
Mozilla overhauls Firefox smartphone plan to focus on quality, not cost - derf_
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/mozilla-overhauls-firefox-smartphone-plan-to-focus-on-quality-not-cost/
======
veeti
Trying to shoehorn a performance hungry HTML5 OS on low-end phones was a
complete waste of time. Just read this review of the $35 Firefox phone [1]:
it's completely unusable to the point that even typing is difficult. What an
embarrassment.

I bought the mid-spec Flame developer device out of curiosity, and it's not
much better. Everything feels slow, sluggish and unresponsive. Even Android
2.x was better.

My quad-core i7 desktop still occasionally struggles to render the latest and
greatest HTML5 stuff at 60 fps. How on earth do they expect a phone to do the
same?

[1]
[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/10/testing-a-35-firefox-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/10/testing-a-35-firefox-
os-phone-how-bad-could-it-be/)

~~~
soapdog
Android 2.x was not better than Firefox OS 2.x IMHO. I have them all here and
I really enjoy the Flame running 2.x, it was my primary smartphone until
February.

One don't need HTML5 at 60fps. One need HTML5 apps that work. Movies are not
60fps. The only place where you need 60fps is games and that type of game is
not the objective of the devices you've seen running Firefox OS.

What is needed is quality HTML5 apps. The old Pre2 and Pre3 webOS devices had
some pretty amazing HTML5 apps. The usability was great even if the phone
slowed sometimes. UX is better than FPS. Usability trumps benchmarks.

The problem is when you code for the high-end place of the spectrum with
evergreen browsers and stuff and try to shoehorn that into a phone. thats when
misery happens.

Instead of reading a review from written by someone used to high-end devices
and ubiquitous networking. Look for those people in India and South America
who are buying Firefox OS devices as their first smartphone because they
couldn't afford a higher-end device. Look for their feedback. Many are
accessing the web on a personal device for the first time. Its a life
transforming opportunity once the doors to the vast knowledge repository of
the web is open. I can go on for hours on where Firefox OS shines but I will
not bore you. Just don't try to compare it against Android and iOS devices,
that was never the objective.

~~~
veeti
> One don't need HTML5 at 60fps. The only place where you need 60fps is games
> and that type of game is not the objective of the devices you've seen
> running Firefox OS.

Smooth response is absolutely essential for touch usability. Without it, you
can not have any sort of precision on an already imprecise input method. To
achieve this, you really do need to near 60 frames per second.

When the simplest list (let alone a complex web page) constantly trails behind
your finger and has to catch up with rendering, it becomes very difficult to
find what you're looking for. It's crucial that what happens on screen is
connected to what you're doing, or you have to constantly try and consciously
correct for the software that just can't keep up.

A budget phone doesn't need to match the latest and greatest iPhone 6 in
smoothness, but there is a baseline performance that has to be met for
usability.

> Many are accessing the web on a personal device for the first time... just
> don't try to compare it against Android and iOS devices, that was never the
> objective.

If you actually read the review I linked, it turns out the $35 phone is
practically worthless for any web browsing or just about anything. And once
you go past that price point, FxOS has competition. Android One and low-end
OEM's like Micromax already provide devices that are years ahead in
performance, usability and functionality.

~~~
nashashmi
> Smooth response is absolutely essential for touch usability. Without it, you
> can not have any sort of precision on an already imprecise input method. To
> achieve this, you really do need to near 60 frames per second.

I would love to see mobile devices that are not touch based. Touch requires a
very high premium on performance. Buttons would have worked wonders. For a
FirefoxOS phone where it is Gen 1, the start should have been a button phone
and every developer would be required to create an interface that would work
well with buttons.

~~~
rpcope1
Yes, I personally would love to get back to having real tactile buttons. It
feels sort of crazy that your only choice any more is a touch screen--I think
there might be a market in higher end devices without a touch screen too.

------
apayan
This is a welcome change from Mozilla, but I think they should take it a step
further and ditch Firefox OS completely. The original reason d'etre of Firefox
OS was that it would run on lower spec'ed and cheaper hardware than Android
could, but that's not an efficient use of their limited resources for a couple
reasons: 1) Mozilla could contribute to Android to improve it's performance on
cheaper hardware. 2) Moore's law is making powerful hardware more affordable
for the world's poorest people, faster than Mozilla can get Firefox OS and an
attractive app ecosystem off the ground.

Mozilla should instead focus on freeing Android from it's dependency on
Google. Everyday, apps become more and more dependent on Google Play services,
the proprietary set of libraries that Google controls on Android devices.
Developers need an open version of Google Play Services (Mozilla Mobile
Services?) and even a competitive app store (10% commission instead of 30%?).
The natural next step would be to create their own distribution of Android and
release it on quality hardware. Not only would they be furthering the cause of
free software and open computing, but they would have a revenue stream to
continue their mission.

~~~
derf_
You're confusing strategy with the objective that strategy was intended to
achieve. The real reason for Firefox OS was because

a) everything is moving to mobile, and

b) every mobile OS ships its own browser which is not Firefox.

We know from Netscape how hard it is to stay relevant against that kind of
pressure, and there isn't even a way to cry "Anti-trust!" because none of
these players are monopolies. They just all behave the same way.

~~~
apayan
If Mozilla creates their own distribution of Android and sells phones with it,
then they're extremely relevant in the mobile space. Take a look at the
principles of the Mozilla manifesto[1]. Nowhere does it say, 'we need to have
a relevant web browser'. It's a bigger mission about an open internet,
unrestrained communication, libre software and ultimately end-user
sovereignty. When Mozilla.org was created, the best way to achieve those goals
was by having an awesome libre browser. As you rightly point out, the world
has gone mobile, and the way for Mozilla to continue their mission is by
releasing a mobile OS built with their principals in mind. If this was 2007,
building Firefox OS may have been a viable strategy. But it's 2015, and the
quickest, and in my opinion the only, way to succeed is with a distribution of
Android with Mozilla services.

[1] [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/about/manifesto/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/)

~~~
marvy
You make a good point. One possible objection: does that actually allow them
to do what they are trying to do? Is Android flexible enough for them to bend
it to their will?

------
jackgavigan
I've always thought that Mozilla's strategy with Firefox OS was very
optimistic/ambitious. It was first conceived just as cheap Chinese Android
smartphones were beginning to make inroads into developing markets[1]. In such
markets, simply reducing the cost of the phone from $80 to $25 won't increase
smartphone penetration as much as you might think because the cost of the
phone itself comprises only a small part of the total cost of ownership - the
customer still has to pay for a mobile data plan.

That leaves the "open web" approach as the major differentiator between
Firefox OS and Android. Whilst I'm a fan of open standards, I doubt the
average consumer is going to care enough for Firefox OS to make inroads into
Android's dominance of the low-cost smartphone market (in fact, I'd question
whether they'll care at all).

At this point, if I were on the Mozilla Foundation board, I think I'd be
pushing for a cost-benefit assessment of continued investment into Firefox OS.

1: [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/424454/android-
marches-...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/424454/android-marches-on-
east-africa/)

~~~
jackgavigan
Coincidentally, less than 24 hours later, this story crops up, demonstrating
how different the mobile phone market is in developing markets:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9604049](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9604049)

------
throwaway12357
I can't help but feel some "couch coach" desperation with Mozilla's confusion
at where should they aim at.

Google has Android which is open source but "spyware" prone and suffers from
vendor incompetence/uninterest in updates -- in fact this will bite Google
sooner or latter. While Apple's iOS is privacy aware but closed source and
carries a huge price premium.

On the other hand Mozilla is known for open source and for caring for privacy.
Furthermore with Snowden's revelations, at least among the IT crowd, as well
as governments, there is interest for a secure system.

Give me a high-end phone [1] which focus on privacy.

Something that supports a stack like Xposed and Xprivacy out of the box.

Something whose baseband processor is decoupled from the other processors. And
if possible the source code for the sensors or at least the ICD, so that you
have an alternative to binary blobs.

Give me something that supports encryption and can get consistent no hassle
OTA updates.

And make it with a compatibility layer to Android's apps [2]

I'm all for open source, but Android just ends up being nothing but an
headache. A better solution would be welcome.

[1] just look at the OnePlus One for $350
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnePlus_One](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnePlus_One)
In fact Mozilla should have partnered with them.

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris_%28software%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybris_%28software%29)

~~~
TylerE
Does iOS really carry a price premium? My experience, similar to the old
Mac/PC debates, is the difference is actually minimal at most when you compare
with actually equivalent hardware.

~~~
wodenokoto
It only exist in the premium class, so in that sense, if you want iOS just for
the iOS, you are stuck buying premium hardware.

I do think iOS devices are generally a good deal (in the sense that they are
worth the money),but that doesn't mean they are not premium nor premium
priced. Quality costs money.

------
Zigurd
I have never understood the "we'll win at the lo-end" approach. Android was
designed for lo-spec devices. ART has moved android a little bit away from
that focus, and so has some bloat in Google's proprietary apps. But Android
can still be tuned for and run on very modest hardware. Competing against
Android on lo-spec hardware is not a winning plan.

For the class of IoT devices that are capable of running Linux, Google thinks
they can turn Android into a "headless" configuration that uses Android's
runtime and base classes, presumably minus the UI classes. Android is, in
fact, pretty darn efficient.

And on top of all that, Mozilla thought a Web runtime could be made as
efficient as a Java-ish runtime that has a very memory-efficient component
architecture? That's just strange.

------
realrocker
I really want Firefox OS to be a success. After working in AOSP firmware for
last 5 years and dealing with vendor walled gardens, I wish there was a truly
usable open source phone.

~~~
seba_dos1
Firefox OS isn't any better than Android when it comes to vendor walled
gardens. Mozilla doesn't enforce in any way any openness of the platform - it
just provides the open OS. It might be more complete experience than what AOSP
alone delivers, but it's still up to vendor to provide, or not, any freedom
when it comes to usage of the device.

Heck, your platform doesn't even need to be open to be able to market it with
Firefox OS brand! They have a set of rules you have to fulfill, but basic
stuff like unlocked bootloader isn't even part of them.

------
newscracker
This sounds like a good change. Hopefully it would bring in a really good
experience, not just a clone of the Android One series that compromises on
hardware because of price.

Quoting from the email, "This will be the phone that you want to use, and will
use every day." For this to be true, these are some of the key things for
Mozilla to focus on:

* The responsiveness of the UI.

* A good camera (at least 5MP).

* A decent amount of memory to hold multiple apps (in dormant mode) and reduce startup times of recently used apps.

Running Android apps may be a good interim strategy while apps targeted and
optimized for Firefox phones are developed. But this assumes that the phones
can run them well. Otherwise it would just backfire completely, leaving
Firefox phones as useless devices.

I can't wait for a well performing Firefox phone that's widely available (even
if that means costing a few hundred dollars or equivalent)! It'd be great if
Firefox can come to fourth place or (gasp) third place in the mobile OS wars.

~~~
pavlov
Third place is going to take a lot of work. Microsoft sold 8.6 million Lumia
phones last quarter.

The only way I see it happening would be if Mozilla gets some big partner in
e.g. China to push Firefox phones.

~~~
higherpurpose
And Microsoft is only able to sell as many thanks to Nokia's brand recognition
prior to buying them (Nokia was selling 95% of all of the Windows Phones
before Microsoft acquired the phone division - which just shows what a huge
impact Nokia's brand name had on Windows Phone, and without it WP would be at
<0.5% market share).

~~~
jfuhrman
The phones sold last quarter were not branded Nokia.

~~~
sirkneeland
New Lumia models introduced were branded Microsoft. Previous Lumia models
launched as Nokias (830 etc) remain Nokia branded.

------
azinman2
Sounds like they have no idea what to do now. Not having any apps is probably
the biggest disadvantage that can't easily be undone. Android compatibility
needs to be to the point where it's flawless for this to make any sense.
Personally I'd rather see iOS compatibility but that's very unlikely to
happen.

Different idea: why not work on something like PhoneGap that's powered by
Firefox? If you can create a super powerful framework/dev environment that
rivals native (and uses all the smarts and resources of Mozilla to address all
current flaws of these existing frameworks), then you could have devs building
in a more cross platform & "open" manner. From there you might actually have
enough apps compatible to run Firefox os, or better, have that not matter as
much because you're what's underneath every app.

I have a hard time seeing Mozilla make inroads at this point otherwise.

~~~
mackey
I don't think the flaws in phone gap and other tools are things that Mozilla
can fix, at least not without support from Google/Apple, who really have no
incentive to help.

------
contingencies
Mesh networking is the killer mobile app - FirefoxOS should focus on this, as
it fits with their ethos.

The developing world doesn't need telephones, they need secure and convenient
means to transfer data wirelessly and code that works with sporadic, slow,
shared connectivity. Frankly, they need crypto plus mesh networking.

Make it a platform for privacy-controlled social networking, high scores, app
updates ... it should differentiate far enough to win users.

Basically, make it the hacker's choice ... then, you'll get applications, too.

A cheap version without GSM or CDMA would be an option.

~~~
TOMDM
Mesh networking + crypto seems to be an incredibly disruptive technology that
I'm surprised hasn't seen wide market adoption. The technology obviously
exists and works, as it has been shown being used by protesters or in disaster
relief areas. Why has this not been proliferated world over, from developing
countries to cheap internet providers? (Not calling anyone lazy or stupid, I'm
legitimately curious as to what social, technical or legal roadblocks must be
holding this tech back)

~~~
grizzles
I ran a mesh networking startup about 2 years ago. A few details about it are
here: tricorder.org/eric/uplink.html. From my perspective, there are two main
barriers:

1) It's hard to explain to customers who are used to the current ISP internet
access paradigm. This barrier can be overcome.

2) Not only do you need to win customers, you need to win a critical mass of
customers within a focused geographic area. #2 is very, very hard imo.

~~~
contingencies
First up, good job writing up your idea in hindsight. I think it differs
slightly from mesh networking on mobiles with high latency transfer
expectations / custom apps fairly significantly. You were trying to provide
the internet as a service for free in real time, I think the killer app is
actually embracing store and forward again.

For problem #1, if it works at the consumer level then I think people don't
really care about _how_ it works.

For #2, I think the current model of 'use free wifi from coffee shops, hotels,
bars, restaurants' that seems globally dominant would work fine.

------
pekk
So Mozilla's clever idea to attack the low end of the market outside the US
has failed and now they want to pivot. The rub is that now they are competing
with Android and iPhone, which have years of head start and gigantic app
stores. They aren't pursuing compatibility with those existing app stores, so
that will be a disadvantage. And they don't have resources like there are
behind Windows Phone.

Even to take a niche, they need a remarkable positive differentiator. As the
quote in the article says, "In the mass market, that's basically impossible."
Rhetoric like "change the world" isn't it - the specifics matter. "Embrace the
web" isn't a differentiator when all Smartphones can browse websites. I
welcome you to find in that article anything but a few planned features which
might just keep Firefox OS alive without necessarily giving it a competitive
advantage.

After watching a few years, I'm not sure even Mozilla knows what the
differentiator will be to consumers, because what I always see from them in
this kind of press-release piece are vague phrases like "the open web". So for
years I have been a little confused about exactly what they are trying to do.
A possible clue is that whenever you drill down on projects to which these
catchphrases have been applied, what it really boils down to is more
Javascript. Please try an experiment: every time you see "the open web"
mentioned by Mozilla, see if the same sentence makes as much sense
substituting "Javascript."

For years this has bothered me because "the open web" does not literally mean
"Javascript," yet Mozilla and its fans consistently equivocate between the
two. What I realize now is that this isn't because Mozilla is confused about
the difference, it's because their core allegiance is to Brandan Eich's
brainchild and phrases like "open web" are just a chosen mode of evangelizing
Javascript. Maybe Mozilla doesn't know exactly what an all-Javascript world
will exactly bring to consumers, but they want it anyway because that is their
understanding of their mission.

The problem with this is that Javascript advocacy doesn't necessarily have a
lot of benefit to consumers or even to programmers other than diehard
Javascript fans. To be plain, basically nobody gives a rat's ass if their
phone uses more Javascript than Java. It doesn't make anything more open to
use Javascript rather than other technologies, openness is a matter of
licensing and maybe development process. In practice you still end up with a
lot of Javascript APIs specific to Firefox OS (and therefore a collection of
apps).

~~~
omouse
I don't know how you're missing it but apps on phones are like desktop
software vs the web. Mozilla wants to win that battle and make it possible to
use the open web on multiple devices. You won't be limited to a particular OS
and APIs, you can just use FireFox OS or the browser and you're good to go.
Using JavaScript is an alright decision especially when you have asm.js and
you have TypeScript and flow if you want static typing or type annotations.

The flaw in the plan is that no one has tried to get something like Google
Docs working on Firefox OS/Mobile and then tried to tune and optimize
performance until it worked properly.

If they focused on getting heavy websites to load in under a second come hell
or high water, they would have made the web browser king on the phone. Instead
we have Facebook cutting out the browser by caching the content of news sites.

~~~
anon1385
>You won't be limited to a particular OS and APIs

You will, of course, be limited to the APIs available in standard Javascript.
At the moment that means missing a lot of things that people might want to be
able to do (or need to be able to do to write things that act like
freestanding apps instead of websites). The way Mozilla tried to get around
that was to add a lot of Firefox OS specific APIs and then claim that those
APIs were part of 'the open web' because they were going to submit them for
standardisation at some point in the future.

Mozilla seem to think that they are the sole arbiter of what the web standards
are. The APIs they want to add are 'open' and 'standard' and anybody who is
against adding those APIs is an entryist enemy of 'the open web'. APIs
proposed by other vendors that Mozilla dislikes are an attack on the open web.

That's not how it works.

Things only become standards (formally or de facto) when all (or nearly all)
of the big browser vendors support them. That's the definition of an open
standards based platform - it's lowest common denominator. If you don't like
that reality then you don't like open standards based platforms. There was
little sign that the other browser vendors had any interest in adding a bunch
of FirefoxOS specific APIs (just as how Mozilla have rejected various
proposals from other vendors over the years).

You can argue that all this is very unfair. Why should Apple and Google and
Microsoft have veto power over what APIs are available on FirefoxOS? But this
is a trap of Mozilla's own choosing. It's the fundamental problem with the
dream of a single platform standard for all user facing software. It creates a
tight sandbox (both software architecturally and politically) that gives the
big players veto power over everything. The idea of a single grand standard
platform with perfect compatibility across all devices is certainly alluring,
but it has huge downsides that nobody ever seems to really want to talk about.
And that's before you get to the technical issues to do with the web standards
being pretty crappy for complex GUI development.

------
SwellJoe
So, mobile devices are an aspirational purchase in many of the developing
nations Mozilla was reportedly targeting with these devices. People buy phones
that _look like_ high end phones in the US, because that's part of what they
want from a phone.

I'm not saying low cost phones in developing nations aren't a good goal.
That's a wonderful thing, and I think I can understand how the people at
Mozilla, who almost always prioritize doing good over doing well, would make
the mistake of thinking that building a phone that is good for people in the
developing world would be a good way to start their mobile effort.

But, and as much as I hate to say this because it reveals a crass consumerism
that has infected the world and patient zero is the US, the reality is that
modern phones are luxury items that need some of the trappings of
luxury...even in developing nations, where they look to the west to define
their fashion and trends. If Mozilla can't win a developed world market, they
won't be able to convince people in developing nations that what they've built
is worthwhile, _especially_ when there are knockoff Android devices that only
cost a few bucks more, which are much closer to what people in the developed
world are using.

I could see how it might even seem patronizing to the poorest folks.

I don't know what Mozilla should do; I'm not a mobile mogul. But, I want a
Firefox phone. I've wanted one since they announced they were making them. I
want one a lot, actually. But, I don't want a shitty phone that's less
powerful than my last three Android phones, no matter the price. It's also
never been clear to me, as an American, where I can even buy a real FxOS
phone. There are dev phones, but they seemed to always just be "sign up for
our waiting list" or whatever, which is not something I really do.

------
bikamonki
Focus on one app: Whatsapp. Say this is the mid 90's and you want to make a
dent on the mobile market. So you keep costs low and put a cheapo camera on
the thing along a semi-decent mp3 player. But there is one big problem: your
Konia 1 phone does not run SMS. Nobody buys the thingy. What went wrong? Oh,
its quality, let's put a hi-end camera and try again!

It's all about the apps that people use. Remember MS Office? Oh, nice Macs
said the IT managers, do they run MS Office?

Go cut a deal with Zucker and get Whatsapp for FFOS then the phones will sell.

~~~
sanxiyn
They must be aware of this since LINE does run on Firefox OS. I think deal is
in progress.

------
throwaway41597
There is room for FirefoxOS:

\- No performance regressions. Somehow, the blazing fast device I bought a
couple of years ago now feels sluggish. Core apps should be timeless: the
dialer, the keyboard, task switcher shouldn't be slower two years after
purchase.

\- Graceful degradation. Websites have no easy way to detect how fast a device
is, so they are built for the majority with a bias for the newest and fastest.
The result is that cheap and old devices get obsoleted even for the simple
stuff. If a $25 phone is as powerful as a 2000 computer, then let the
developer feature-detect it and design for it.

\- Good permissions. I don't know the solution but there's a problem.
Android's model is depressingly bad. iOS's is too dumbed-down to be
trustworthy. Firefox's granularity is good to have but web developers seem to
assume the user is always going to grant the permission. I always grunt at
websites which want my position to find a store near me and display a blank
page when I reject it.

\- Timely OS updates. Firefox already has a fast release cycle regardless of
the desktop OS. Why can't mobile be the same? I believe kernel patches are
less of an issue with web apps because the kernel isn't the first line
defense.

\- Reasonably priced. The $100-200 range is already full of good Android
devices. Just make deals with manufacturers to sell a Firefox version of
those. They already sell dozens of different phones, so it should be feasible
to convince them to add a couple identical devices with a different OS.
FirefoxOS only needs one good device.

\- Security. Better sandbox the blackboxes (drivers and radio).

Those were my pain points, but I'm willing to make sacrifices:

\- 60 FPS isn't that important for me. I care more about response time when I
tap something.

\- Most animations/transitions won't be missed. Some add value but marginally
so. Most are arbitrary and useless.

\- Most apps won't be missed. I only use a few.

Apple is margin-driven. Google is ad-driven. They already cause pain to the
consumer and market dominance will only make matters worse. They also are
walled gardens so they cause pain to the developer. Mozilla is indeed in a
similar position to that of the 2000s.

------
tacojuan
I have wanted these phones for the longest goddamn time.

The LG or KDDI Fx0 was the coolest looking phone I have seen in the last 5
years. But it was unreasonably priced at nearly 400 USD

I recently stumbled across the geeksphone revolution which actually seems to
be a high-end phone and at a nice pricetag of less than 200 USD.

------
chubs
Rust could be a great platform to build a new mobile OS on. Non-garbage
collected so it'd be fast and efficient on low-memory ARM devices. Just like
Obj-C really gave iOS a headstart on java-based Android. Doubly-so if they
want to continue to target the low-spec end of the market.

------
abrowne
I used a Keon as my only phone for summer 2013 – summer 2014. Basic apps were
good, but — ironically for a web-based phone — the _browsing_ experience was
my biggest negative. Not the actual page layout/etc. — that is just Gecko and
worked fine if you didn't try to open too many tabs. The problem was the
browser lacked basic features like find in page, sync, and adding search
engines.

I switched to a Moto E, and I think it actually lags a little more for things
like opening the clock app, but I'm basically addicted to Fennec's reader view
and sync.

(The "system browser" in FxOS 3.0 is also a major regression on tab UX IMO.)

~~~
hsivonen
I think the system browser in 3.x is a significant UX improvement. The old
browser app always felt like trying to impose an Android-like world-view on a
system where the system was supposed to be a browser all along.

~~~
abrowne
I get that and thought I would like it, but I guess I still use the (web) apps
and the web browser quite differently. I hope further refinements change my
mind!

More specifically, I tend to open and close a lot of tabs, which involves more
steps now, and I want new tabs to open in the background.

------
jay_kyburz
Something I don't see talked about too much, but what I think could be the
most exciting thing about the Firefox phone, is that a web app (hosted on the
web) could have full access the the dialer, sms, camera, and all of a phones
capabilities.

I think then you might see a whole range of independent homescreens and app
suites developed and offer some well designed alternatives.

I'm a nexus 4 user and I really don't like all the basics. The dialer, contact
list, messaging. I think they are confusing and difficult to navigate.

------
Narishma
I never understood their focus on cheap phones. Firefox OS (and web
technologies in general) is a poor fit for low-spec devices.

------
alexnewman
The fact that ubuntu and mozilla are both launching open phone platforms that
compete in exactly the same space baffles me. The fact that ubuntu has it's
own browser based on blink, and firefox is convinced that all you need is a
browser is just....

------
drewm1980
Mozilla could make a rustphone where apps run 10X as fast as all that webby
crap, never crash, and don't force the user into frequent hardware upgrades
just to keep the UI responsive. Make smartphones that are as reliable as
dumbphones.

------
reeboo
I would love it if someone would come along and offer an android experience
while applying an value framework like the Mozilla manifesto. Not saying this
_has_ to be Mozilla, though it would make sense for them to do it.

------
bobajeff
My idea of a quality Smartphone:

Small (ipod mini or nano sized),

Durable and Water proof,

long lasting battery,

E-inc (or similar) display,

Able to play music while using navigation

and

Able to play music while browsing the web.

If Mozilla can put this phone together I'll buy it in a heartbeat.

~~~
Retr0spectrum
I'm not sure something that small would be useful for many "smart" tasks. I
recon about 3.5 inches is the sweet spot.

~~~
higherpurpose
There's _no way_ 3.5" is the "sweet spot" these days. Maybe for primary school
students, at most. Otherwise kids want phones with larger screens these days,
too. I'd say 4.3" should be the minimum for just about anyone. Phones are more
compact than the days of iPhone 1, and most of them are 16:9 now, which would
make 3.5" way too cramped for using the keyboard.

------
andrepd
Why not both? Choice is good, and unless there is a good reason for only being
able to choose one, I'd say offer devices is various price ranges.

------
Kelly2
Can someone shed some light on why they would now allow android but not native
app(aka not JS based)? It seems strange.

~~~
janjongboom
There is an apkjs IRC channel on mozilla [1] so they might cross-compile
Android apps via emscripten to asm.js. Couldn't get any info from moz when I
asked around in that channel.

[1]
[http://search.mibbit.com/networks/Mozilla/%23apkjs](http://search.mibbit.com/networks/Mozilla/%23apkjs)

------
minthd
If that's the plan, won't it make much more sense to start from open-source
android and move from there ?

~~~
pgeorgi
Only if there's a realistic way to put emphasis on the web part again at some
point. Otherwise they'll just become yet another Android-alike (effectively
handing control over the platform to the Android developers at Google).

The nice thing about web technologies is that there isn't a single party that
controls the APIs. I don't know any other comprehensive API collection with
this property (POSIX is in the same ball park, but which POSIX-only
application is mass market compatible these days?)

------
spitfire
I'm still confused as to what Mozilla actually does.

At one point they(or the company that spawned them) built a web browser that
they sold. Then they were the non-profit offshoot of that keeping an open
source browser alive.

But now they're... erm... what is it exactly that they are? They're a non-
profit that sells browser searches, or something. I'm confused.

~~~
SwellJoe
[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/about/manifesto/)

In short, they try to save the Internet from being run by a few corporations
or governments. So, minus cape, they're trying to do superhero things that are
often at odds with the biggest companies in the world. Whether they succeed in
that with any given project is up for debate, of course.

So far, Firefox phones have been a flop. Personally, I want one, because I
care about privacy and I care about the open web, but I don't really want a
shitty $25 phone. This news is good for me, but I don't know what it says for
Mozilla's vision in the mobile market.

I've heard people suggest that Android took a while to catch on...but, it
really didn't. By the time Android had been on the market for a year, it was
clear (to me, anyway) that it would become the dominant player for many of the
same reasons Wintel became the dominant desktop platform. Firefox OS doesn't
have much to show for the time they've been on the market. It was never even
clear to me I could buy a "real" phone (i.e. not developer phone) in the US
running FxOS.

------
kozukumi
So my comments the other day [1] were pretty to point then.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587570](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9587570)

------
kumarm
Mozilla at one point had momentum before Chrome came up and wasted it while
letting Firefox become slow and memory hog (This was before Chrome came out, I
am not commenting on latest versions).

I don't see Mozilla turning around because they are trying to be followers
where both Apple and Google are executing well enough at least to maintain
Status quo. Why go after Smart Phone Market while at best you can be 3rd or
4th best (with less than 5% market share)?

------
tomc1985
It feels like they barely tried. There's been _ZERO_ ways to acquire this
phone in the USA!

Why is it so hard to sell an unlocked smartphone direct to consumers in the
USA?

