

Mozilla Wants Hundreds Of Thousands Of Firefox OS Developers - maudlinmau5
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/mozilla-firefox-os-developer-86176

======
KaoruAoiShiho
I want mozilla to charge a reasonable price for app developers. Basically, not
30%, but 10%. I want them to be self sustaining and successful, but also apply
pricing pressure on the other markets who are just charging waaayyyy too much.
I can't believe even MS is getting into the game, making an app used to be
free...

~~~
graue
I was confused by this statement, which I think you're referring to:

"Firefox add-ons are free and those for Firefox OS will certainly be free
also."

I'm not sure if that means there will be no paid apps for Firefox OS, or that
Mozilla won't take a cut on paid apps, or just that Mozilla won't charge
developers a fee to list an app.

I hope it's the last option. They should allow paid apps and take a small cut,
as you said, so they have a funding source other than Google, increasingly
their competitor.

But they have time to figure out the funding aspect. I just looked up the
story about the latest Google/Mozilla deal in December (I'd forgotten the
details), and it turns out it's almost $900 million over three years:
[https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-
almo...](https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-
almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/)

~~~
zabraxias
There will be paid apps and there will be free apps. Submitting an app will
not cost anything and can currently be done at
<https://marketplace.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/>

------
Samuel_Michon
_“In terms of architecture, it is an operating system based on Linux, just as
Android is. But we rely on Gecko, the Firefox web browser layout engine, to
run applications written entirely in HTML5. We dropped XUL (the XML User
Interface Language) in favour of HTML5, a language known to all web
developers.”_

It’s like WebOS all over again, but without its good looks.

~~~
graue
I believe WebOS has its own development stack, whereas Firefox OS is pure
HTML5 with some extension APIs: <https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI>

Furthermore, quoting the above link: "Once we have an API that we feel that we
are satisfied with, we will submit the new API for standardization to the W3C.
The goal is to standardize all APIs."

As for looks, these screenshots look pretty slick to me:
<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/b2g/>

~~~
Samuel_Michon
My point was that HTML5 apps have proven not to be a suitable replacement for
native apps. Not just for games and multimedia (can you imagine Infinity Blade
or iMovie in HTML5?), but even simple tableview web apps are not as smooth as
native apps.

 _“these screenshots look pretty slick to me”_

You're entitled to your opinion, but it looks incoherent and garish to me.
Like something you can buy from 99designs. Not even in the same league as
WebOS.

~~~
untog
The reason HTML5 apps have proven not to be a full replacement for native apps
is that no-one has actually tried it (on the OS side). Apple (weirdly) have
come the closest, but there's still a hell of a long way to go. From my
personal experience making webapps, the following is needed:

\- Some sort of app store like central place of discovery

\- Access to far more native APIs / intents. Control over elements like the
keyboard.

\- Fixed positioning (finally arrived in iOS5, not sure about Android)

\- The ability to actually play an audio file correctly

\- More control over video playing

That's just a short list but it goes on and on. There's absolutely no reason
why an HTML5-based app can't be as good as a native one. I think that Mozilla
are ideally placed to be the ones to try. I'm still amazed/disappointed that
Google haven't.

~~~
drivebyacct2
1\. Exists in Firefox OS

2\. Getting there in Firefox OS, already impressive.

3\. Not sure what you mean here... "fixed positioning" without context makes
me cringe. (edit: Oh... position: fixed has been available in Android browser
and Chrome for Android for... a long time. I'm sure it's in Gecko [that, and
the demo shows Twitter who uses position: fixed])

4\. Not sure what that means, but I'd like to think it's a priority.

5\. Popcorn.js, while I'm not a fan, is something Mozilla is pouring effort
into. MediaSource API coming out of Google looks to add an appendBytes (ala
Flash) style API to Javascript enabling adaptive streaming.

It's getting there. :)

~~~
untog
_Not sure what you mean here... "fixed positioning" without context makes me
cringe_

In the CSS sense. That is to say, the ability to have a toolbar that doesn't
disappear when you scroll.

------
clvv
I hope Firefox OS will get frequent updates just like desktop browsers. If
Mozilla manages to bring all the advantages of modern desktop browser
technologies on to a mobile platform, I vision they will gain their market
share.

~~~
petitmiam
but everyone hates firefox updates:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/07/10/...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2012/07/10/firefox-
developer-everybody-hates-firefox-updates/) ;)

I agree though, anything to push desktop browser technologies to a mobile
platform faster is a great thing.

------
isani
"75 percent of applications are already designed in HTML5, with an overlay to
fit smartphones from Apple or Google."

I'd really like a source for this. He seems to be saying that 75% of apps on
the App Store and Google Play are HTML with a thin wrapper – the PhoneGap
model. This doesn't match the top apps on either store, they're overwhelmingly
native code.

Is there some kind of a long tail of HTML5 apps out there? Does Mozilla count
every app that uses some kind of a web view? Or did they just make the number
up?

~~~
bad_user
They probably mean that many applications also have an HTML5 version that's
optimized for mobile phones.

------
mrschwabe
It will be nice when this is available; to think we might actually be able to
use a mobile device that doesn't try to siphon all our personal data through
Google or Apple.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
Apple wants your credit card on file for you to do impulse shopping. Apple
would also like you to buy a new device every few years. It has little
interest in your personal data, but it will hold on to it if you want a
backup.

Google has a different business model, in which “getting to know the users” is
essential.

I can't imagine Firefox OS won't have a cloud component. Already Firefox has a
syncing service.

In the end, every consumer has to choose for themselves who to trust with
their information. Mozilla's future business model isn't clear to me, right
now it is way too dependent on Google. Just as I don't trust Google with my
information, right now I don't trust Mozilla with it.

~~~
graue
With their (partly) nonprofit status and history of open development, Mozilla
is maybe the only player in tech that I _would_ trust with my information.
That's why I find Firefox OS really exciting.

They have an interesting setup with a for-profit corporation (Mozilla Corp.),
which is wholly owned by a nonprofit Mozilla Foundation. So as I understand
it, they can make money, but are obligated to stick to the foundation's stated
goals. Something like that... it sounds like a clever legal hack.

Pretty much all their development happens in the open, and you can read the
details of everything they're working on on the wiki.
<https://wiki.mozilla.org/> And they designed Firefox Sync with end-to-end
encryption, so they couldn't possibly read your bookmarks.
<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/sync/> You can't go farther to protect
privacy than that.

As for the Google connection, apparently Microsoft (Bing) and Yahoo were
competing for the contract to be the default search engine in Firefox, which
is why Google ended up paying so much more recently (December 2011) than last
time: [https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-
almo...](https://allthingsd.com/20111222/google-will-pay-mozilla-
almost-300m-per-year-in-search-deal-besting-microsoft-and-yahoo/)

I bet this is a big reason why Google is fighting so hard to get people over
to Chrome. If they erode Firefox's market share enough, that price will go
down. But so far, it doesn't look like Mozilla has made any concessions to
Google. Rather the reverse.

------
dave1010uk
If Firefox (browser) is fully Open Source and doesn't require any patent fees
(eg for H.264), will Firefox OS be the same? Will all hardware drivers be Open
Source? Will Firefox OS never be able to play H.264 video? Or are Mozilla
getting around this somehow?

~~~
mtgx
At the very least I hope they require some sort of cross-compatibility from
manufacturers, which Google never did, and just let manufacturers do whatever
they wanted with it. Also no one should be able to modify it but Mozilla. I'm
a big fan of Android, but I feel Google could've taken a different direction
early on, and it would've still worked out for them, considering there was no
real alternative to the iPhone in the first 3 years.

~~~
bad_user
That's not how the market works. Every large phone manufacturer already had
big investments in would-be iOS competitors, such as Symbian or Bada or
Maemo/MeeGo or WinMo. These companies are also big enough to not see the
impeding danger of their conservative investments until it is too late.

The iPhone wasn't considered a real threat (remember how Ballmer laughed at
the iPhone?). If the requirements for Android would have been restrictive
enough for manufacturers to realize that Android is a great deal, I don't
think it would have caught on so well and Microsoft could have eaten their
launch, since they are better at selling operating systems.

------
jroseattle
I'm supportive of the effort here, but frankly expect this to go nowhere for a
few reasons.

\- O/S alternatives such as WebOS and Android already exist, so the premise
isn't really new.

\- Without hardware distribution, the experience is going to suck. Unless
there are carriers and device makers signed up, this is a non-starter.

\- Mindshare from market share: ios/android/win currently represent the
aggregate market in terms of apps. And that's where the app developers are.

\- As a consumer, what makes me want a phone with this OS on it?

As for the sales pitch, the combo of better-technical-solution + open-source-
appeal doesn't really resonate with me as a difference maker.

------
rat87
Firefox OS = Chrome OS for phones

ie a way to encourage webapps rather then attempt to capture os marketshare.

------
Apocryphon
What about the existence of other open source OS, such as Tizen, webOS, etc.

~~~
otoburb
None of the other major mobile operating systems (open or closed) have the
same cachet as Mozilla. In particular, Mozilla has gone to great lengths to
zealously cultivate a consistent image of web-centric ideals above pretty much
all else. Other mobile operating systems are tainted by corporate interests,
even if only in [mis]perception alone when compared against Mozilla.

Mozilla has been trying to reinvent itself and adapt to the mobile onslaught.
Increasingly, mobile is being seen as the gateway to billions of people coming
online. Mozilla's mission is to "promote openness, innovation and opportunity
on the web", and they have seen that desktops are being outsold by mobile
units[1] and transitioned accordingly.

FirefoxOS is the foundation's big bet on mobile. Beyond just Mozilla's unique
position(ing) in the mobile marketplace, IMO the biggest difference between
FirefoxOS and other open source mobile operating systems is that they are
betting most of the farm on this. Although the article references that
"Firefox OS is a strategic project for Mozilla", I believe that Mozilla's
long-term success and relevance will hinge on the success of their Firephones.

Frankly, I'm really happy and amazed that they've been able to get the number
of carriers publicly announcing support in this manner that they did for
distribution.

Carriers (not necessarily all of the ones listed) don't like how their brands
are being potentially diluted and damaged by end-user Android upgrade hell. I
don't know what upgrade vision Mozilla sold carriers on, but I sure hope
they've got a more solid plan than "we'll copy Android!".

More than likely they said something along the likes of "similar to our near-
automated desktop browser update process, less controlling than Apple but not
as chaotic as Android." Too bad the carrier meeting minutes and agreements are
not listed in the public wiki.

Carriers hate churn -- it's really expensive when they lose a customer.
Contract penalties help mitigate economic losses somewhat, but brand loyalty
and relevance are getting harder and harder for most operators to retain.
Ironically, it's the same desperation to remain relevant that drives the
Mozilla Foundation.

Without relevance, mind-share and brand/mission loyalty, it's hard to effect
great change amongst billions of people. Money follows when you get the first
three factors right.

[1] [http://communities-
dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/massive...](http://communities-
dominate.blogs.com/brands/2012/06/massive-milestones-in-mobile-will-these-
numbers-change-your-mobile-strategy.html)

EDIT: 'Desperation to remain relevant' could be misconstrued as Mozilla being
coerced into this particular course of action. I'm _not_ saying that Mozilla
is currently in dire straits, but mean that they are voluntarily and pre-
emptively putting considerable weight, energy and focus into the mobile arena
where they feel they can make a big difference and considerably grow their
mindshare footprint, which in turn leads to higher conversion rates for people
willing to embrace their mission ideals of web openness.

~~~
Apocryphon
Fair enough. It's interesting how Tizen fizzled out despite being the
combination of like three previous mobile OS's.

------
asparagui
also, they don't want to give them any google money.

good luck with that, bros.

~~~
CrazedGeek
In case you didn't read the article, Mozilla was talking about app developers,
not system developers.

