
“We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the 2.6 release” - elnino10
https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/t/firefox-os-connected-devices-announcement/6864
======
paride5745
This is a good news.

Firefox OS was never a real product, but a PoC.

IMHO, Mozilla should absorb the Tor project and focus on Free Web
technologies, e.g. a really Free email service and a Free cloud storage
service.

Yes, I intentionally use capitol F for Free.

How to raise money? Freemium model.

A good email+cloud storage service, with the optional pay model for using a
custom domain.

And stop attacking the Linux distros for the Firefox trademark (forcing them
to create the Iceweasel fork) or including proprietary services (e.g. Pocket)
forcing the creation of the Icecat fork.

Just be a Free and Open browser, with some good cloud services, and make money
within a Freemium model (allowed by Free Software Foundation policies).

~~~
vacri
> _And stop attacking the Linux distros for the Firefox trademark (forcing
> them to create the Iceweasel fork)_

Debian's rules don't allow things that aren't free-free, and blocked the
copyright-encumbered logo. Mozilla was protecting it's trademark and branding.
Debian calling it iceweasel basically replaced the branding so that it _could_
be used under Debian's rules. It turned out to be a fairly amicable result -
debian still gets the software with full utility, and mozilla keeps their
branding coherent (branding is important to making money with any model, but
especially freemium).

Also, this licensing stoush was ten years ago; it's not like it's fresh
wounds.

~~~
matzipan
So which part of replacing the Firefox brand with Iceweasel is coherent
branding?

~~~
sp332
Mozilla wants people to be able to trust the Firefox brand. They don't even
use "Firefox" branding on their own nightly or dev builds. They only put it on
software that's been through their own QA. So you're free to use the code, but
they won't let you put the name or logo on any forks or even builds they
haven't signed off on.

~~~
epoch1970
I think at this point that the Firefox brand has been tarnished,
unfortunately.

For many average users, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the slow browser
they used to use before switching to Chrome.

For more advanced users, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the browser that
includes ads (even if these are being removed), has unnecessary functionality
built in (Pocket, Hello), and has undergone questionable UI changes
(Australis).

For web developers, the term "Firefox" reminds them of the extra effort they
still need to expend to test their creations in a browser that fewer and fewer
people are using.

For others, the term "Firefox" will now remind them of this failed mobile OS
project.

"Firefox" as a brand had a great reputation 5 years ago. But that reputation
has eroded away since then.

~~~
cookiecaper
I disagree.

Most "normal" users who used Firefox before Chrome came around are savvy
enough to understand that software improves and evolves. There's no doubt that
Chrome gave Firefox a much-needed shot in the arm.

Many developers/advanced users, including myself, see Firefox as a bastion of
freedom in what is otherwise a land grab by major OS vendors, an attempt to
further increase their lock-in. Users remember Firefox as the browser that was
so flexible, Firebug was possible, which sent every browser vendor into a
tizzy to try to clone the featureset natively. Users remember Firefox as the
browser that gives them control over their experience, unlike Chrome which
babysits and won't let you interfere with Google's need to harvest data.

The first 2 years that Chrome was out, it trounced Firefox all around. I
switched back to Fx around that time. These days, Firefox's JavaScript
performance is comparable if not better than Chrome's [0] and its extension
ecosystem and extreme configurability make it a much better option than Chrome
for me. The only reason I use Chrome now is to take advantage of the
proprietary extensions that allow me to use Netflix or Flash on Linux.

Mozilla has always and will always be a tinkerer's vendor. These people are
not going to be offended when reasonable experiments are conducted, nor when
reasonable experiments fail, as Firefox OS did.

The biggest grudge I hold against Mozilla is really more about the community
than the company itself, and that's the Brendan Eich debacle.

[0] [http://arewefastyet.com/](http://arewefastyet.com/)

~~~
Karunamon
_Users remember Firefox as the browser that gives them control over their
experience_

Power users, or users? Among the crowd here, sure. But in the rest of the
world?

 _unlike Chrome which babysits and won 't let you interfere with Google's need
to harvest data._

Firefox has been getting more and more nannyish and chromelike with every
release.

* There's the "let's throw out semantic versioning since Chrome already did it"

* There's the UI rework which sacrificed information density and usability for what I evaluate as a weak attempt to look more like Chrome.

* There's the "thou shalt not install plugins from places other than we say is okay" rule that was recently implemented - which Chrome did first.

* There's the upcoming "all your plugins are going to break, many permanently" when XUL gets thrown out and the new hotness won't have feature parity at release (in other words, Firefox plugins will be as limited as Chrome plugins)

~~~
jcranmer
> There's the "let's throw out semantic versioning since Chrome already did
> it"

Firefox never followed semantic versioning. Versions 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 3.6, and
4.0 all had equally major changes to them. It's worse if you look at the
internal version numbers: 1.8, 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2, 4.0. The change to the
rapid-release model was driven more by the pain of the protracted Firefox 4
release than by trying to ape Chrome.

> There's the UI rework which sacrificed information density and usability for
> what I evaluate as a weak attempt to look more like Chrome.

Actually, Firefox started developing the design before Chrome did. They just
took far, far, far longer.

~~~
JonathonW
As far as I can tell, the Australis work dates back roughly to 2012 (that's
when their wiki meeting notes start, and when the Australis tracking bug in
Bugzilla was opened).

You may be mixing Australis up with the theme work done for Firefox 4.0 (which
moved tabs to the top by default and added the orange Firefox menu button).
The early work on that would've been contemporaneous with the earliest public
versions of Chrome (2/3/4)-- the design that would become Firefox 4 started
being shown off in public around the fall of 2009.

------
creshal
> We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones after the version 2.6
> release.

Meanwhile, most FxOS phones (all three of them, I guess) are still stuck on
1.3 because Mozilla's update policy for it has always been even more broken
than Google's.

I won't miss it. My Fire E has been a paperweight for the past year because it
was just useless – the base OS was never on par with even Android 2, and the
fragmentation killed the app market before it even existed.

If Mozilla handles FxOS for IoT like it did on smartphones (or like it handles
Thunderbird), it won't survive another year.

~~~
i80and
FWIW, Firefox OS 2.0 is actually pretty dang good. Update policy is still
busted of course.

~~~
creshal
I wouldn't know, my phone was supposed to get it 15 months ago and still
hasn't.

~~~
hardwaresofton
You could... update it yourself?

I totally get that it's in a pretty shitty state if it can't update itself in
15 months, but for those of us that are technically able, it seems like an
easy fix?

~~~
creshal
I could.

I could also just do the same with my beefier Android phone instead.

~~~
hardwaresofton
So what I did was bought a beefier android phone (not that beefy, just a Nexus
5), and flashed FirefoxOS on it :)

The default phones that FFOS comes with are pretty weak (except for the flame
which wasn't that bad), but they have some pretty decent support for flashing
popular phones.

I don't blame you if you don't do that, obviously -- android is definitely
easier to use and update, and better supported than FirefoxOS. It's obviously
completely OK to dislike FirefoxOS because of this, and choose to go with the
more stable/simple option. Free up those brain cycles for something else.

~~~
atomicUpdate
> So what I did was bought a beefier android phone (not that beefy, just a
> Nexus 5), and flashed FirefoxOS on it :)

Isn't going from Android to FFOS taking a few steps backwards?

~~~
hardwaresofton
No snark intended: In what way?

That's the obvious assumption (as in lots of friends have said that to me
IRL), but I don't think it's completely true that I've taken a step backwards.
Generally a modern smartphone has to do a few things "well":

\- Make calls

\- Text/message

\- Enable ecosystems of useful functionality through apps

The only ways I can see FFOS as a step backwards is because of the lack of
availability of some apps -- some apps only support native clients for
android/ios. However, a lot of the more interesting/important apps do also
support web users (i.e. instagram, facebook).

As far as actual phone performance goes, a lot of android variants are so
bogged down with vendor garbage, increasingly heavy android versions that FFOS
doesn't actually lag too far behind. It is certainly not always as snappy as
android, but I consider it good enough.

I can definitely concede that I took a step backwards in app availability, but
I took a step forward in privacy, and the ability to debug/verify my mobile
OS, and that's worth it for me -- I also managed to NOT drop all the actual
important phone stuff (making calls/texting), which is nice.

Is driving a manual car a step backwards from an automatic one? Yes, but it's
not so cut and dry as to "never step back into managing your transmission
yourself, always let a computer do it". For some people, the tradeoff is worth
it/compelling.

------
callahad
The headline omits the important "for smartphones" clause:

> _We will end development on Firefox OS for smartphones_

Other uses of the Firefox OS platform (at least the Gecko and Gonk layers) are
still being developed, including for television:

> _We will continue to assess the stack to determine fit with new projects
> coming through the innovation process [...] As of today, we have 3 projects
> that have passed the first gate including SmartTV, and about a dozen more
> projects are prepping for review._

------
kmfrk
Some people seem gleeful about this, but Firefox OS is actually an excellent
Smart TV OS, especially at a time where a lot of manufacturers feel
comfortable inserting ads into people's TVs without their consent.

It's obviously ridiculous that this is something we need to deal with in the
first place, but I'm definitely happy that I got one of the few TVs without a
scummy OS.

The smartphone OS was always a vague idea that never materialized into
anything. Part of that was probably a result of the frustration that we never
really got that Nokia OS for lower-end devices. Instead we're left with
Android.

I plan on making the TV OS a big parameter for the TVs I buy in the future.
(Which feels about just as dumb as doing the same with future microwave ovens,
but this is the world we live in.)

Fortunately I won't be buying a new TV within the next three years. I've
genuinely been wondering whether I need to set up an intermediary Raspberry Pi
ad-blocker to safeguard my Internet of nonsense at home.

~~~
pjmlp
I just buy plain old dumb TVs, no need to worry about anything.

As for FirefoxOS I never understood the point of it.

OpenMoko tried to be an open smartphone platform and failed.

Nokia did it for Symbian OS with web widgets and it failed.

Palm did it with WebOS, with the plus side of allowing C++ bindings for games,
and it failed.

Android and iOS allow for web widgets and cordova like apps and there usually
have bad feedback from users vs native apps.

Windows Phone allows for first class development with web based tech and few
bother to use it, rather CoreCLR and WinRT.

OEM and network providers always have the final word, they learned not to let
others follow Apple's footsteps.

That was a very far hard attempt from the begging.

I rather see Mozilla spending their efforts in Firefox, Thunderbird and Rust.

~~~
blux
> I just buy plain old dumb TVs, no need to worry about anything.

This is a bit short sighted. In the near future, we will only have 'smart' TVs
to chose from.

~~~
scrollaway
There's also the choice not to buy a TV. A large high quality monitor hooked
up with a chromecast is far better, imo.

~~~
izacus
And where do you get those in sizes of 50"\+ with proper remotes, color
reproduction (HDMI color range!) and other functionality expected from a TV?

~~~
pjmlp
A trip down to any consumer store here in Germany?

~~~
freehunter
They have 50 inch computer monitors for $450 with built in TV tuners and
speakers at any store in Germany?

Oh wait, if it has a built in TV tuner and speakers, it's just called a
television. And we have those at Wal Mart in the US.

~~~
pjmlp
That was my point. A modern dumb flat TV is no different than a monitor.

~~~
freehunter
But the original point was that dumb TVs are getting more and more rare.

------
hardwaresofton
tl/dr: ffos is not dead, it's open source, and it's already a product, not a
PoC.

I probably read like a broken record at this point:

Despite Mozilla dropping development on it, FirefoxOS is still not "dead".
Open source things only die when no one has interest in them any more. AFAIK
FirefoxOS is still the most open mobile operating system. If some other
company decides to take up where mozilla left off, fork FirefoxOS, and do
stuff with it, they can make a run at it (this is extremely unlikely).

The platform itself is pretty amazing already - It does all the actual "phone"
stuff just great -- making calls, texting (minus a snafu with SMS group
messaging on the version I'm on). The apps are web apps. The phone is almost
literally one huge browser. There isn't that much more to add! Yeah it'd be
nice if it had more "native" app support, but honestly, any site with a mobile
website (or responsive design) has "native" app support. If you've used
version 2.x, you're probably pretty satisfied with what your phone does now
anyway. I know I am.

FirefoxOS will still be useful as long as people keep making apps for it (and
again, apps are basically webpages, so even if it's not distributed on the
marketplace, people can still webpages to homescreen), and it will be useful
as long as people want to use it. It is already viable open source mobile OS.
I am grateful to mozilla for taking the time to make it.

I'm excited to see what they do in connected devices, because despite the
moves mozilla has made recently (hello, pocket, addon signing requirement), I
still would much rather have them build software that was running on my
toaster than anyone else.

[EDIT] - Also, check out the comments on the site. They're great.

~~~
snom380
So, are there anyone that are working on developing FFOS further? If not, it's
dead for all practical purposes. Just like WebOS is dead even though that was
open sourced as well.

I'm not excited at all to see what they do with connected devices, because I
expect them (and their partners) to have a go at it for a couple of years and
then shut it down when the next shiny new market opportunity appears.

I have no idea why Firefox would have an advantage in this space over
Google/Android. I'd also trust them more, but I just don't see it.

~~~
hardwaresofton
Correct me if I'm wrong, but WebOS was open sourced after it started failing,
and it was only parts of webos that were first "open sourced". I think the
contexts are different, from day one b2g has been open source, and has had a
contingent of supporters.

Plus, WebOS never actually got as far as FirefoxOS did on physical devices --
FFOS is powering phones for people all across the world right now. From what I
remember WebOS got mostly relegated ot tablets.

I understand and share some of your frustration with their seemingly
indecisiveness and willingess to drop certain projects to chase other ones.
But can you blame them? They're trying to stay profitable.

So I think they'd have a little bit of an advantage becuase they've
essentially ported the web model to run on embedded devices, and I think that
could make it easier for manufacturers to integrate. Instead of learning to
make some special kind of android app (+ ide support of course), manufacturers
only have to worry about making webpages, and using some
`window.mozFridge.changeTemperature` API, rather than something heavier.

My statement was more about trust than some implicit advantage in IoT (though
I think the case could be made that they do have some advantages).

~~~
richardboegli
WebOS had the AWESOME phone: Palm Pre

I really wanted this phone, but I was skeptical as to whether it could make a
big enough dent given Apple and Android.

The card system that Google now uses IIRC was because one of the designers
left WebOS and joined Google.

------
droopybuns
The timing of this is terrible.

I feel that there is real evidence of Google influencing the regulatory
landscape and we really need a viable alternative to google for people that
can't afford an iPhone.

Google's data collection on android devices is so far past the creepy line
(all under the dual use rationale of protecting users from bad things- cert
abuse in chrome or malware prevention in verify apps).

------
asadotzler
Boot to Gecko is an open source technology stack. Firefox OS is a product
built on that stack. B2G can live on if there's interest from enough hackers
and testers.

A decade ago, Mozilla abandoned the Mozilla Application Suite in favor of
Firefox, both built on the Gecko technology stack. Because a product ends
doesn't mean the open source technology ends too.

(BTW, volunteers picked up the Mozilla Application Suite, renamed it to
Seamonkey, and it still runs today.)

------
Kurtz79
Related:

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/02/the-fight-for-a-
third...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/02/the-fight-for-a-third-best-
smartphone-os-has-been-lost-by-everyone/)

------
pette
Firefox OS was dead the moment Mozilla decided that the first-generation
developer phones will never get 2.x (or in most cases even 1.3).

Alienating the first wave of developers... Way to go, Mozilla.

------
listic
What are 'Sony Z3C foxfooding devices'? Sony Z3 Compact smartphones? [1] They
are my favorite smartphones of relatively current crop (powerful, compact,
great battery life - as compact and great as it gets nowadays, anyway) but I
haven't heard of them being used for Firefox OS.

[1]
[http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_z3_compact-6538.php](http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_xperia_z3_compact-6538.php)

~~~
jvehent
They were distributed to several hundreds mozillians last year. I used one for
a while. Excellent device, very responsive with FxOS on it. If it had enough
apps, it could have been competitive...

------
janvdberg
It's kind of striking that last Saturday Mozilla held this talk @FOSDEM:
[https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/osd_firefox_os_why_we...](https://fosdem.org/2016/schedule/event/osd_firefox_os_why_we_exist/)

~~~
briandh
Not quite, looking at the slides.

It finishes up with two slides of "tough lessons" basically explaining why it
failed as a phone OS, and then "what's next?" containing connected device
plans. So it's pretty well in line with the announcement.

------
Brakenshire
I wonder whether they'll consider bringing it back to smartphones, if/when
Servo starts to make inroads into the Firefox for Android codebase. FirefoxOS
seemed way too late for any early mover advantage, and too early to present
web apps as a credible replacement for native apps (they can replace
relatively simple apps but not much further at the moment).

In some ways, it would have been better if Mozilla had just kept it chugging
along as a proof of concept, which you could install voluntarily on rooted
phones, and use it as a basis for developing the API's, and the parallel
layout engine, which along with a few years of development in client-side
javascript should improve the reach of web apps. It was in some ways too late,
and in some ways too early for the grand launch.

------
hamxiaoz
1\. Pure web tech on phone OS is simply not a choice, Facebook did it and
failed too. 2\. It's better to use new tech (pure web) in new market such as
IoT. If using in existing market (iOS and Android), customers will ask: is the
user experience better than the existing ones? And that's why they decide to
end the development: "However, we weren't able to offer the best user
experience possible and so we will stop offering Firefox OS smartphones..."

------
keshab
This is a good news and kudos to them for trying to increase our options. FF
OS might have taken off had it been a little bit earlier. It took a lot of
time for Android to get to where it is right now. Even for Google, it took
them a lot to get it right. It was a good project but lets face it, there was
no way it would have been more than just an experiment. Firefox OS never had a
chance to begin with. I hope they've learned their lesson. Now they can focus
on their real projects.

------
cpprototypes
Mozilla/Firefox has a serious issue marketshare issue and it's not clear if
they're aware. I'm beginning to see pages that break on Firefox or have
warnings that Safari, Chrome, IE must be used. If Firefox doesn't find a way
to gain or at least maintain marketshare, they risk becoming irrelevant. Since
Firefox is their main revenue, this should be considered a company survival
situation. But they're not acting like it.

------
hackuser
This worries me, and not because I'm a user of FirefoxOS.

Much of Mozilla's value is its influence; its ability to push for open
standards that prioritize end user's needs. Before mobile, when ~20% of the
world uses Firefox to access your service, you couldn't ignore them. But
without a meaningful presence on any mobile platform, how much influence does
Mozilla have?

IoT is another huge space and I hope they have success building influence
there.

------
jchendy
The article always qualifies it as Firefox OS _for smartphones_. Is there a
non-smartphone version that they're keeping?

~~~
detaro
Yes, that's what the "connected devices"/IoT story is about. AFAIK there is
right now a push in direction of Smart TVs (at least they asked people that
made apps for phones if they don't want to make TV apps)

~~~
dorfsmay
Interesting how they make a distinction, I find that used android phones
loaded with Cyanogenmod are great IoT devices, dirt cheap, equipped with GPS,
camera, screens, etc...

------
vocatus_gate
Everyone could see that coming from the day it launched I think. I had zero
confidence it would survive long-term. A misguided and frankly confusing
product, launched in direct competition with strong, strong competitors in the
form of iOS and Android. Didn't stand a chance.

------
hirokiky
I have a FxOS device, flame. But actually it was not so useful. and utilities
on OS (meaning Gaia) were little bit cheap.

FirefoxOS is interesting I think. Browser is enough feature for OS in these
days. but... it was not so enough in real life.

------
3ris3d
i had the opportunity to work on the FF OS and it was very similar to building
a chrome extension or phone-gap solution. This was back in 2013 and the
interface, support was very sub par. I worked directly with FF on the
deployment of our app! The devices / OS version mix played a big role in
tuning, retuning nad detuning the app. I wondered how long would it take for
FFto kill off the initiative! 2.5 years!!

------
shmerl
Instead of FirefoxOS, I'd rather see Mozilla pushing Web applications on
Sailfish and Plasma Mobile.

------
yorik
Wow, who could have ever imagined that a fake operating system that in reality
was a mobile browser supporting "applications" written in html, css and
javascript was going to miserably fail?

------
jslakro
It's sad

------
fulafel
The title is beyond editorializing into the factually incorrect territory, as
they are not saying they're killing Firefox OS?

The pivot from phones to "connected devices" was already announced before[1]
and this is just fleshing out that.

The language sounds a lot more like corporate-speak than what Mozilla's
external communications usually are, I wonder if this is standard fare or if
this team is coming from different cultures.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10716167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10716167)

~~~
hardwaresofton
Completely agree, please someone change the title.

Something like "Mozilla stops FirefoxOS development to focus on IoT"

------
Flimm
Can the mods edit the title? Mozilla officially stopped their development
efforts of Firefox OS on smartphones, not the brand in general.

~~~
toggle
The title is accurate. People think of Firefox OS as a smartphone operating
system; Mozilla is killing that off. They may be reusing the name on something
else, but Firefox OS, (as we know it right now,) is being discontinued.

~~~
briandh
The title is not accurate. Regardless of whether "people" (excluding me, it
seems) think of Firefox OS as a phone OS, Mozilla has been using the name in
TV usage for two years [1].

[1] [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/01/06/mozilla-and-
partner...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/01/06/mozilla-and-partners-to-
bring-firefox-os-to-new-platforms-and-devices/)

------
timsayshey
Is anyone keeping track? In the last 7 days Parse was shut down, then a couple
days ago Dropbox alternative Copy was shut down and now Firefox OS. Anyone
else curious about what's next?

------
rms_returns
I really hope they put some of the relieved workforce in the Thunderbird
project. At the very least, this issue I've raised on their bugzilla since
more than ten days ago can find some resolution!

[https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1242257](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1242257)

------
BuckRogers
I've always loved Mozilla products, having been a non-stop Firefox user since
beta (if anyone reads this at Mozilla, never ever kill the toolbar RSS feed
support!). Netscape prior, of course. I was hopeful for FirefoxOS and kept
waiting for it to land in the US.

I've always felt that Mozilla should rebrand Firefox as simply 'Mozilla'. The
Mozilla browser. Using their dinosaur logo as the mascot. It just sounds
hipper, more catchy, marketing matters. Normals seem to consistently mangle
Firefox as 'Foxfire' among other oddities. I think this would help progress
the Mozilla foundation/corporation's efforts.

For interesting mobile initiatives, we still have Ubuntu Touch to keep an eye
on. Their phone->PC docking idea is pretty good and makes a lot of sense.

~~~
ForHackernews
> I've always felt that Mozilla should rebrand Firefox as simply 'Mozilla'.

You're about ten years too late: [http://www-
archive.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/](http://www-
archive.mozilla.org/products/mozilla1.x/)

~~~
BuckRogers
That was Mozilla Navigator, as opposed to Mozilla Firefox. Mozilla Suite was
the package.

