Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

extremetech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#51

Post by nkassis »

peterwwillis wrote: post #42
nkassis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's so funny how phones made 10 years ago were more real-time than those today." Oh come on that's just not true. Phones 10 years ago barely had color displays and 0 apps other than contacts,phone and maybe music and I don't even think java games were there yet. As far as I know, getting contacts synced between your phone and computer meant buying some huge palm or blackberry and hooking it up to your computer with…

You don't understand the concept of real-time devices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computing Really java made the phones less real-time, but it was 10 years ago that one of the first Java phones in the US was sold by Sprint. Nextel I85s came out in 2001, and the Sanyo SCP-4900 (with 12-bit color!) came out in 2002. All those apps and games and syncing? Means diddly squat if the god damn phone is locking up…

I understand what you mean but I'm just making the point that phones were a lot simpler and in my view much less useful. It's obvious that somethings might have been loss since then like how my phone reacts less well to me answering the phone or pressing number but the amount of new functionality in my view more than make up for that small annoyance.

Real-time as in real-time computing isn't as big a selling point today as it was pre-iphone. RIM is making that mistake. QNX is awesome for what it does but I don't think people care about it's strong points as much as they do with the strong points of Android and iOS.(And that's what I meant when I twisted the definition of real-time to fit my syncing example. It's a different unrelated concept to what you were implying.)

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#52

Post by sequoia »

EDIT: OP didn't pick the picture of the girls, those are actually LG "booth babes." Sorry OP!

Metacomment (about the article): The author created a fake photo for the article based on the dialer and app screens and photo of two young girls, presumably to draw the eye and get clicks (or for lack of any actual applicable images). I have a couple of issues/questions:

1: Is it reasonable for a tech blogger to create fake images of a product and lead the article with them? (It says in the title attribute that the image is fake but I don't make a habit of hovering over each image to find out if it's fake.)

2: I know that using sexualized pictures of women to draw readers is a common practice that isn't going away (see Wired, Psychology Today, every other magazine), but these girls look peripubescent. I'm annoyed by the practice in all cases, but it seems especially poor taste to use images of such young girls in this context. (If someone wants to make the case that I'm imagining the role sexuality plays in this practice, I'm happy to hear it, but I'm highly skeptical.)

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#53

Post by tjoff »

azakai wrote: post #48
slowpoke wrote: post #7

As much as I appreciate the efforts to build a successful, truly open mobile OS, the "browser as an OS" approach is an incredibly dumb idea. It's another step away from general purpose computing, and I don't like this direction one bit. Some people here on HN might not really want to hear this, but web apps aren't the future . You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple thi…

> You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it. The web isn't everything - no perfect solution exists for every problem. But you go way too far in the other direction. Modern web browsers can run very complex code at very high speeds. Saying the web can only do incredibly simple things is like saying Java can only do incredibly simply things (which peop…

The problem is that such an OS cannot easily get widespread adoption, because it would have no apps. That is the problem of every new phone OS today, people develop for iOS and Android, and that's it.

So true. And that's what I base my assumption that there will be no enthusiast-phone on the market in the future (today we have Maemo/meego and that's it).

But, an enthusiast OS running linux could, in theory, run android apps and that could be a loophole. I know work was put in to doing this on Maemo but it never got mature (or else I should have heard about it).

The same goes for the web. It might suffice for the average Joe but for those doing "real" work on their machines or want more control of their machine will suffer.

In this evolution I truly hope that the mainstream-focus doesn't get all the attention. An App/OS doesn't have to be dumb to be beginner-friendly, an advanced application doesn't have to be beginner-unfriendly and please for the love of god realize that beginner friendliness IS NOT the same as easy to use. Those are completely separate topics and today when people talk about user-friendly interfaces they only talk about beginner-friendly and actually making them very hard to use but easy to learn.

There are experts everywhere. Ten-year-olds that utilized every obscure shortcut available on the old phones without for that matter being interested in tech or even phones have no parallel today. They just learned how to use their phone effectively but today there is no room for growth on our dumb devices (thanks apple).

A good interface is an interface that is easy to use and depending on the target audience relatively easy to use up front (or very easy to use up front) and sports advanced features and room for growth.

A bad interface is one that is easy only because it is dumb.

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#54

Post by hub_ »

sequoia wrote: post #52

EDIT: OP didn't pick the picture of the girls, those are actually LG "booth babes." Sorry OP! Metacomment (about the article): The author created a fake photo for the article based on the dialer and app screens and photo of two young girls, presumably to draw the eye and get clicks (or for lack of any actual applicable images). I have a couple of issues/questions: 1: Is it reasonable for a tech blogger to create fake…

One thing that is sure is that this one seriously lack ethics. Note that even in real journalism there is that kind of practice. Just look at tabloids.

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#55

Post by eshrews »

sequoia wrote: post #52

EDIT: OP didn't pick the picture of the girls, those are actually LG "booth babes." Sorry OP! Metacomment (about the article): The author created a fake photo for the article based on the dialer and app screens and photo of two young girls, presumably to draw the eye and get clicks (or for lack of any actual applicable images). I have a couple of issues/questions: 1: Is it reasonable for a tech blogger to create fake…

"Believe it or not, they're official LG booth babes, for MWC! That's a press photo from this morning, for the Optimus 4X thing.

They do look a bit young for booth babes, IMO."

From the comments - http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119571-mozilla-partners...

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#56

Post by tuacker »

eshrews wrote: post #55
sequoia wrote: post #52

EDIT: OP didn't pick the picture of the girls, those are actually LG "booth babes." Sorry OP! Metacomment (about the article): The author created a fake photo for the article based on the dialer and app screens and photo of two young girls, presumably to draw the eye and get clicks (or for lack of any actual applicable images). I have a couple of issues/questions: 1: Is it reasonable for a tech blogger to create fake…

"Believe it or not, they're official LG booth babes, for MWC! That's a press photo from this morning, for the Optimus 4X thing. They do look a bit young for booth babes, IMO." From the comments - http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119571-mozilla-partners...

The picture on The Verge looks like the original one: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/22/2818308/lg-optimus-4x-hd-p...

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#57

Post by hub_ »

tuacker wrote: post #56
eshrews wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Believe it or not, they're official LG booth babes, for MWC! That's a press photo from this morning, for the Optimus 4X thing. They do look a bit young for booth babes, IMO." From the comments - http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119571-mozilla-partners...

The picture on The Verge looks like the original one: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/22/2818308/lg-optimus-4x-hd-p...

Busted ! :-)

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#58

Post by sequoia »

tuacker wrote: post #56
eshrews wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Believe it or not, they're official LG booth babes, for MWC! That's a press photo from this morning, for the Optimus 4X thing. They do look a bit young for booth babes, IMO." From the comments - http://www.extremetech.com/computing/119571-mozilla-partners...

The picture on The Verge looks like the original one: http://www.theverge.com/2012/2/22/2818308/lg-optimus-4x-hd-p...

Holy crap... That's really quite shocking and makes me seriously question whether I'd want to do business with LG. If you had a 14 year old daughter, would you appreciate LG or whoever paying her to wear a very low cut shirt and make eyes at a bunch of older (mostly) men to entice them to buy a phone? I don't consider myself an "overprotective" parent, but I think this sort of sexualization of young girls by a large company is really sick and distasteful. /r/jailbait got shut down for sexualizing girls of this same (apparent) age, just as LG is doing. Gross.

Re: Mozilla partners up with LG to combat Apple and Google with its own device

#59

Post by Someone »

falling wrote: post #34
Someone wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Browser-based" does not have to be synonymous with "web apps". You could also see it as giving up control over your local cache of (photos, mails, apps, etc) in exchange for ease of use. This could replace "I want to play Angry Birds, so I download it and then run it" by "I want to play Angry Birds, so I click this button". Then, your device could download the app, if it was not already cached on your device, and ru…

How does that have anything to do with using a browser or not? Surely you could do the same thing on any other OS.

That's exactly my point. The post I replied to objected to "everything in the browser" because "you cannot put everything on the web". I pointed out that A does not imply B.

For example, consider a browser with local storage that allows for running locally stored apps (written in SVG + JavaScript, Flash, NaCl, whatever). Such a device could run games, word processors,cetc, without a network connection.

Post reply on HN