Live data from Hacker News

The Story of Firefox OS

medium.com

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp was the big missing app for Firefox OS. In Mozilla's target markets, WhatsApp was huge but the company didn't want to invest any engineering resources to support Firefox OS, understandably. Firefox OS was an unproven OS with no market share and no J2ME support. In response, Mozilla Research started a "j2me.js" project to try running the WhatsApp J2ME app in JavaScript, sharing some code with the Shumway proj…

As best i understand, Whatsapp's support for anything but iOS is "poor" to put it nicely.

You mean iPhone, because there's no iPad version at all.

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#42
post #38

I don't understand why they decided that Firefox OS would be a good fit for low-end hardware, when they had empirical evidence of how poorly webOS performed. Firefox OS and webOS are essentially the same concept. Palm built theirs for 2009 top-end hardware, and it turned out that the hardware just wasn't quite enough to run a browser engine for the entire UI... And then Mozilla goes ahead and tries to do the same thi…

> I can only imagine this choice was imposed by the hardware partners they could round up.

What do you mean? Seems like this was fundamentally Mozilla imposing their philosophy/faith in their web technology/platform on hardware partners rather than the other way around? (And I believe the article supports that interpretation).

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#43
post #38

I don't understand why they decided that Firefox OS would be a good fit for low-end hardware, when they had empirical evidence of how poorly webOS performed. Firefox OS and webOS are essentially the same concept. Palm built theirs for 2009 top-end hardware, and it turned out that the hardware just wasn't quite enough to run a browser engine for the entire UI... And then Mozilla goes ahead and tries to do the same thi…

This is addressed in the linked article in great depth.

I don't think the poor performance of WebOS means that approach is fundamentally doomed, especially since FirefoxOS was a few years later... a few years during a period of massive year-over-year increases in mobile computing power.

Long story short: relative to Android, they were bypassing the whole Java layer. Gecko (which is pretty mature + optimized) was essentially running on bare metal. Lose some performance here, gain some performance there. They felt this would offer strong performance.

Now, to be honest, I literally have no idea how this played out in reality. Never even touched a FirefoxOS device.

But, theoretically, there's no reason why this approach can't be pretty fast. At some point your apps need to talk to a widget-drawing layer. If implemented well there's no reason why an HTML-based approach can't be pretty darn fast, or at least fast enough not to be the limiting factor in your phone's performance.

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#44
post #38

I don't understand why they decided that Firefox OS would be a good fit for low-end hardware, when they had empirical evidence of how poorly webOS performed. Firefox OS and webOS are essentially the same concept. Palm built theirs for 2009 top-end hardware, and it turned out that the hardware just wasn't quite enough to run a browser engine for the entire UI... And then Mozilla goes ahead and tries to do the same thi…

> I can only imagine this choice was imposed by the hardware partners they could round up. What do you mean? Seems like this was fundamentally Mozilla imposing their philosophy/faith in their web technology/platform on hardware partners rather than the other way around? (And I believe the article supports that interpretation).

Yeah it's pretty difficult for me to conceive of a world where hardware vendors cared about OS implementation details like UI rendering strategies.

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#45

> [biggest Achievements] Product — Successfully launched 20 devices in over 30 countries, mobilised the Mozilla community to help run launch parties and created slick branding and marketing campaigns Therein lies the rub. The products were all mediocre-specced handsets from little known manufacturers. So, right from the outset Firefox OS felt like a down-market 'landfill Android' type product. I'd have bought a Firef…

You do have to understand that they also had no realistic chance of pursuing a top-tier device in a top-tier country. HTML-based UI:s (rendered on gecko) just aren't there in terms of performance.

Which leads to the question... why the heck did they pursue this in the first place? I would point at Mozilla management incompetency (Mitchell Baker etc).

My thoughts: They didn't do any technical/performance feasibility study before embarking on this adventure; rather relied on vaguer terms these people are atuned to (equality, openness, freedom, etc) rather than hard technical facts.

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#46

> [biggest Achievements] Product — Successfully launched 20 devices in over 30 countries, mobilised the Mozilla community to help run launch parties and created slick branding and marketing campaigns Therein lies the rub. The products were all mediocre-specced handsets from little known manufacturers. So, right from the outset Firefox OS felt like a down-market 'landfill Android' type product. I'd have bought a Firef…

You do have to understand that they also had no realistic chance of pursuing a top-tier device in a top-tier country. HTML-based UI:s (rendered on gecko) just aren't there in terms of performance. Which leads to the question... why the heck did they pursue this in the first place? I would point at Mozilla management incompetency (Mitchell Baker etc). My thoughts: They didn't do any technical/performance feasibility s…

> HTML-based UI:s (rendered on gecko) just aren't there in terms of performance

I'm actually going to quibble with this. Having ran Firefox OS 2.1 on the original (crappy hardware) Flame, all of the main UI and built-in apps were buttery smooth. I wasn't expecting this, and it kind of blew me away.

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WhatsApp was the big missing app for Firefox OS. In Mozilla's target markets, WhatsApp was huge but the company didn't want to invest any engineering resources to support Firefox OS, understandably. Firefox OS was an unproven OS with no market share and no J2ME support. In response, Mozilla Research started a "j2me.js" project to try running the WhatsApp J2ME app in JavaScript, sharing some code with the Shumway proj…

As best i understand, Whatsapp's support for anything but iOS is "poor" to put it nicely.

bubble-vision. Whatsapp was pretty much messaging standard in South America, non-UK Europe, Russia and non-China SE Asia and I bet those were not majority iOS markets then nor now.

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#48
post #38

I don't understand why they decided that Firefox OS would be a good fit for low-end hardware, when they had empirical evidence of how poorly webOS performed. Firefox OS and webOS are essentially the same concept. Palm built theirs for 2009 top-end hardware, and it turned out that the hardware just wasn't quite enough to run a browser engine for the entire UI... And then Mozilla goes ahead and tries to do the same thi…

> I can only imagine this choice was imposed by the hardware partners they could round up. What do you mean? Seems like this was fundamentally Mozilla imposing their philosophy/faith in their web technology/platform on hardware partners rather than the other way around? (And I believe the article supports that interpretation).

I meant the choice of low-end hardware. I feel like they could have been more successful in the ~$200 market where Nokia Lumia models did well for a while, but presumably the hardware partners didn't want to build those. And meanwhile engineering was set on a path that wouldn't work for $40 phones.

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#49
Unfortunately for Mozilla, the reality is that Google, with its combination of large marketshare, aggressive timelines, and wide platform penetration (on both their own first-party and others' third-party platforms) had accomplished more in enhancing the capabilities of code loaded by the Web: they develop all sorts of APIs to expose native platform functionality inside Javascript running inside the browser, ship them in Chrome, then submit most of them to W3C and evangelize their merits. The most trashy ones they deprecate in two or three years, replace it with a different, incompatible take, and remove support for it in a few versions.

The author's 'Lessons Learned' section reads as a wishful vision of web browsers themselves, which, is both surprising in its lack of differentiation, and yet simultaneously ambitious in its hopes of being able to culture a... what's the word? 'platform'? 'ecosystem'? 'environment'? where well-executed server-side technologies interact with thin but slick clients; how is this different from the existing web and its browsers again? Does the point then become to offer a FOSS low-level system OS on top of which a browser can run? Isn't this one of the few successes of B2G, yet also operates in a space entirely dependent on the whims of hardware vendors, and competes with the likes of Tizen, Sailfish OS, AOSP, and the Linux kernel itself?

The retrospective is interesting: a dissenting opinion from an inside source, and it definitely sheds light on some important details that were glossed over or ommitted from the more 'political', corporate communiqués. But the conclusions are unsatisfactory: the preferred outcome reads less like "Boot to Gecko" than "Boot Only to Gecko", which sounds a lot like Chromebooks. The difference being, of course, that Google has a diverse (if frequently culled) selection of web-accessible services that together can be used as a computing and browsing platform, feeding search and browsing metadata and usage habits to Google thanks to the power of defaults. What could Mozilla have offered in this space to realistically take on the exact same frenemy with a larger warchest?

Re: The Story of Firefox OS

#50
post #9

>My main hope in documenting all of this is that Firefox OS is remembered as more than just a footnote in tech history which says “a failed mobile OS from Mozilla”. I got one of the Mozilla Flame phones back when they came out and loved that device. I'm pissed that now the only option for a viable open source mobile OS I have is Google. But unless there is some unlikely comeback, that is exactly what it will be remem…

>I'm pissed that now the only option for a viable open source mobile OS I have is Google

No one is forcing you to use Android and there are many alternatives. Additionally, there is no need to use Google services when setting up an Android phone. To be "pissed" that the only option you have is Google just reinforces my belief that Google should have closed sourced it from the beginning. The amount of entitlement some people think they have for an OS that is given away and costs millions to create is bizarre to me.

Post reply on HN