LWN.net Logo

Advertisement

GStreamer, Embedded Linux, Android, VoD, Smooth Streaming, DRM, RTSP, HEVC, PulseAudio, OpenGL. Register now to attend.

Advertise here

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

By Jonathan Corbet
September 4, 2013
There was a period where it appeared that the smartphone industry would be dominated by closed products and non-free software. Android has done a lot to change that situation; it is now possible to own a hackable device that runs mostly free software. But it would be nice to have some viable alternatives, preferably even more free and more Linux-like. Among the many would-be contenders for the title of leading alternative, Firefox OS offers a special appeal. It is, after all, a Linux-based system built by an organization that has a history of looking out for the interests of its users. So when the opportunity came along to try out Firefox OS on real hardware, your editor did not hesitate for long.

The ZTE Open

The device in question is the ZTE Open, a Firefox OS handset that can be had for a mere $80. That is a low price for a smartphone, but it is consistent with Mozilla's apparent strategy of targeting the cheaper end of the market. Cheap is nice, but, as one might expect, some severe compromises had to be made to arrive at that price. The phone uses an oldish Qualcomm MSM7225A processor with only 256MB of memory. The camera offers a two-megapixel sensor, which is low by contemporary standards. Internal storage is minimal, but the phone comes with a 4GB MicroSD card.

Visually, the device is smaller than many current devices. It is also bright orange; it looks a lot like a Nexus One that has been outfitted for hunting season. The 480x320 HVGA screen is decidedly low-resolution by current standards. As one might expect, the device is often slow to respond, especially when switching between applications. Perhaps most annoying, though, is that the touchscreen itself is often unresponsive. Using the Firefox OS on-screen keyboard can be a slow and painful experience.

[installable apps] The Firefox OS interface has not changed a great deal since this review was written at the end of last year. The annoying three-step process (hit the power button, swipe upward, tap the "unlock" icon) to unlock the screen is still necessary. Swiping toward the left on the home screen yields a list of installed applications, while swiping to the right yields a list of installable application categories. Strangely, many of the categories are not initially visible on that screen. Instead, one must hit the "more" button to see the full list of categories; only thereafter is it possible to see which applications can be found therein. There is a reasonably long list of available applications, but relatively few that would be familiar to iOS or Android users.

Application installation is a matter of holding a finger down on the relevant icon. Since applications are all web-based, though, there is no real need to install them unless one wants to run one offline or have the icon in a handy place. There is a permissions model for applications, but that is all hidden from the user; for the most part, users are supposed to rely on the maintainers of the application "marketplace" to ensure that malicious applications are not made available. The one exception is for location data; the system will ask the user before allowing an application to access the user's current location.

[maps] There is a basic email client that, unfortunately, could not be tested, since it refuses to deal with mail servers that have self-signed certificates. The web browser is Firefox, of course; it works as expected. There is a basic mapping tool (using "HERE") that can generate driving directions; there is no turn-by-turn navigation available, though. As an added "benefit," the maps include location-based advertisements. Weather information is available through an Accuweather app; there is also a basic calendaring tool. The contact manager can import data from Facebook, but not from other sources (Google, for example).

At the interface level, one of the most striking decisions is the complete absence of a "back" button. The result is that one often seems to end up in some application-specific dead end, with no recourse other than to hit the "home" button and drop out entirely. Getting rid of "back" may make application development easier, but the result seems to be less friendly for the user.

[running apps] The home button will, if held down, produce a scrollable screen showing the currently running applications. The user can then switch to one of those applications; there is an option to close running applications as well. This screen is supposed to show a thumbnail with the current screen contents of each app, but those thumbnails are often blank for some reason.

All told, the ZTE Open is reminiscent in many ways of the first Android phones. It is slow, somewhat buggy, and the functionality is not up to what the market leaders provide. Whether Firefox OS will yet turn out to be a disruptive technology like Android was remains to be seen.

Under the hood

One does not need to look too hard at Firefox OS to realize that its developers have taken advantage of a lot of free infrastructure from Android. The kernel on the ZTE Open is an Android-derived, bleeding-edge 3.0.8 model, with wakelocks and all. Services like binder are running. The Android USB debugging protocol is supported, so tools like adb and fastboot can be used in the usual manner (though there is an update that should be applied for fastboot use). Much of the graphics subsystem is built on the Android "gralloc" API as well. All told, Firefox OS has benefited strongly from the availability of the Android code as a base to build on.

There appears to be no available terminal emulator application for Firefox OS. But one can, naturally, get a shell on the device by plugging it into a USB port and running adb shell. The shell environment is based on BusyBox and is rudimentary — but not worse than what one encounters on an Android device. It is also an unprivileged shell; there does not appear to be any way to gain root access short of exploiting a vulnerability — or installing a new version of the operating system.

In the limited time available your editor was unable to succeed in the latter task — replacing the operating system. There is extensive documentation on how this should be done on the Mozilla web site, and it is a simple matter of patience to download the 12GB "source" tree ("source" being in quotes because it includes things like a binary cross compiler, video files, and more). The actual build process requires that the phone be connected so that a number of binary files can be copied off of it; these (proprietary) files are needed to build a replacement image. Thereafter the build fails (in an equal manner on Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora boxes) after a long list of warnings. Somewhat discouraging.

Perhaps this particular problem is a temporary setback resulting from the state of the source tree when this build was attempted. But it's clear that, like building Android, making a new Firefox OS image is not a task for the faint of heart. Should this system take off, future users are far more likely to exercise their freedoms once a CyanogenMod-like project comes along to take care of a lot of the details.

Conclusion

But will Firefox OS take off? It is hard to see the system, as demonstrated by the ZTE Open, displacing Android anytime soon. It is too slow, too rough-edged, and lacking too many third-party applications. Most people with access to a recent Android-based handset are likely to stick with that rather than shift over to Firefox OS.

But the world is full of people without access to such a handset. Mozilla seems to be making a play for the attention of many of those people by going after the low end of the market. After all, $80 will not buy a particularly satisfying Android device either; it is hard to imagine Android running on hardware like the ZTE Open in any kind of pleasing way. Perhaps Firefox OS will find a place running on low-end devices; by the time the system matures (and it does appear to be developing quickly), there might just be an established user base for it.

Working with this device reminded your editor of a scene from Charlie Stross's classic Accelerando:

Amber clutches the phone like a lifesaver: It's a cheap disposable cereal-packet item, and the cardboard is already softening in her sweaty grip.

If we can envision an era where cardboard telephones can be obtained from a box of cereal, it is not much of a stretch to think about those phones running a relatively undemanding system like Firefox OS.

Meanwhile, though, Firefox OS hopes for a place on the plastic devices that we use now. Anybody wanting to experiment with the system can build it for a number of current devices, including most recent "Nexus" phones. If enough developers do that and start taking the system in interesting directions, if more applications appear, and if people actually buy Firefox OS devices, it may well develop to a point where it is a realistic competitor to the more established mobile operating systems. Another free Linux-based mobile system would be a good thing, so one can only wish Mozilla luck as it pursues that goal.


(Log in to post comments)

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 4, 2013 18:57 UTC (Wed) by cuviper (subscriber, #56273) [Link]

How open is the development process of FxOS? I think projects like CyanogenMod largely arose because of Google's throw-it-over-the-wall approach. If Mozilla does this more openly, inviting direct community participation, then there's less need for an alt community version.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 4, 2013 19:17 UTC (Wed) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link]

Like with Firefox, anyone can join development. There are no NDA, etc. All you need is a compatible phone. Updates are distributed by phone vendors, but I could imagine that there will also be community-supported builds for popular devices.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 3:13 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

Upstream development happens in these repositories:
http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central
https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/B2G
https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia
These are the actual repositories Mozilla developers use. No smoke, no mirrors.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 4, 2013 20:10 UTC (Wed) by cstanhop (subscriber, #4740) [Link]

Although Mozilla is emphasizing "developing" markets, I hope FirefoxOS phones provide viable alternatives everywhere. I never bought a smartphone due to the prices, but I decided to give a FirefoxOS phone a try. It is rough around the edges,but it works well enough for many uses including posting this comment. :)

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 4, 2013 21:13 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Mozilla is emphasizing "developing" markets because developed markets are already lost to it. Think about it: today most phones sold are smartphones, but of course in wealthy countries this percentage is over 50% (which means that FirefoxOS have no hope there) but in "developing" markets they have some chance.

Not a big chance, mind you: Mozilla's strategy is good, but they are too late. Android users outnumber iOS users by a huge margin but sales are still over 2x in favor of Apple's creation. Of course Apple is the sole gatekeeper for iOS while you can buy Android programs on Amazon or in plethora of Chinese stores thus in reality Android and iOS are more-or-less the same (but with Android you actually need to deal with multiple stores, different APIs in said stores, etc), but for that to happen Android needed about 4 times more users. For FirefoxOS to repeat that feat you need 4x more users then Android has... and given the stats that basically means that FirefoxOS must somehow capture all the remaining mobile phone owners. Totally unrealistic.

Their only real hope is some fatal mistake on Apple's or Google's part. I don't know… huge spat with Samsung or something like that. In the absence of that the best they can hope for is OS/2 fate (in In 1993-94, several major German retailers offered systems preloaded with OS/2, but eventually these offers withered and died and OS/2 followed, too).

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 12:32 UTC (Thu) by cov (subscriber, #84351) [Link]

I don't think the revenue generated by proprietary third-party application developers has as obvious or clear a correlation to the success of an operating system distribution as you seem to imply.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 15:26 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I don't think the revenue generated by proprietary third-party application developers has as obvious or clear a correlation to the success of an operating system distribution as you seem to imply.

I don't think you understand what that word means. Correlation is most definitely there, it's not even something worth discussing. Now, causation is another matter: as everyone knows correlation does not imply causation which means that it's possible that something else (besides potential revenue stream) determines both how popular given OS will among users and how lucrative it'll be for developers.

But simple explanation is often correct and Occam's razor says that we'll need some additional data if we are to decide that something else can affect popularity of platform to such a degree that it ca make platfrom which attracts few developers extremely popular.

In fact Linux developers tried to find out what else can affect popularity: they made absolutely sure Linux is not be lucrative to third-party developers and then tried basically everything else to attract users. Result is two decades of failures and insane popularity of the first platform which made Linux actually lucrative. I don't see what other explanation can describe all observable effects!

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 18:22 UTC (Thu) by watkin5 (subscriber, #36313) [Link]

I'm gob smacked. How can you state, "... everyone knows correlation does not imply causation ..." with out the correct link?

Виктор, Вы неправы

Posted Sep 13, 2013 20:24 UTC (Fri) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]

Yup, that kind of "everyone and his dog SURELY knows" reasoning is spotted in the wild along with attempts to cover up real world problems.

Correlation is a tool which can be useful to notice causation.

Like with Nth case of finding WMD in Mid East countries by pure accident and without any will to bomb a country into ruins swarming with fanatics instead of bombing it into democracy.

And yes, my correlometer tends to treat wikipedia links correctly: as links to *unauthoritative* source that is known to be manipulatable.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 8:59 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

Personally I don't want any operating system that offers an ecosystem of proprietary third-party software anywhere near any of the devices I use. For me the "success" of an operating system is defined as inversely proportional to how much non-free software it exposes me to. For me, the most popular operating systems today are unsuccessful and always will be. The two-decade "failure" of Linux that you describe is for me a success story.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 11:08 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Personally I don't want any operating system that offers an ecosystem of proprietary third-party software anywhere near any of the devices I use. For me the "success" of an operating system is defined as inversely proportional to how much non-free software it exposes me to.

IOW: you don't want an OS which can be used on real hardware for real work. Got that. What are you still doing on LWN, then? Why don't you go and switch to truly free OS (like KolibriOS or something like this)?

The two-decade "failure" of Linux that you describe is for me a success story.

Not really. Linux is miserable failure by your measures: it's mostly used for "an ecosystem of proprietary third-party software" (on servers, nettop boxes and other similar devices, not on desktop). You can claim that only desktop Linux is a success, but this will be inconsistent since all these "successful" desktop efforts are funded by it's "failure" on servers, routers and [recently] mobile phones.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 17:27 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]

Or even worse, the current situation with Android where you have a half open and half closed system where almost all of the apps are either entirely closed or shareware/nagware/adware.

You get all of the fail from both open and closed and the only upside is the OEM and carrier buyin because they seem to like the idea.

Really, go look at the Play Store. Four classes of offerings:

1. Google closed source apps increasingly built on their 100% closed OS on an OS Play Services platform.

2. One man band shareware apps where you get the poor customer service implied by an small vendor, the uncertain future of depending on a single guy who at any point can decide it ain't worth it and stop development. Similar to any small open source project. But because it is shareware there is no source and no option for anyone else to pick up and carry on. So a lot of wheels get reinvented and the same basic app is posted a dozen times, each hoping to score a few dollars instead of collaborate one one or two really good apps.

3, Pure commercial software from larger shops. Think Angry Birds.

4. Real Free Software. This category is very rare. Even most of the core 'rooting' and other hacking tools are shareware. And this mindset means information is hoarded instead of shared. Go read xda-developers and see how often partial disclosures are made with a pitch to buy an app to actually implement. (The one I hit yesterday was triangleaway.) This makes coming up to speed on how Android works on real hardware is much harder than it should be.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 18:17 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

good points. k9 mail and firefox are probably the only two "daily use" apps i run on android that meet any open-ness test....sort of sad.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 19:16 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

What can I say… welcome to real world!

That's how most successful platforms look like (exceptions are even more closed: see iOS). It's the same on server, on routers and other places where Linux is actually successful, too. With perhaps smaller number of "one man band shareware apps", but that's because simple application which you can use to swindle couple of dollars from Joe Average are not all that successful among the more technical-minded public. But closed-source software and partial disclosures are norm there, too.

You can try to carve a niche for "true" FOSS software among all that chaos (with Android the natural approach will be to use Nexus devices and/or other easily openable devices, with routers you'll need to carefully select device supportable by OpenWRT), but if you'll insist on "FOSS way or the highway" then you'll quickly find out that Joe Average chooses highway 9 times out of 10.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 23:37 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]

So? All you did is make a post that boils down to agreeing with me, that if you are the sort who runs Linux (see the masthead of the site you are posting on) that Android is about as useful as Windows or OS X or iOS. Probably less so since the bulk of the App space is shareware vs commercial software. Shareware tends to combine the worst parts of Open Source and Commercial software into a big ball of fail.

And yes all of my machines at home run some sort of Linux with an OpenWRT gateway and all but one machine at work does as well. And yes I have the f-droid repo installed on my phone.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 7, 2013 0:19 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

All you did is make a post that boils down to agreeing with me, that if you are the sort who runs Linux (see the masthead of the site you are posting on) that Android is about as useful as Windows or OS X or iOS.

WTF? Do you really want to imply that people who run Linux automatically reject proprietary software? Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not true at all. I know a lot of Linux users who are more then happy to use non-free software (especially if we are talking about things like games). This means Android is more then relevant to the LWN: this is, finally, version of Linux which you can actually use to do real work without fighting it tooth and nail at every step and if this version of Linux fails "ideological purity" test then so be it.

Probably less so since the bulk of the App space is shareware vs commercial software.

That's true for Windows and iOS as well. Sure, there are some commercial packages, but most applications are shareware programs with one or two developers behind them.

And yes all of my machines at home run some sort of Linux with an OpenWRT gateway and all but one machine at work does as well. And yes I have the f-droid repo installed on my phone.

Well, that's your choice. I use an OpenWRT router, too, but I that's because I wanted to make sure it can do some things which are hard to do on stock firmware. What this has to do with anything?

I think you've mixed sites. This is Linux Weekly News, not FSF-zealots Weekly News and not RMS-lovers Weekly News. Linus is Linux's soul and he quite explicitly said in the Forbes interview: The thing that makes me not want to use the GPLv3 in its current form is that it really tries to move more toward the “software freedom” goals. You really can't be more explicit then that.

Android is the Linux distribution exactly because it's possible and easy to write programs for it - even "evil" unfree ones. Linus was always apathetic to proprietary software (he prefers free software but his preference is pragmatic one, not ideological one) but Linux distributions traditionally liked to make life difficult for the proprietary software writers (especially for small shareware-like proprietary software writers) and Android finally brings userspace policy to match original Linus intent.

P.S. My only dislike of Android is the fact that it had thrown away the only pieces of GNU/Linux which were already usable for software writers (proprietary and free ones alike): coreutils, bash, gcc, glibc, etc. This is sad, but understandable: most of these were actually FSF's projects, ironically enough, and after FSF tried to change them to become "weapon of mass opinion" the only logical choice was to abandon them. I think only glibc is still not converted but it can be converted at any time thus from Android authors POV it was probably easier to cut ties early rather then to try to keep fork going after license change.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 9, 2013 15:13 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

"Weapons of Mass Opinion".

Amazingly, I've never heard that before. And I love it. Thanks for starting my week off right.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 19:54 UTC (Fri) by MKesper (subscriber, #38539) [Link]

Have a look at http://f-droid.org for really Free Software. Almost 750 apps are included right now.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 20:02 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I'm pretty sure there are more open-source application on Google Play then that. The only problem: there are few thousand applications besides million of proprietary ones thus ratio does not look all that good. But it's similar to MacOS, Windows or any other popular OS with vibrant ecosystem thus I'm not complaining.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 20:15 UTC (Fri) by MKesper (subscriber, #38539) [Link]

Well, it's a little bit different: In contrast to free software for desktops, many free software programs built for Google Play include the non-free admob lib or even other obscure libs making it a hassle to build them with Free Software only.
And within f-droid, the ratio is 1:0. :)

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 9, 2013 8:10 UTC (Mon) by korpenkraxar (guest, #75003) [Link]

Is it possible to search the Google Play store by licences somehow to locate FLOSS?

If not, then presumably, this is a "do no evil" goodwill gesture that Google would be quite likely implement if there was a public petition that received some traction.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 9, 2013 9:13 UTC (Mon) by MKesper (subscriber, #38539) [Link]

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 9, 2013 15:18 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

Very nice; thanks.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 17:46 UTC (Fri) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]

Supposedly FirefoxOS has a number things going for it:
- FirefoxOS needs less resources to run than an Android phone

- there are 6 million webdevelopers and 'only' a couple of 100000 app developers for Android and iOS combined, many are even HTML5-apps with a native wrapper

- it's open source and I've heared it has an update process which updates the top part of FirefoxOS (so not the kernel and binaries) on regular basis. Just like Firefox and Chrome on the desktop

- there are still a lot more people with feature phones than smartphones. There are 6 billion phones in use, only 1.1 are smartphones. Most of these people don't life in a western country and don't have a smartphone partly because of price. A FirefoxOS can already be had for only 3 euros a month (for the fist 3 months, data is free the first 3 months).

Even if FirefoxOS fails, Mozilla has produces a whole slew of new WebAPIs:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI

Most of them have been proposed as standards at W3C and a number of them have become standards.

Including a new payment system for the web to bring a one-click payment system to the web. Just like the app-store model now has.

So still a win in Mozilla's book if it improves the web.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 21:14 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

Supposedly FirefoxOS has a number things going for it:
[...]
- there are 6 million webdevelopers and 'only' a couple of 100000 app developers for Android and iOS combined, many are even HTML5-apps with a native wrapper
So you're saying that it's an advantage for FirefoxOS to only run web apps, vs. an Android phone being able to run either web apps or Android apps?

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 23:29 UTC (Fri) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]

Well, the goal of FirefoxOS is to be able to run web apps better on the same hardware.

Their slogan of their developer education/evangelism/promos videos is:

"Firefox OS: the platform HTML5 deserves"

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 22:13 UTC (Fri) by liam (subscriber, #84133) [Link]

- FirefoxOS needs less resources to run than an Android phone
I hope this is true, but thus far its only been said and not demonstrated.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 7, 2013 13:18 UTC (Sat) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

FirefoxOS can run Web apps and a good Web browser on phones that can't possibly run Chrome on Android (and the Android "stock browser" is rubbish).

For Web browsing and running Web apps, running both Android's frameworks and a Web browser is a lot of overhead on low-end phones.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 9, 2013 14:38 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

But users don't care about HTML5 and for them native apps (and there are way more native Android apps then good HTML5 apps) are better: faster, less battery-hungry, etc.

In a world where there are millions of HTML5 applications and few Android ones FirefoxOS will make sense, but this is not our world right now.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 9, 2013 22:25 UTC (Mon) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

There are a very large number of Web sites that don't have an equivalent Android app.

It remains to be seen whether the average "native Android app" (I can't tell whether you mean NDK apps or Dalvik apps) is "faster, less battery-hungry, etc" than the average FirefoxOS HTML5 app or Web page in the FirefoxOS browser.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 10, 2013 18:17 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

For a lot of time facebook's mobile web interface was better, faster, less battery-hungry than and as featureful as its dalvik-application. AND it didn't nag you with notifications all the time.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 4, 2013 21:21 UTC (Wed) by liam (subscriber, #84133) [Link]

Very disappointed with the ios interface clone.
I'd been following this for awhile, and recall them saying the interface (gaia) that was initially developed wasn't going to be the same as the final product. The impression given that it was a functional ui, but not representative of their vision of the product. Now here we are, more than a year later, and the interface is, basically, the same.
This is the same story as with Gnome Shell (yeah, overview changed, for the worse, imho, but the rest, down to the colors, hasn't).
I hope they are able to fix some of the lagginess of the device. It seems, unlike with android, to be a purely optimization issue. For instance, when running it as a firefox plugin on the desktop, performance is perfect (lag is virtually undetectable, even more responsive than gnome shell!).

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 6:07 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

It seems, unlike with android, to be a purely optimization issue.

Really? IMNSHO it's the other way around: there are some hope for Android yet nothing can make FirefoxOS responsive on the hardware where Android is laggy.

Basic issue is the same and it's very-well known: use of technologies which hog resources like crazy (interpreted language plus garbage collection), only in Android it can be mitigated because you can easily move heavy-duty computations to native code which is impossible for FirefoxOS.

For instance, when running it as a firefox plugin on the desktop, performance is perfect (lag is virtually undetectable, even more responsive than gnome shell!).

Of course. You are throwing 10 times (or may be 20, 50, 100 times) more resources on the task then said task actually needs - no wonder it can be solved in such a way. But it's hard to produce "cheap phone for emerging markets" which have 10x more power then is needed for sane solutions (like iOS, for example).

That's why FirefoxOS can never win direct fight with Android or iOS: it's basic architecture makes sure it'll not be competitive. It can probably produce poor experience for poor people who don't know any better and with advances in hardware it may even become usable, but in direct confrontation FirefoxOS will lose 10 times out of 10 - it's architecture guarantees that. When mobile phones will be as powerful as today's desktop computers it'll be smooth enough, but by that time we'll already know the winner of "smartphone war" and it'll be as entrenched as Windows is today.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 9:50 UTC (Thu) by HelloWorld (subscriber, #56129) [Link]

> Basic issue is the same and it's very-well known: use of technologies which hog resources like crazy (interpreted language plus garbage collection), only in Android it can be mitigated because you can easily move heavy-duty computations to native code which is impossible for FirefoxOS.
Nonsense, Firefox has asm.js which allows for near-native speed.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 10:39 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Nonsense, Firefox has asm.js which allows for near-native speed.

... if you have uncounted gigabytes of RAM. Native code is not just about speed, it's about memory consumption, too. On mobile both are at premium. ASM.js promises 0.5x speed for a single core CPU and to achieve that it still needs gobs of RAM.

Yes, asm.js can narrow gap between FirefoxOS and Android, but it's still will be quite large.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 21:35 UTC (Thu) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]

> if you have uncounted gigabytes of RAM

asm.js does not add any penalty to the size of native data structures. They take exactly the same amount of memory as if directly compiled to the machine code. Clearly, the runtime support for parsing and compiling the initial code can be high, but even in that case we are talking about tens of megabytes, not hundreds, that are immediately returned to the system after the native code is generated.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 11:36 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

asm.js does not add any penalty to the size of native data structures.

May be not for data structures, but it defenitely has huge penalty for code. Contemporary applications are huge and with asm.js you can not even share basic LibC routines! I've seen projects where people created their own linker to reduce memory pressure by reusing PLT tables. This is on top of the already shareable code (it's not loaded in memory but used via mmap(2) on all contemporary OSes).

Clearly, the runtime support for parsing and compiling the initial code can be high, but even in that case we are talking about tens of megabytes, not hundreds, that are immediately returned to the system after the native code is generated.

Even if they are returned it's enough to push other important structures out of memory and, more importantly, you still need to keep all these duplicated libraries in memory even after initial load. Sure, this problem is solveable with caching and other clever techniques, but AFAICS it's not done yet. Eventually all these problems will be "solved" in a simple way (via use of the excessively fast hardware), but… time is running out.

P.S. Note that my asm.js skepticism is opposite of GC skepticism: with GC I'm not sure if it's ever possible to create workable solution (in a case where memory and CPU power is a premium) while with asm.js I'm ready to admit that everything is possible in theory, but we are not there right now.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 16:50 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

asm.js does nothing for string/DOM manipulation which is most of what you will see in web apps. asm.js applies to a very limited subset of js.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 9:54 UTC (Thu) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]

> in Android it can be mitigated because you can easily move heavy-duty computations to native code which is impossible for FirefoxOS.

Mozilla's answer to that is asm.js, http://asmjs.org . Although currently it may not provide native speed in all cases, the nice thing about is that it is very light in terms of efforts to develop it so Mozilla can improve it very quickly.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 17:06 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

the only way for mozilla to address string/DOM manipulation would be through language extensions (in which case they lose the "its just js" selling point), or craft their rendering engine to special case what is recognized as asm.js output (possible, but would bloat the rendering engine and create weird bugs)

the v8 folks keep telling people that further optimization of js runtimes is limited due to the nature of the js language...but mozilla can't look at alternatives without giving the appearance of losing their independence

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 21:15 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

As someone who has done a lot of work on performance issues in FirefoxOS, and someone dogfooding FirefoxOS on the lowest-end hardware, I don't agree. I don't know exactly what issues Corbet is complaining about, but most of the slowness/lag issues I see are not GC related.

One big issue is app startup time. This is related to Web platform issues --- it's hard to precompile a Web app --- but not GC.

Another big issue is smoothness of CSS animations and transitions. These are managed by C++ code and GC is not involved.

Another big issue is smoothness of panning with touch gestures. Again these are managed by C++ code that isn't impacted by GC.

(Our JS GC has gotten a lot better since the version of Gecko that's present in these 1.0 devices. We have greatly reduced pause times since then. I don't think that will make much difference to FirefoxOS users though.)

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 11:29 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

This is related to Web platform issues --- it's hard to precompile a Web app --- but not GC.

I've said "interpreted language plus garbage collection", not just GC. If you say that first part is more problematic then second one then you probably are right. Both are pretty awful but their combination is especially bad.

Another big issue is smoothness of panning with touch gestures. Again these are managed by C++ code that isn't impacted by GC.

I'm not all that sure. I've never worked with FirefoxOS but I've played with Android. Once when we've tried to see why panning does not work smoothly after small change we've found that one, single Java-based printf in the frame-generated procedure generated over 200 temporary objects and created lags. We've replaced Java printf with C++ code and problem went away. Granted it was an old version of Android and the old hardware (original Android device: HTC Dream), and I hope there are nothing so bad in FirefoxOS but I would not dismiss the possibility entirely: even if 99% of work is done in C++ you still can not be sure GC will not hurt you. Note that while said HTC Dream is considered fatally underpowered by modern Android standards it's not all that worse then ZTE Open from purely hardware standpoint.

Our JS GC has gotten a lot better since the version of Gecko that's present in these 1.0 devices. We have greatly reduced pause times since then.

Bwahaha. I first heard this excuse over twenty years ago when I was still in middle school and asked why some "uberpowerfull" text editor (don't remember the name, but I know it was not Emacs) periodically stops responding and displays "GC in progress, please wait" message. Few years later I've tried to use Whitewater Resource Toolkit in Borland C++ 3.0, met the same problem and heard the same excuse. I've heard it bazillion times since then and this is why I don't believe in GC.

P.S. Note that I could be wrong. I was similarly sceptical about C++ decision to create the standard library with huge amount of garbage which is supposed to be optimized away by optimizing compiler — yet C++ guys have provent me wrong since today compilers indeed know how to optimize all that mess and the result is often faster then nice and clean C code. I will be ready to admit that GC is no longer a problem when I'll see UI with GC and no lag — but not before. Actually I have seen such UI. In Emacs. But if please recall that Emacs means "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping" and notice that today even mobile phones have hundred times more then that… it's not very convincing.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 12:48 UTC (Fri) by danieldk (subscriber, #27876) [Link]

> (Our JS GC has gotten a lot better since the version of Gecko that's present in these 1.0 devices. We have greatly reduced pause times since then. I don't think that will make much difference to FirefoxOS users though.)

Will these devices get such updates? How long will a phone such as the ZTE Open get Firefox OS updates?

BTW. It's great to see more competition!

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 18:08 UTC (Fri) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641) [Link]

I've read somewhere that Mozilla's play is to have regular updates like Firefox and Chrome on the desktop for the top part of FirefoxOS (so not the kernel and daemons).

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 22:43 UTC (Thu) by liam (subscriber, #84133) [Link]

Really? IMNSHO it's the other way around: there are some hope for Android yet nothing can make FirefoxOS responsive on the hardware where Android is laggy
I'm not saying there's no hope for Android. The problems with android seem down to: unoptimized drawing routines, scheduling issues, and uneven drivers. Since fxos is using android as a delivery for kernel/drivers, it's going to suffer from the driver issues as well. The scheduling may be something they could fix though it's not in their area of expertise. The drawing pipeline, however, could be a rather large difference. I've related my experience with running it with faster hardware and how the lag virtually vanishes. I haven't told of my experiences with android with various hardware.

Regarding native code, I think you are vastly underestimating how much of the pertinent code paths are actually using native code (apparently c++ according to roc below). This becomes increasingly the case as they use fully accelerated css paths rather than custom js.

Of course. You are throwing 10 times (or may be 20, 50, 100 times) more resources on the task then said task actually needs - no wonder it can be solved in such a way. But it's hard to produce "cheap phone for emerging markets" which have 10x more power then is needed for sane solutions (like iOS, for example).
I think you're missing the point. Running android 4.1 on my old nexus s results in similar levels of lag as the highest-end android devices. To stay with nexus devices and using geekbench for rough estimates of device capabilities, the nexus 4 is roughly seven times more powerful, yet, the lag difference is imperceptible to me. Thus my point about optimizations in the two platforms.

I get that you have disdain for interpreted languages, and I'm not going to argue the point, but I think you are wrong about this b/c I've never used an android device that didn't have that characteristic lag, and I have used a firefox "device" that didn't.

Lastly, running geekbench on my computer (core2duo t7500 with 4GB) it actually scored lower than my nexus 4 (which is a bit odd since the pc actually posted individual scores of about twice the nexus 4 for single core results), so we're not talking about huge performance deltas here.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 11:20 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Running android 4.1 on my old nexus s results in similar levels of lag as the highest-end android devices.

Have you actually compared them side-by-side or are you comparing experiences separated by years?

I've recently was forced to work with Nexus S (with Android 4.1, naturally) for a bit and quickly found out that it's laggy as hell when compared to Galaxy Nexus with Android 4.2.x/4.3 (I don't have Nexus 4). When I've used it as my primary phone years ago I've not noticed these same lags all that much.

To stay with nexus devices and using geekbench for rough estimates of device capabilities, the nexus 4 is roughly seven times more powerful, yet, the lag difference is imperceptible to me.

I'm not sure what exactly geekbench measures, but biggest problem with interpreted languages is not even CPU power, but memory consumption. You need gobs of memory to make them fast (on a desktop a single Chrome tab with GMail uses over 200Mb while the phone we are talking about only has 256MiB available).

Lastly, running geekbench on my computer (core2duo t7500 with 4GB) it actually scored lower than my nexus 4 (which is a bit odd since the pc actually posted individual scores of about twice the nexus 4 for single core results), so we're not talking about huge performance deltas here.

No, we are talking about some limited benchmark here. Raw computing power of "big" Intel CPUs may not be all that dissimilar from raw CPU power of ARM in synthetic benchmarks, but there are huge diffence in real life because of faster memory, bigger caches, better prefetch logic, etc. Also: are you sure you are comparing apples-to-apples and your "core2duo t7500 with 4GB" actually has proper 3D acceleration and everything? Latest versions of Android rely on GPU for various effects and software fallback is not optimized all that well. If CPU power is wasted on doing GPU effects (which even top Intel CPUs are not doing all that well), then of course interface will be laggy.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 16:51 UTC (Fri) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]

According to about:memory gmail tab under Firefox on ARM takes 64 MB. Not good, but manageable on 256MB phone.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 22:00 UTC (Fri) by liam (subscriber, #84133) [Link]

Have you actually compared them side-by-side or are you comparing experiences separated by years?
Side-by-side. The Nexus S still works as it always has (well, not considering the changes the updates have made).
I've recently was forced to work with Nexus S (with Android 4.1, naturally) for a bit and quickly found out that it's laggy as hell when compared to Galaxy Nexus with Android 4.2.x/4.3 (I don't have Nexus 4). When I've used it as my primary phone years ago I've not noticed these same lags all that much.
The lag have ALWAYS been there in every device, regardless of spec. The frame rates have been a bit worse since 4.1 came out. The input latency seems about the same (I can't say for certain since I wasn't able to test those side-by-side, of course).

***SNIP interpreted language rant***

I'm not going to do your research for you, so if you want to know what geekbench measures you can look for yourself, but I will say this: it categorizes its tests as int, fp, and memory/streaming performance. The memory category was of particular interest to me since that has been a consistent weak area for ARM. The intel cpu had a better memory interface (upto about four times better).

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 16:32 UTC (Thu) by wlach (subscriber, #23397) [Link]

Improving user-perceived performance and responsiveness is definitely a priority for us. We now have a team dedicated to tracking down FirefoxOS performance issues, and we have been standing up automated systems which can measure this sort of thing on an ongoing basis (e.g. my project, a camera-based system which draws data directly from user-perceived output: http://eideticker.mozilla.org/ and http://eideticker.mozilla.org/b2g).

If you're interested in learning more about our efforts, probably the best place to start is the FxOS performance team's wiki page:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G/Performance

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 22:58 UTC (Thu) by liam (subscriber, #84133) [Link]

Thanks for the eideticker effort. I hadn't heard of that.
I've subscribed to several key performance related bugs already but haven't seen much movement with them.
What's more worrying is that there doesn't seem to be much talk about improving responsiveness. Originally the goal was to perform better than android with lower-end hardware but that effort seems to have been tossed aside.
Lastly, there is the whole design issue, which corbet was kind enough to delve into a bit in the review.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 8:58 UTC (Fri) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link]

Sorry about that. There is work being done to introduce a new user interface with new concepts and paradigms. Changes will land in the course of the next versions.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 11:37 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

So you plan to repeat "success" of KDE4 and GNOME3? Are you sure that's wise?

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 13:24 UTC (Fri) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link]

> So you plan to repeat "success" of KDE4 and GNOME3? Are you sure that's wise?

I think you made your opinion more than clear in the discussion. There is no need to post ridiculous comments like this one. Thank you.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 16:37 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I admit that my comment was tongue-in-check, but it's serious, too. It's very bad idea to release version 1.0 (or 2.0, or 5.0) of something only to turn around and "introduce a new user interface with new concepts and paradigms". KDE4 and GNOME3 fiascos are most well-known, but all organizations which tried that have suffered (yes, even Apple… twice: it lost huge amount of users in Apple ][ to Mac transition and then almost went bankrupt in the MacOS classic to MacOS X transition… all the changes since then were piecemeal even if internals were radically changed… that's when it grew to juggernaut it is today). Heck, look on Microsoft which went from 12% of market share (which it had with Windows Mobile 6.x) to 4% (with Windows Phone 8) and which didn't repeat this fate on desktop with Windows 8 only because it has pretty solid monopoly there (but still it's disaster worse then Vista).

If you wanted to introduce some kind of radically "new user interface with new concepts and paradigms" then it should have been done before release 1.0, not after!

I seriously hope you've just overhyped the size of promised overhaul and it'll be more like Android2 to Android3 to Android4 transition (with some improvements and may be even new features but without too many new "concepts and paradigms"), otherwise problems with lags will be the last of your problems: you will be hated by your own users!

If you don't believe me and do not want to learn from others' mistakes… well, that's your baby, not mine, you've created it, you can kill it — but it'll be pretty sad to see it killed because of such a simple mistake.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 17:55 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link]

Actually I'd say your arguments are the reason they SHOULD do any major changes now. Now they only have a few early adopters and few real customers. They have two futures:

1. They never get real installed base. Who cares if they change anything, dead is dead, so we can ignore this future.

2. They do get a toehold somewhere. At that point your argument would apply, pushing any major change all at once would be a bad idea.

So don't be confused by the 1.0 version number, this is still a developers release now, if they have a hankering to get a big change that didn't make it onto the 1.0 hardware now is probably the last chance, six months from now would be too late, either way.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 19:44 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Actually I'd say your arguments are the reason they SHOULD do any major changes now. Now they only have a few early adopters and few real customers.

Good point. Well, now (as in: right now, basically in the next few weeks or may be a month) will be a good time, you are right. And indeed, if your creation is not popular then it may be good idea to release something "with new user interface with new concepts and paradigms" (Microsoft is famous for making few mediocre versions of anything before creating a hit).

But this idea raises the question: if you can not create something which will be popular and you know that (otherwise why plan for the next version "with new concepts and paradigms" from the start) then why such product was released in first place?

If they have a hankering to get a big change that didn't make it onto the 1.0 hardware now is probably the last chance, six months from now would be too late, either way.

On that we can agree, too. I actually feel that now it already too late (IMHO critical point was "half of the phones sold are smartphones" and this point has passed already already), but, well, it's very close to critical time and they still have small chance of jumping on the bandwagon of the last car of a departing train… but as time goes on chances are becomes more and more imaginary.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 22:03 UTC (Fri) by liam (subscriber, #84133) [Link]

That's wonderful to hear, but I do share the concerns of those below, well khim at least, that changing the interface so soon after release may alienate your users BUT if the interface is substantially better it may be worth losing a few of the older users for the potential new users you'll gain.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 4, 2013 23:48 UTC (Wed) by cmrx64 (subscriber, #89304) [Link]

I also bought one, mostly because of the attractive price point, and I quite like it. It's not perfect, but it's a huge step up from my generic flip phone.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 8:42 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

Shame that they chose a Qualcomm MSM device, those are particularly bad for freedom because the modem controls the CPU and other devices:

http://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Targe...

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 21:29 UTC (Thu) by swetland (subscriber, #63414) [Link]

Unless they're using a particularly ancient MSM SoC, that is no longer the case. 8064 (maybe earlier?) and forward no longer operate in a "modem is master" mode, which is a huge improvement.

Using Android as a base

Posted Sep 5, 2013 12:46 UTC (Thu) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link]

Does anyone know to what extent Firefox OS depends on all the Android infrastructure? I worry that if it is a quite close coupling then they (and their users) will be just as dependent on and at the mercy of Google's opaque Android development and release cycle. Which would be a pity, as one of the exciting things about other free mobile operating systems is that they could offer more openness than Android currently do.

Using Android as a base

Posted Sep 5, 2013 16:43 UTC (Thu) by wlach (subscriber, #23397) [Link]

FirefoxOS is basically Android with the Dalvik/Java bits removed and replaced with a very specialized copy of mobile Firefox/Gecko. I wouldn't say there's a very close coupling between Android and FirefoxOS -- most of our development efforts occur either in Firefox/Gecko or the web applications which run on top of it.

Using Android as a base

Posted Sep 6, 2013 8:09 UTC (Fri) by tdz (subscriber, #58733) [Link]

From Android we only use the kernel, and system tools and low-level libraries; no Dalvic/Java infrastructure, not even all of the daemons. For porting to new devices, we need a handful of files from the previously installed Android system, such as binary drivers and device-specific config files. The rest is completely build from source. So we are fairly independent from Google's release cycle, as long as we support any version of Android for the device.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 16:55 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

there are already lots of cheap android phones.

android is familiar to users. why should a user buy an unfamiliar cheap phone over a familiar one?

i love mozilla as an org, but this product is as DOA as ubuntu edge. the only reason firefoxOS exists is so that mozilla can attempt to regain its stature as a platform provider instead of just an application provider.

firefox on android is great, i use it every day, but it needs work. i'd much rather see mozilla make firefox the best browser on android rather than a pointless foray into an OS no one will ever use or take seriously

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 17:49 UTC (Thu) by lsl (subscriber, #86508) [Link]

I'd think that today most people don't have a smartphone at all. So IMHO the familiarity argument doesn't count (yet). That may change in the near future, though.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 19:00 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

but there's nothing about firefoxOS that gives it an exclusive entree into the next four billion...indeed, since android devices are produced at scale, i presume it would be rather trivial to undercut the pricing of the limited production run of firefoxOS phones.

this is about mozilla trying to stay relevant, not about delivering something consumers will actually want. this is what bothers me about the ubuntu efforts as well...there's practically nothing meaningful differentiating the products, and the only key differentiators one might bring up are those that illustrate why android is a better choice (ubiquity, app selection, etc)

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 21:17 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

FirefoxOS runs on Android kernels and uses the same hardware as Android devices. So manufacturing scale does not give Android an advantage.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 4:00 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

sure it does. billions of people are not going to install a new OS on their phones.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 4:33 UTC (Fri) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

Do you think there's a price difference between producing 10 million phones and flashing Android onto all of them, vs producing 10 million phones and flashing Android onto 9 million of them and flashing FirefoxOS onto 1 million of them? I don't.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 6:14 UTC (Fri) by aryonoco (subscriber, #55563) [Link]

Yes my friend. There is. Every added SKU on a supply-chain adds cost.

"Too many SKUs"

Posted Sep 6, 2013 9:02 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

But the way you've stated this makes it sound as though right now somebody is making nine million identical phones in one SKU, while if they offered Firefox OS in some markets they'd have to double the number of SKUs. The reality is that they probably have dozens of SKUs for those nine million phones, and adding a handful more to sell another million phones wouldn't phase them at all.

One of the accusations thrown at Nokia (back in the heady days of the 6310i for example) is that they made too many SKUs. The contrast is often made to Apple. But that is (as so often) a triumph of marketing. Apple are just as happy to produce different SKUs they're just reluctant to provide a sensible way of distinguishing them for end users resulting in silliness like needing a whole sentence to specify which actual model of computer you bought from them.

Having more SKUs makes sense as long as your management understand that not all SKUs are created equal. The dark blue cars don't need to be crash tested separately from the green cars for example. You can sell both kinds of cars, without incurring extra costs for crash testing. The UK phone and the US phone are separate SKUs because Americans would be puzzled by a UK-compatible charger. But the actual phone hardware is the same, so you don't need a separate production line for the actual phone, just separate packing to bundle the charger.

Those of us in Europe get to see the wider variety of SKUs for some products because of what's called the grey market. The EU requires internal free trade so if SKU #48 originally intended for Spain actually sells rather well (and for more money) to people in Germany, it will soon find itself on trucks or planes headed to Germany even though the manufacturer explicitly wanted to prevent that.

"Too many SKUs"

Posted Sep 6, 2013 11:41 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

The dark blue cars don't need to be crash tested separately from the green cars for example.

Sure, but if it's ICE cars and you want to produce electric cars then you'll need to test them separately. Difference between Android and FirefoxOS is closer to difference between ICE and electric motor rather then difference between dark blue car and green car. Well, perhaps you can compare it to difference between diesel and injector, but these, too, must be tested separately (at least some things must be tested separately). At least crash tests must be repeated because different engine types will destruct in different manner.

"Too many SKUs"

Posted Sep 6, 2013 20:55 UTC (Fri) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

"At least crash tests must be repeated because different engine types will destruct in different manner."

Probably not, type compliance for which destructive testing is specified would usually cover an entire vehicle model. Indeed this is not a coincidence, type compliance rules were written with an eye on what manufacturers considered to be one "model" of vehicle, and since then manufacturers obviously don't want to introduce a model which would consist of multiple types requiring separate compliance because of the added cost.

I haven't read the US rules, but the EU rules are clear that only a totally different type of power plant, e.g. batteries and an electric motor rather than a combustion engine, would count as a separate type and need fresh testing. So long as the body plan is the same, one vehicle can be tested as a stand-in for any number of variants in fuel technology, gearbox, etc.

Most of the crash testing we think of is actually voluntary, it isn't required by law as part of type compliance but is rather a consumer protection activity, albeit sometimes still funded by the government. NCAP and EuroNCAP for example, have no role in type compliance: vehicles that score badly in their tests aren't illegal, they can still be sold in the relevant countries and insured and driven. Car buyers do pay at least some attention though, which is why these programmers are still running. Like Europe's A-E letter efficiency grading on white goods, consumers show some interest in avoiding the poorest performers and that helps push manufacturers in the right direction without legislation.

But we have drifted far off topic.

"difference between diesel and injector"

Posted Sep 30, 2013 17:58 UTC (Mon) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]

perhaps you can compare it to difference between diesel and injector
Almost all diesel engines use injection, and many of them use computer-controlled injection nowadays, so what's the difference supposed to be? (You can read all that in the Wikipedia pages you linked to BTW.)

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 17:14 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

but thats only the start. where are your retail outlets? your carrier promotion and support? who is zte? everyone has heard of samsung. they have name-brand recognition, they have shelf space and sales kiosks. it all matters. i'll be shocked if i ever see a firefox or ubuntu phone at any wireless store in the US, let alone foreign markets.

and how do you get everyone in the mix to make space for a firefox phone? its an inferior product. people will make room for something better...but this isn't it

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 6, 2013 19:58 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

i'll be shocked if i ever see a firefox or ubuntu phone at any wireless store in the US, let alone foreign markets.

Why everyone assumes revolution should start in the US? US is actually the last place you want to do that (unless you are huge American company, at least). It's market is completely controlled by carriers, you need to spend literally years to convince them to do anything for you and time is running out. There are markets where it's much, much easier to sell new types of phones (India, Russia, to some degree China, maybe some African countries).

This is one of the few things which Mozilla does right. Elop for some unfathomable reason decided to mount "attack on the US", lost China and the rest of the world and failed miserably in doing anything in US, too, Mozilla's people are not so dumb.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 5, 2013 22:59 UTC (Thu) by deepfire (subscriber, #26138) [Link]

I think that someone was a bit took quick to give the fledgeling a bad rap.

I know, the title is "Firefox OS on the ZTE Open", not "Firefox OS", but still.

I hope it does not stick..

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 7, 2013 1:00 UTC (Sat) by horen (subscriber, #2514) [Link]

The article is, itself, interesting; but the portion relevant here is in the final five paragraphs, regarding ZTE.

Legislation Seeks to Bar N.S.A. Tactic in Encryption.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 9, 2013 13:16 UTC (Mon) by kruemelmo (subscriber, #8279) [Link]

Anyway... testing this phone, could you place a phone call?

"looking out for its users"

Posted Sep 9, 2013 15:08 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

Well, I guess that depends on whom you think the users are.

They screwed IT users by going to the "everything's a major release" version numbering system, and now they're screwing everyone else by violating the most fundamental rule of webapp design: *DON'T BREAK THE BACK BUTTON*.

Well, ok, in fairness, they just *removed* the button, but it's the same thing.

No; I think Firefox is following Google down the road to Mordor.

"looking out for its users"

Posted Sep 9, 2013 15:36 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

> They screwed IT users by going to the "everything's a major release" version numbering system

actually, if you are doing continuous improvement on a codebase, either everything is a major release or nothing is a major release.

Mozilla went one direction (a single number), Linus went a different direction (everything is a minor release, until he decides the numbers are too large)

In any case, the idea that major releases need more testing than minor releases (which is the basis of the "IT user" complaints) is false to begin with.

"looking out for its users"

Posted Sep 9, 2013 15:38 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

> Well, ok, in fairness, they just *removed* the button, but it's the same thing.

well, I'm using firefox 25 (the alpha version) and the back button works just fine.

I'll bet that firefoxOS has a back button or gesture that works just fine. Now, the discoverability of gestures is a problem, but that's a completely different topic.

"looking out for its users"

Posted Sep 10, 2013 15:44 UTC (Tue) by rillian (subscriber, #11344) [Link]

The browser app has a back button on Firefox OS, as do a number of applications. But that's specific to that app. There's no global back button in the current design, the way android has and iOS doesn't. That's what people generally mean when they talk about Firefox OS "not having a back button." It affects inter-app workflow but not normal web browsing.

You can try these things out for yourself in the simulator.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 11, 2013 8:15 UTC (Wed) by glaesera (subscriber, #91429) [Link]

Android is non-free it is open-source, but it is a non-free proprietary product.
See here:
https://fsfe.org/campaigns/android/android.html
Also it is highly recommended, to not use the default app-store, but this instead:
https://f-droid.org/
Some free clone of Firefox-OS like Cyanogenmod should not be necessary at all, because this is free and open software by itself.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 13, 2013 10:01 UTC (Fri) by freetard (guest, #92836) [Link]

The key contribution of Android is that it created a Linux-based OS that is friendly to proprietary software and it does have decent proprietary software.

Desktop Linux users also want AAA games, Photoshop, MS Office, etc.
They just do not have them (Steam brings some hope) and have to live with shitty open source alternatives.

Firefox OS's position is somehow strange.
Yes, ZET Open's price is OK for developing world.
But does developing world have decent mobile networks?
Does developing world have decent HTML5 eco-system?
At least in China, IE6 usage is surprisingly high and most Web sites do not bother to support Firefox well (glitches are here and there), many Web sites are still IE-only.

Firefox OS on the ZTE Open

Posted Sep 18, 2013 23:07 UTC (Wed) by Kaejox (guest, #85586) [Link]

Hope that they develop easy installer for existing devices (like CyanogenMod is planning). My Galaxy S2 would be possible target for Firefox OS, but current install system looks risky and too much work.
I ordered ZTE Open, but would like to use FFOS with better hardware also.
Jolla phone looks promising (with Android compatibility), maybe after pre-order stage when prices drop.
They should sell their phones also via Ebay or some other site for international market...like ZTE does.

Geeksphone

Posted Sep 19, 2013 15:20 UTC (Thu) by Kaejox (guest, #85586) [Link]

Another device option is Geeksphone Peak+ (pre-order available for 149 EUR)
Not sure if it supports 900 MHz 3G network (only 850/1900/2100 listed)

http://shop.geeksphone.com/en/

They have web forum too:

http://forum.geeksphone.com/

Does it have some similarity between Firefox/Iceweasel case?

http://forum.geeksphone.com/index.php?topic=5528.0

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds