoming The Greatest Programming
Toolkit Ever Built:

[http://blog.arturadib.com/the-greatest-programming-
toolkit-e...](http://blog.arturadib.com/the-greatest-programming-toolkit-ever-
built-i)

 _It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it._

Depends on what you mean by "incredibly simple". If you look at the most
popular apps besides games, it's hard to imagine why they can't be implemented
in HTML5.

As for games, stay tuned. Folks are working hard on it:

<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Platform/AreWeFunYet>

TL;DR: I disagree. The web stack is becoming the greatest general-purpose
toolkit ever built. Already it's a great platform choice for building an
entire "app" ecosystem on top of, and it's only getting better.

DISCLAIMER: Although I'm not in the B2G team, I work for Mozilla. However, the
above is strictly my personal opinion.

~~~
alexgartrell
I don't work for Mozilla, don't use Firefox, and am not a front-end developer
(I write C). That said, I agree 100% that Apps of the future will be delivered
over HTTP to general purpose runtimes that will essentially be browsers (maybe
they'll drop the need to wrap everything in chrome, or something).

Browsers are increasingly become a dynamic language runtime attached to a
powerful graphics rendering library. Make the runtime faster, provide better
graphics widgets, and get past this "remote everything with shitty local
caching" thing and you've got yourself one hell of a toolkit.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
At which point, the OS isn't doing anything but hooking that runtime to the
device drivers, and the natural question will be, "Why shouldn't the browser
just be the OS?"

------
kenrikm
From The Article: \-- _With Boot to Gecko, carriers would have an open
operating system, based on an open browser and framework, with a truly open
Marketplace. Carriers could create their own Open Web Marketplace and populate
it with their own apps, and create their own rules. They could brand the OS
and load it up with as much or as little bloatware as they like. With B2G,
carriers would once again be in control._ \--

Wait a second.. they think it's a good thing that the carriers can create
their own walled gardens with this new OS? That's the most absurd thing I have
ever heard. While Google/Apple have their own barriers they are nothing
compared to what the phone industry had in place pre-iPhone. Before the
iPhone/AppStore/Android you could not even use the GPS that was built into
your device unless you paid $10 per month, any apps that even remotely
affected carrier revenue were blacklisted (Free SMS etc..) Sorry but I would
rather deal with Google or Apple's walled gardens than the prisions we were in
before.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
That part struck me, too. I hope Mozilla is smarter than that, or else Boot to
Gecko will be DOA.

------
codeka
> their infrastructures have been reduced to that of a dumb pipe

This is a bad thing how? As far as I can see, carriers have far too much
control over the devices that are used on their networks. I can't imagine
consumers opting for devices where carriers have EVEN GREATER control!

It's consumers who buy the device, not carriers.

~~~
adam-a
I'm frequently surprised by how much power the US carriers seem to have. Here
in the UK they are mostly reduced to dumb pipes. There are (almost) no
operator exclusive phones, except for the cheapo own-brand ones, which few
people would choose a network for. On top of that any phone you buy can be
legally unlocked and switched to any other network.

It seems like a much better position as a consumer to be able to pick an
operator based mainly on the line-rental charges and included data, minutes,
etc.

I don't know if this is a consequence of laws around unlocking phones or
simply because the operators in the UK pretty much match each other in
coverage. Most built up areas have even coverage from them all so there is
little to lock a buyer into one network or another.

~~~
polshaw
You paint a rather rosy picture of UK carriers. Whilst you are right with
regards to phone availability, while contracts and PAYG are still centred
primarily around voice minutes and text messages, we are far from 'dumb pipe'
territory.

~~~
adam-a
Yes, I see your point that the pricing of the pipes is still weird and uneven.
What I mean is that I can pick my network based mainly on the price of their
pipe, not the availability of some handset or because it's the only one
available in a certain area. This seems to be the theme of US carriers:
driving people to buy the service not because of the service itself, but
because of the other details. But then I suppose coverage is a service,
especially in the large and sparse fields of the US.

Of course nothing is perfect. Just interesting as a contrast.

------
polshaw
I really hope this survives, IMO we need a truly free mobile OS since meeGo
died.

Concerns about 'browser as an OS', web apps only, and carrier control are way
premature-- wait until we have seen the thing. For me, the fact mozilla are
behind it trumps these concerns-- i know it will be truly open and consumer
oriented.

..

If i had to guess, i would say that it would ship with carrier modification,
but that this could be easily reverted with a simple, freely available 'add-
on' (think ad-block-- no rooting, jailbreaking etc required), and that gecko
would provide the default UI[1], with the option for native web apps to share
the same front-end, and the linux backend would be available too.

..

1\. Since the web is the only 100% cross-platform environment, and all
smartphones are going to have a browser rendering engine loaded a lot of the
time, this makes a lot of sense to me.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
meeGo became Tizen as far as I know. I hope somebody does something with that.
<https://www.tizen.org/>

Also Ubuntu is making some strides towards mobile touch based interfaces. I
really, really hope they succeed.

------
sequoia
_EDIT: OP didn't pick the picture of the girls, those are actually LG "booth
babes." Sorry OP!_

Metacomment (about the article): The author created a fake photo for the
article based on the dialer and app screens and photo of two young girls,
presumably to draw the eye and get clicks (or for lack of any actual
applicable images). I have a couple of issues/questions:

1: Is it reasonable for a tech blogger to create fake images of a product and
lead the article with them? (It says in the title attribute that the image is
fake but I don't make a habit of hovering over each image to find out if it's
fake.)

2: I know that using sexualized pictures of women to draw readers is a common
practice that isn't going away (see Wired, Psychology Today, every other
magazine), but these girls look peripubescent. I'm annoyed by the practice in
all cases, but it seems especially poor taste to use images of such young
girls in this context. (If someone wants to make the case that I'm imagining
the role sexuality plays in this practice, I'm happy to hear it, but I'm
highly skeptical.)

~~~
eshrews
"Believe it or not, they're official LG booth babes, for MWC! That's a press
photo from this morning, for the Optimus 4X thing.

They do look a bit young for booth babes, IMO."

From the comments - [http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119571-mozilla-
partners...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119571-mozilla-partners-up-
with-lg-to-combat-apple-and-google-with-its-own-device#comment-447161126)

~~~
tuacker
The picture on The Verge looks like the original one:
[http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/22/2818308/lg-
optimus-4x-hd-p...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/22/2818308/lg-
optimus-4x-hd-press-images#3039772)

~~~
sequoia
Holy crap... That's really quite shocking and makes me seriously question
whether I'd want to do business with LG. If you had a 14 year old daughter,
would you appreciate LG or whoever paying her to wear a very low cut shirt and
make eyes at a bunch of older (mostly) men to entice them to buy a phone? I
don't consider myself an "overprotective" parent, but I think this sort of
sexualization of young girls by a large company is really sick and
distasteful. /r/jailbait got shut down for sexualizing girls of this same
(apparent) age, just as LG is doing. Gross.

------
PLejeck
The part that scares me most is the thought that Mozilla is willing to give
any power back to the carriers. I do not want this, not in a million years.
I'll take Apple's walled garden over AT&T's heap of shit, any day of the week.

~~~
gcp
Giving power back to the carriers is unavoidable with an open system.

Conversely, taking power away from someone is usually why you keep the system
closed.

~~~
eftpotrm
Which is the advantage (to users) of the self-appointed benevolent dictator
for life model.

What do users want? Something that's cheap, easy to use and unlimited.

What do the carriers want? Something that's branded to them and customised so
they can upsell features. (Which requires an ecosystem they can customise,
such as BtG.)

What do the platform vendors want? Ecosystem control so they can be the
gatekeeper selling apps and ads.

I hate to say this as a long-term Mozilla fan with a strong distaste for iOS,
but the most user-friendly model appears to be tied to platform vendors, not
carriers. They are the ones with an incentive to maximise service; carriers,
OTOH, have demonstrated a very noticeable tendency to salami-slice
_everything_. Want your apps? Sorry, got to go through your network's app
store. (And devs, you now have to negotiate with hundreds of vendors, each
with different rules.) Want to use more than Facebook and YouTube? Sorry,
that's the 'enhanced web' package. (Some have already done this.) Want
tethering? Sure, that'll be £30 per month. And, once the carriers have the
ability to have their own branded and locked-down smartphoens, just wait to
pay a surplus to use an 'unsupported device' like an iPhone.

The carrier-controlled model has been tried before, and found wanting.
Returning control to them could set the market back five years in one fell
swoop.

------
av500
So Mozilla's fully _open_ "Boot to Gecko" will power the carriers walled
garden "fully closed" wet dreams?

~~~
MatthewPhillips
There's a lot of inaccuracies in the article and that's one of them. There's
also this:

> Basically, B2G is just a cut-down version of Linux that automatically loads
> Firefox; basically, it’s like Chrome OS, but lower tech.

How is it "lower tech"?

~~~
daeken
I should note that the browser on Boot2Gecko is really not related to Firefox
on Linux at all, outside of using the same Gecko renderer underneath. B2G --
unlike Firefox -- doesn't require X, doesn't support extensions, and the
browser chrome and all that is actually just a web app itself. So sure, it
shares a renderer, but it's like saying that ChromeOS is powered by Safari.

(Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla on Boot2Gecko.)

~~~
mrsebastian
Thanks; have clarified the Gecko/Firefox difference.

------
billybob
Side note: I hope "Boot to Gecko" won't be the official name of the OS. First,
most users don't know what booting is or what Gecko is. Second, it will be
awkward to use an imperative phrase as a noun. "This phone has Boot to Gecko."
"Did you see that game for Boot to Gecko?" Very awkward. GeckoOS might be OK;
something inspired by the word "gecko" would be better still. A quick look at
the Wikipedia article suggests "Gekkota", "Adhesion", etc.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
The UI layer is already called Gaia, I would assume that's what they'll refer
to the product when speaking to end-users.

~~~
slowpoke
The UI layer is explicitly replaceable, though.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
True, I'm not sure it's important to make the distinction to end-users though.

------
oliwer
Is it just me or the author of the article did everything he could to make
Boot to Gecko look bad, even if we know very little from it yet.

Since when being fully open source and easy to hack is a bad thing? The
argument of operators crippling the phone with their apps is another problem.
And I don't think Mozilla would approve distributing an OS which seriously
limits the user freedom.

~~~
daeken
> And I don't think Mozilla would approve distributing an OS which seriously
> limits the user freedom.

Just like China can ship a Linux distro that's locked down and full of
spyware, someone could ship a device based on Boot2Gecko that's insanely user-
unfriendly. However, that's part of the point: you're free to do what you want
with the OS, and that cuts both ways. The same freedom that allows people to
do amazing things with their hardware is what could allow evil people to ship
a horrendously locked down phone. Do I think it's likely to happen? No.

(Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla on B2G, but obviously this is just my own
personal opinion and I don't speak for the company, etc etc.)

------
peterwwillis
Oh great. It wasn't bad enough that Android lacks a real-time user interface,
now all my apps will be in JavaScript and HTML5, making everything even slower
and crappier. It's so funny how phones made 10 years ago were more real-time
than those today. On top of that I get the bulkiness of a Mozilla product
combined with the security vulnerabilities of a Mozilla product.

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

THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE MOBILE CARRIER
INDUSTRY IN ITS HISTORY. And somehow you find this a _bad_ thing? Jesus christ
people can be thick.

~~~
nkassis
"It's so funny how phones made 10 years ago were more real-time than those
today."

Oh come on that's just not true. Phones 10 years ago barely had color displays
and 0 apps other than contacts,phone and maybe music and I don't even think
java games were there yet.

As far as I know, getting contacts synced between your phone and computer
meant buying some huge palm or blackberry and hooking it up to your computer
with a special cable. No Real time over the web syncing of contacts between
your email client and phone like you have today.

~~~
peterwwillis
You don't understand the concept of real-time devices.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing>

Really java made the phones _less_ real-time, but it was 10 years ago that one
of the first Java phones in the US was sold by Sprint. Nextel I85s came out in
2001, and the Sanyo SCP-4900 (with 12-bit color!) came out in 2002.

All those apps and games and syncing? Means diddly squat if the god damn phone
is locking up from apps clogging the CPU and preventing me from pressing the
"Pick up" button when i'm receiving a call. Phones today are (in general)
overrated, overpriced, hardly usable pieces of shit.

~~~
nkassis
I understand what you mean but I'm just making the point that phones were a
lot simpler and in my view much less useful. It's obvious that somethings
might have been loss since then like how my phone reacts less well to me
answering the phone or pressing number but the amount of new functionality in
my view more than make up for that small annoyance.

Real-time as in real-time computing isn't as big a selling point today as it
was pre-iphone. RIM is making that mistake. QNX is awesome for what it does
but I don't think people care about it's strong points as much as they do with
the strong points of Android and iOS.(And that's what I meant when I twisted
the definition of real-time to fit my syncing example. It's a different
unrelated concept to what you were implying.)

------
AndrewDucker
And so the browser becomes the OS - or at least it becomes what people build
their applications on top of.

------
colig
I would like to know if it is possible in the future to write a 'native' app
for this OS, and by that I mean one that is not encumbered by the speed
limitations of Javascript.

