| |||||||||||||
Carriers will love thisCarriers will love thisPosted Mar 1, 2012 6:49 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Carriers will love this by aryonoco Parent article: Mozilla announces HTML5-based phone
I know many carriers want to have more say on their devices, and they absolutely hate how iOS and Android are turning them into dumb pipes. Well, that's natural progression. ISPs already went through this (remember CompuServe and AOL?), and it's obvious carriers will [eventually] follow. We are still far, far away from that point in US (but some other countries are further along: there are lots of countries where the idea that carrier may sell you a phone is met with bewilderment). But can you explain exactly how carriers can turn the wheel of history back with B2G? What can they do with it that they can't do with Android, for example?
(Log in to post comments)
Carriers will love this Posted Mar 1, 2012 16:27 UTC (Thu) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link]
> What can they do with it that they can't do with Android, for example?
Ship it without being bound by a partnership agreement with Google or, alternatively, with a 6 month time-to-market delay.
Gerv
Carriers will love this Posted Mar 1, 2012 17:02 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Point. Of course for that to be viable advantage B2G should provide something at least comparable to six-month-old Android.
Carriers will love this Posted Mar 3, 2012 2:19 UTC (Sat) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link]
One thing to note is that Mozilla is trying hard in B2G to make sure nobody but the user has full control over the device - that is at least as far as the law permits (phones e.g. have to have a fixed dialer UI that is vetted to always allow emergency calls, so unfortunately the dialer cannot be exchangable by law in most countries).
Interestingly, the nice side-effect of that user control is that the one selling the device to the user has control over the default configuration they sell it with (and the configuration they deliver support for) and that's what the carriers like as that is usually them and so they can distinguish their offer.
Carriers will love this Posted Mar 3, 2012 12:13 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] One thing to note is that Mozilla is trying hard in B2G to make sure nobody but the user has full control over the device - that is at least as far as the law permits (phones e.g. have to have a fixed dialer UI that is vetted to always allow emergency calls, so unfortunately the dialer cannot be exchangable by law in most countries). This is certainly an advantage, but how many will actually care? Android already offers something like this with Nexus line and it's not overwhelmingly popular. I think the current Android's compromise (you have locked device for the duration of your warranty and you have unlocking tool which voids said warranty and thus used after it expires as an insurance tool) is “good enough”. Most users prefer having Netflix to having full control over device. This is sad truth, but still a truth. Interestingly, the nice side-effect of that user control is that the one selling the device to the user has control over the default configuration they sell it with (and the configuration they deliver support for) and that's what the carriers like as that is usually them and so they can distinguish their offer. Perhaps you are talking about some alien carriers from the other galaxy. Carriers from this planet like to have tight control over sold handset, too (for example they usually try to suppress free tethering programs). If B2G places control firmly in the hands of user then they will hate it. But in reality I think carriers will subvert the B2G phones like they subverted Android phones - which will mostly negate previous advantage.
Carriers will love this Posted Mar 6, 2012 22:32 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
One difference between Android and B2G is that, if you're browsing the Web or using an HTML-based app (e.g. written with PhoneGap) on Android, you're running two software stacks at once:
-- a Web stack: Javascript VM + CSS + HTML + ... -- an Android stack: Java VM + Android Java frameworks
With B2G you only run the Web stack. It's a footprint win.
(iOS also has a two-stack problem.)
Carriers will love this Posted Mar 7, 2012 9:13 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] One difference between Android and B2G is that, if you're browsing the Web or using an HTML-based app (e.g. written with PhoneGap) on Android, you're running two software stacks at once: And again you are talking about “bright future” where everyone abandoned native applications and switched to web applications exclusively. How do you plan to reach this future? Yes, today B2G may be a win for a small percentage of the applications which are written using web technologies, but most applications don't need them and for them it's a loss: you need to run two stacks on B2G: Significant additional footprint + additional work for obscure unpopular platform.
|
|||||||||||||