

Firefox OS ecosystem redefines the entry-level smartphone - jaipradeesh
https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/06/firefox-os-ecosystem-continues-expansion-and-redefines-the-entry-level-smartphone/

======
pjmlp
"Firefox OS is the first device platform built entirely to open Web standards,
with every feature developed as an HTML5 application."

Palm WebOS has that title.

~~~
orkoden
And Firefox OS has the same problems: bad performance and memory management,
no apps, slow hardware.

~~~
viraptor
I'm not sure how you can blame OS for "no apps" (business decisions), "slow
hardware" (hardware manufacturer's decision, also did you notice "entry-level
smartphone" in the title?). If you add "bad performance" in that context,
wouldn't it be better to first check it on "fast hardware"?

Basically the only problem from this list that depends on the OS is "bad
memory management". Do you mind expanding on exactly what is bad about it?

~~~
endemic
For optimum performance (especially games), you have to understand Javascript
garbage collection pretty well; basically create all your objects up front in
some sort of cache, to avoid stutter during GC. It's not impossible, but an
annoyance that you only really have to worry about on mobile platforms (due to
more limited resources).

~~~
viraptor
Sure, you have to understand your platform, especially when you use GC-enabled
languages. But a) asmjs is only going to improve the situation b) there's a
list of people proving it's not only possible, but also not that bad in
practice
[https://unity3d.com/showcase/gallery/?platform=324&genre=&ga...](https://unity3d.com/showcase/gallery/?platform=324&genre=&gametype=t-all)

------
0x006A
You get an entry-level Android 4 phone for less than $50 today
([http://www.flipkart.com/karbonn-a50s/p/itmduwgkgyqjjgf8](http://www.flipkart.com/karbonn-a50s/p/itmduwgkgyqjjgf8))

Is Firefox OS really redefining the entry-level smartphone?

~~~
endemic
Yeah, I think they're a few years late to the party on this one. Nokia's low-
end are also pretty inexpensive ([http://www.walmart.com/ip/AT-T-GoPhone-
Nokia-Lumia-520-Pre-p...](http://www.walmart.com/ip/AT-T-GoPhone-Nokia-
Lumia-520-Pre-paid-Phone/27449094)).

------
akumen
I've tried Firefox OS and it feels on par with early versions of Android in
terms of UI/UX i.e. it is bad, very bad. Plus poor performance, lack of any
app ecosystem and operators are sticking it on sub par hardware. At the end of
the day, poor user experience. All said and done, Firefox OS is just something
developed markets don't want and emerging markets don't need.

~~~
CmonDev
Also Firefox OS is not backed by a multi-billion corporation. And developers
don't get a real choice of language. So it's going to be worse for a long
time. Plus all the usual problems of being the last to the market.

~~~
Pacabel
Firefox OS is yet another example of Mozilla apparently thinking that
ideological purity alone will somehow entice users into adopting an otherwise
average-to-bad software offering.

That isn't how reality works, though, obviously. Out of necessity, most users
must place software usability and capability above ideology. Software like
Firefox OS and Persona will never see serious adoption when they can't compete
with long-established and more functional offerings at the most basic levels,
even if these competitors may not be as "open".

It's an approach that doesn't work for Mozilla's offerings that are already
well-established, either. Firefox has been hemorrhaging users ever since its
developers stopped focusing on truly improving the user experience, and
instead focused solely on copying the worst aspects of Chrome (the UI, for
example), while neglecting to address the performance and resource usage
problems that have long plagued Firefox.

Users need software that works. If that means using software that's "less
open" or "closed", they'll do it without a second thought. Mozilla just
happens to often be on the losing side of this reality these days. While
"openness" can be beneficial, it needs to be in conjunction with software
that's at least comparably good to its "closed" competitors. Firefox OS,
Persona and Firefox are good examples of where this isn't the case, and how
they're either seeing limited to no adoption, or how they're losing existing
users.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Mozilla are still working on Firefox performance and are not just "copying
Chrome"; I prefer FF's look to Chrome's.

Also, Mozilla are playing a smart game with FF OS. They are not selling to the
high-end or even mid-end markets. They are selling it as a modern OS with much
lower requirements than Android for low-end budget phones. This is a niche
nobody else targets any more. It forces them to improve performance and memory
usage, too.

~~~
thejdude
I totally agree. IMHO: Firefox's new look is better than Chrome, and its feel
has always been better. I try out Chrome every year or so, but it seems like
Mozilla pays more attention to detail in their GUI design than Google.

On Android, it's also my browser of choice - fast and smooth, and it gives me
the option to block third-party cookies (been surfing the web w/o them for 15
years - but no, mobile Chrome cannot allow that; we need more adver-
tracking!).

While I'm a very big fan of native, optimized code (that is: C), I think FF OS
has an advantage concerning memory use, because the browser and the rest of
the OS share the runtime, unlike an Android phone. It also makes it easier for
low-budget developers to write apps, because they don't need (a machine that
can handle) an SDK, just a browser.

