Mozilla: The problem is mobile, not money
news.cnet.com
news.cnet.com
Of course, you'll see yet again opinions trying to rationalize it as being "in the name of user experience" and "safety".
But then, a couple of years from now, when those people finally realize what a big mistake this was, they won't blame it on themselves.
IMO, they are doing everything right except adding an "advanced" mode that people who really know what they're doing can use. But I know why they don't do that: because a lot more people will think they know what they're doing than actually do.
If they start turning into the locked down 1984 world you're worried about, someone else will come out with an alternative, show why it's better and most people will move over there.
No one cares about moral ranting. Show people a tangible, relevant benefit to them (that is, tangible like "cheaper" not abstract like "you're more free!") and they'll buy in. Brow beating has never been an effective way to affect change.
But here, I'll give you an example - 1 and a half year ago I was literally stocked by 2 people that thought I owed them money. And so I was receiving lots of SMS messages and phone calls with threats, because that's all they could do - but it was annoying to me to have my phone ring several times per day. Then my phone number ended up on some kind of marketing list and I started receiving daily messages with special offers.
So I had a problem and an iPhone 3GS (received as a gift) and being a smartphone I expected from it to solve it, because otherwise my phone number was becoming unusable and I didn't want to change it (hey, I've got a nice, memorable number). I wanted to completely block SMS messages and phone calls for certain numbers. And I'm not referring just to make my phone silent when receiving stuff from certain phone numbers - but also a cleanup of the logs. And after all, my smartphone is primarily a phone, where a phone is a device used for communications - I don't care how smart it is, if it's not smart about the most basic functionality it should provide.
Imagine my surprise when I found out that Apple was actively blocking such apps from its App Store. So I jail-broke it and installed something from the Cydia store, which was a painful process. Then Apple released a major update to iOS that I wanted, so I updated the device, but my previous method for jail-breaking it wasn't working anymore.
THE ONLY REASON people put up with this is because they don't know a smartphone could solve this for them, otherwise spamming through phone calls and SMS messages is a really common problem.
Out of frustration I went out of my way and got a Galaxy S device. There were several apps on Android Marketplace (now Google Play) that dealt with blocking SMS and phone calls. Several were not working on my device, because the APIs for doing that are not public and so dealing with it is hard. But I found one that worked extremely well. Even in the case of Android's Marketplace also blocking such apps, it's extremely easy on Android to install apps from third-party sources, not mentioning the ease with which you can develop for it, without setup fees or bogus certificates.
And I've been blocking unwanted SMS messages and phone calls ever since.
Now, some day Apple will finally wake up and provide this functionality. I'm sure that it will be polished and better than all the alternatives. However, it will be several years too late for me. And if a smartphone can't provide such basic functionality that should be a no-brainer in this age of spam, then for me it's just a shiny and expensive piece of crap. And remember when they blocked Google Voice from their store because "it duplicated existing functionality?".
I also own an iPad. It was a gift (for some reason people like giving me Apple products, thinking that I love them). I also have a 3G plan for it, that I got separately, so this device is not subsidized or bought from my mobile carrier. Imagine my surprise when I found out that I couldn't do tethering with my otherwise expensive 3G plan and expensive device, yet my 1 year and a half Android could - and an iPad could do better tethering because of its bigger battery. And get this ... the functionality is available, but it depends on the settings the mobile carrier are wiring to your device. So they are basically controlling your device, deciding for you what you can and cannot do.
So now I'm dreaming of a Nexus tablet as my next device, because while the iPad is useful for browsing and stuff, I don't really "own" it and there's so much more it could do.
And I have no doubt about it, the sky is going to fall, because the writing is on the wall. Considering our increased dependency on smart technology, if you don't "own" your devices (or your data, or the software you depend on), the service providers are owning you.
You may not notice it right now, but remember that old anecdote about how you should boil a frog alive - slowly, otherwise it jumps out.
And the blame will fall partly on us, the developers that supported these closed platforms. Because we helped them grow.
People also like to point out how Android is more popular because it gets promoted more by carriers - isn't it funny how openness is good for everybody, including carriers and phone makers?
Stalked? :)
> I'll give you an example - 1
I agree that Apple should provide a "hacker" setting that lets you step outside the bounds. They don't want to do this because so many non-techies imagine themselves as highly technical so they would press this button, mess something up and then shit all over the forums about how awful apple products are. Granted, Windows got to 95%+ market saturation with the latter approach, but Apple cares about imagine even to the point of shooting themselves in the foot over it. It's their right.
What irritates me are all the "they're just trying lock you in because they're evil!". There's no reason to believe they're evil. It's more likely they care about imagine to a point many might consider a fault.
> Imagine my surprise when I found out that I couldn't do tethering with my otherwise expensive 3G plan
iOS, and other OSes for that matter, send data back to the carrier when you use the built in tethering capabilities. Since Apple is perceived to have tight control of their market, carriers expect them to keep apps out that bipass this. Android is perceived to have a less tight market so even though the built in offering would have had the exact same restriction, you could easily pick up an app that didn't.
Currently, I sold my 3G iPad and use my iPhone 4 to do tethering. It's not blocked for me and I don't pay anything for it. This changed when they changed to "wireless hotspot" instead of "tethering" in the options menu.
>So they are basically controlling your device, deciding for you what you can and cannot do.
This is a carrier issue. I'd love to see someone make an open carrier (dumb pipe, that's what we all want!).
>because while the iPad is useful for browsing and stuff, I don't really "own" it and there's so much more it could do.
The iPad concept is that it's an appliance, not a general purpose computer. If you feel that means you don't "own" it, do you also not "own" your microwave since you can't do general computing on it's embedded OS either?
>And I have no doubt about it, the sky is going to fall, because the writing is on the wall.
And here's where you go David Icke. What writing is on what wall? Companies are trying to exploit us and maximize profits at our expense. Just as they always have. They've had us in much worse positions in the past and we've escaped. I'm confident that if phones become to restrictive we'll break out of it again. After all, I don't have to have a smart phone. It's convenient and really helpful, but I'm not going to be the monkey trapped by a banana in a bottle.
>You may not notice it right now, but remember that old anecdote about how you should boil a frog alive - slowly, otherwise it jumps out.
I think if you actually try this, you'll find that the frog will jump out when it reaches the right temperature regardless of how slowly you turn up the head.
>And the blame will fall partly on us, the developers that supported these closed platforms.
We support them because it's most profitable for us. When it's not, we won't support them. Simple.
>People also like to point out how Android is more popular because it gets promoted more by carriers - isn't it funny how openness is good for everybody, including carriers and phone makers?
Haha! Carriers don't give a shit about "openness ". They'd happily used a closed OS as they have in the past, so long as they get it cheaper than any alternative and have a mechanism to put their shovelware shit on it.
I'm not paranoid and I don't categorize companies in "good" and "evil". If I did, I would label them all as being evil. Some of their actions are good, but some are evil and will have consequences, even if their goals are not evil. In fact I'm pretty sure that many people working at companies such as Microsoft, Google or Apple genuinely believe that their actions are for the common good.
But technology is scaring me a little, because of our symbiosis with it. You're saying that your phone is just a phone and you can't get rid of it. I'll have to disagree. If you can indeed get rid of your phone, then you're a rare individual.
Also - yes I own my microwave. It's a pretty dumb and cheap appliance that doesn't even have a clock. However, my examples were for issues that I expect these mobile devices to do and yet they don't, not because they cannot, but because Apple doesn't allow it. That's like wanting to cook pork in your microwave, with the manufacturer not allowing it because it considers it an unhealthy practice. Now wouldn't that be something?
Only 2.7% of all Android devices run the current version, but I'm sure that every Android user has an up to date third party browser they use exclusively.
Most Android phones have an outdated OS and will never receive updates to the current version of Android. It is also known that most users never switch from the default browser on their phone or computer. And sadly, before Android 4.0, the default browser was pretty crummy.
I think when he says they can't, I think it is more about their code base/engine requirements than anything else.
Perhaps the idea was to get something out there for presence and then create a full rendering engine later? But then again, both Chrome and Safari are WebKit and Firefox is Gecko so I'm not sure how that changes things.
While Chrome on iOS isn't really Chrome, it does sync in to this so that your bookmarks, etc, work there just like on any real Chrome browser.
[1] - https://blog.mozilla.org/services/2012/08/31/retiring-firefo...
iOS technically prohibits JITs, which would kneecap v8, but on top of that they also, as policy, disallow running arbitrary code downloaded to the device from the Internet unless Safari's JavaScript engine is the thing running that code.
"In fact, an earlier version of this article was tabled when Apple made changes to the developer license (circa April 2010) which forbade developing iOS applications in any language other than Objective-C and Javascript (the Javascript could be used either to build web apps or native apps via the UIWebView). Recently (September 2010), Apple again changed the developer license to allow the use of scripting languages.." http://www.luanova.org/ioswithlua
Previously Apple disallowed using languages other than Objective-C and JavaScript.
Now they allow you to use any language you can get to compile on the device (some languages have issues because you technically can't do JITing on the iOS device, the OS stops you from self-modifying code) but you aren't allowed to run code that was downloaded at runtime.
Example: You can embed a Lua interpreter into your app to run Lua scripts, but the scripts you execute have to all ship with your app, you can't download them at runtime and then execute them.
Windows is not a big player in mobile, despite the media attention it receives in the US. The only major players are Android and iOS. So it's 1 out of 2, not 2 out of 3.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yO2KQHkt4A
But no, they go off and make their own OS instead of pushing the free one that's there.
My refrigerator, toaster, TV appliances, and washing machine are all relatively locked down as well.
Android is a MAJOR player still (at least in install base, they're proving less popular as far as dollars spent in the first world). The fact Mozilla is writing their own OS instead of supporting Android is silly. Their OS will not end up running on apple phones, and if it could, the'd get more bang for their buck porting android to apple/winRT hardware.
Yes, but you don't generally install new software on those. They might as well have everything implemented in hardware.
The concern is that Apple and Microsoft are retaining a monopoly on the ability to install new software on your machine. They can install new software (or give you permission to), but no one else can. It's not that much of a problem if something isn't extensible at all; it's the drastic imbalance of power, in which they hold all of the cards, that is the problem
Android is much better, but it's still not perfect. It's based on Java and Google's own APIs, which they fully control. Google controls the play store, and many carriers sell locked phones that prevent you from installing your own software outside of the play store, as well as limiting what software you can install from there.
So, Mozilla does support Android, by releasing their browser on it. But they also believe that they can do better; create something that's more open, more hackable, more accessible than Android. Can they? I'm not sure. There are lots of frustrating things about the Web platform as well, I don't know if it's going to be better than Android's Java based platform. And Mozilla doesn't have the same resources as Google, so may not be able to deliver Nexus-style phones and tablets. But I do appreciate that they're putting in the effort, to try and innovate and provide an alternative experience.
Which is exactly what's going to happen if Moz makes an OS. Additionally, I'm pretty sure you can always sideload an APK even on the locked phones (may be wrong there).
Don't buy those phones. Buy a nexus if software freedom is what you want.
Me personally? I think the iOS strictures make a store I like more than a control I despise (and jailbreaking is both legal and pervasive for those who want a bit more there).
I kinda like (as a consumer) there aren't monthly subscription apps, even if it makes certain concepts not viable.
As a developer, I feel pain every time X can't release Y and they really really really want to. I'll take that for not having to worry about malware(yet: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Android-Malware-Antivirus-P...) and a couple other pieces of chrome consistency.
Firefox for me should be dumping buckets of cash into performance instead of this sort of project. It feels like the dumpy stepsister to chrome these days (and yes, I do download new versions from time to time).
I have never worried about Android malware. I don't install apps from sketchy unknown sources, nor sketchy unknown developers on the Play Store.
But I am interested in seeing what Mozilla comes up with. It may not be what I'm looking for, but I think it's valuable for them to try.
I assume most people install Firefox because it's better then the default browser experience. The argument in the parent comment is that this isn't the case so those that would normally go out of their way to install it have no reason to do so.
e: Or maybe I read it incorrectly? Firefox is a better mobile experience? If that's the case, I'm not really sure what the parent comment's argument is.
Defaults are a big deal.
(Just checked Wikipedia, apparently several sources pegged them at about 95% share around 2002-2004).
For the E.U. I quote Wikipedia:
"By European Union law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a company is dominant, which may be rebuttable. If a company has a dominant position, then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market". The lowest yet market share of a company considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law
[1] http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/fruits/apples/com...
Turns out aggressively developing one of the world's most popular browsers, a mobile browser and a mobile OS costs a lot of money. $100m for software development, $20m for admin and $17m for branding/marketing.
They are non profit so there is no point in keeping money in a box. You might perhaps hope they got a little more done for that kind of money (conservatively 800 full time devs.. main gripe would be a faster JS engine), but i guess large organisations aren't too efficient.
http://static.mozilla.com/moco/en-US/pdf/Mozilla%20Foundatio...
Engineering management, sysadmins, quality assurance, release management, support staff at each location, etc. all go into that $100m figure.