User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Mozilla announces 18 carriers supporting Firefox OS

Mozilla announces 18 carriers supporting Firefox OS

Posted Feb 25, 2013 0:48 UTC (Mon) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126)
In reply to: Mozilla announces 18 carriers supporting Firefox OS by pabs
Parent article: Mozilla announces 18 carriers supporting Firefox OS

This OS practically tries to replace all the dumb phones. Mozilla is playing the game in lower sections where manufacturing of the hardware is really a concern. They just want to eat the left over pie from android and apple. Maybe if they win they might escalate into competing with Google and apple. I think its a good strategy on paper. but only time will answer if its really worth it.


(Log in to post comments)

Mozilla announces 18 carriers supporting Firefox OS

Posted Feb 25, 2013 5:38 UTC (Mon) by hadrons123 (guest, #72126) [Link]

Correction:
Mozilla is playing the game in lower sections where manufacturing of the hardware is *hardly* a concern.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 25, 2013 22:39 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

only time will answer if its really worth it.
It depends on the quality of the platform and the features it offers. They have a clear advantage over Android: less layers on top of the hardware, and technology moves so fast that it is always working for the low end scavengers (i.e.: a €200 phone can do more today than a €600 phone two years ago). But they also have a lot of hurdles: not the least that all platforms that have moved towards javascript have failed in the marketplace (or are in the process of failing). Will they be able to offer a complete OS that people want, when they are still bleeding users on the desktop -- which is a much simpler product? I would like them to, but I have serious doubts.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 25, 2013 23:22 UTC (Mon) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Those stats seem…off. Ars Technica reports[1] (via Net Marketshare) much rosier numbers for Firefox (at least compared to non-IE browsers). What is GS not counting that it's missing quite a chunk of the IE numbers NM counts?

[1]http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/02/int...

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 9:12 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

The user base for StatCounter is probably quite different than for the Ars Technica article. For starters, the author of the article you link is "a Microsoft Contributor at Ars"; I am not surprised that he would manage to find good numbers for IE.

Anyway, what matters for the argument is the tendency in market share: Firefox is dwindling while Chrome is improving.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 16:16 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

And the difference in user base is what I want to know. Does SC ignore business? Does NM not count enough on Facebook? There's *quite* a difference and I'd like to know why. If it's bias, fine, but it'd still be interesting to see how that bias is being made.

In any case, the comments on his articles have indicated that he's actually pretty rough on Microsoft, not a blind follower (I don't read a lot of his stuff; mostly just the ones about changes to the dev environment since I use it at work).

The numbers Are has gotten over time showed Chrome catching Firefox, but both have pretty much flat lined in the past few months.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 18:52 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

> the author of the article you link is "a Microsoft Contributor at Ars"; I am not surprised that he would manage to find good numbers for IE

While I agree that different websites can have vastly different distributions of browsers I am disappointed in your unsupported assertion that just because someone writes news about Microsoft that they have lied about the browser distribution numbers. I think Ars has a little more journalistic integrity than that. I know it is fashionable to make these kind of serious accusations in a completely off-hand manner but it provides a confusing and inaccurate picture of the world, making it more difficult to pick out and recognize the real biases, by using rational, logical thought.

I wish more people learned rhetoric so that they were better equipped to spot BS and didn't fall back to using such inaccurate methods.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 19:24 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Sorry to have offended your sense of (journalistic?) integrity, but really? If people did indeed learn rhetoric they might spot a glaring appeal to authority in your comment, and that is the whole basis of your analysis. You give no explanation about the biases; in fact you make it look like Ars data might be accurate while StatCounter might be off.

At the very least you may look at some other independent market share analysis, from the first page of Google results for browser market share: Wikimedia foundation, w3schools, Clicky. None of them are even close to the ones from NetMarketshare.

To answer another commenter, apparently there is a big difference in methodology between NetMarketshare and StatCounter. Personally I think that the methodology of NetMarketshare is atrocious; basing your research on the CIA factbook to make up for missing data looks like a bad idea. The discrepancy would mean that IE users surf the net about 3 to 4 times less than Chrome users, which is odd and a bit demeaning. Picking NetMarketshare data to report looks like a pro-Microsoft bias at best (from Ars or from the reporter), and plain old ignorance at worst. If you have any other enlightening views about why the bias, please let us know.

Finally, given that I was talking about dwindling Firefox market share, which is confirmed by all sets of data, this is a very unnecessary discussion, entertaining as it may be.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 20:56 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Thanks for the links; they're some interesting reading. I'll have to send an email to Ars asking why they use NetMarketshare (and maybe do a piece comparing them with StatCounter). The weighting based on the CIA factbook seems, to me, to indicate that IE is used more heavily in less connected countries (since they get pulled up). And yes, it is weird to weight your data, but, IMO, no less weird than just ignoring missing data (which would seem to be what SC does). At least they both are

> If you have any other enlightening views about why the bias, please let us know.

I suppose if and when Ars does a NM/SC comparison article would help with this.

> Finally, given that I was talking about dwindling Firefox market share, which is confirmed by all sets of data, this is a very unnecessary discussion, entertaining as it may be.

Well, seeing as my comment spawned this subthread, I agree that Firefox isn't looking strong in any of these datasets. I was more surprised at the difference between the stats I had seen before. Plus, it's not like I have much of a horse in the race as a developer of Uzbl (which will forever be relegated to a fraction of "Other").

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 21:03 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

> ...indicate that IE is used more heavily in less connected countries...

This makes sense. IE is already on the machine, Firefox (or any other browser) will need bandwidth (i.e. time) to download.

If you don't really need it, and surfing the web is slow and painful in any case, why bother?

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 21:03 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

> I suppose if and when Ars does a NM/SC comparison article would help with this.

They usually compare the third party aggregate stats with their own site stats which are often wildly different, much less IE, way more Firefox.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 23:15 UTC (Tue) by Lennie (guest, #49641) [Link]

OK, I'm replying at the bottom of this thread in the hope that most of you subscribed to notifications all get this reply.

Most of the time you see 2 organisations quoted in news articles for statistics.

gs.statcounter.com and marketshare.hitslink.com

hitslink always has a much higher IE-share than statcounter, there are several reasons for that that I know of:

1. hitslink seems to be on more business oriented, IE is bigger in business than at home (just look at statcounter and compare the numbers for weekday and weekend).

2. IE is still bigger in China than in western countries. The country with the largest share of Windows XP is also China I believe. Probably Google isn't such a household name in China as their searchengine does not have a large share. A large part of Chrome users are Chrome users because of Google advertising and them being a household name. The reason China is significant for the statistics is because hitslink mangles their statistics based by adding a weight based on the number of people in a country. And China is a really large country.

3. statcounter measures by pageviews and hitslink counts by 'visit' (per session of pageviews). IE users are the 'dumber' users, users that don't know alternatives exist or how to install new software. My guess is these are users which visit a whole lot less pages per website. Chrome and Firefox users click much faster thus visit more pages.

Counting the missing

Posted Feb 26, 2013 22:44 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Well, that explains it. I would argue that counting the browsers of people who don't browse is useless and even misleading. But ignoring missing data which you don't have and you don't really know how much it is worth, is wise. It would be like trying to guess what browser would have all those people that do not have computers, if they bought computers -- and adding them to the stats.

Counting the missing

Posted Feb 26, 2013 23:07 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

I suppose I should have been more clear: it's weird in the sense that there are no error bars on anything. One tries to compensate for the missing data errors while the other says "what we have is good enough". Neither approach is fundamentally good or bad under difference circumstances. SC has a much larger base versus NM based on site counts, so NM has to make up the difference somehow to make as strong an argument.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 10:05 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

They have a clear advantage over Android: less layers on top of the hardware, and technology moves so fast that it is always working for the low end scavengers (i.e.: a €200 phone can do more today than a €600 phone two years ago).

It's clear, but diminishing advantage. Every year memory becomes cheaper and cheaper and other components (screen, battery, etc) are kept on the same level. Cheapest Android 4.0 phones (and Android 4.0 is more resource-hungry then Android 2.x) are well below $100 unsubsidized already. How much down can Firefox OS push the envelope? How much will it matter?

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 10:36 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Less than $100 with Android 4.0? I have not found any, all those sub-$100 phones run 2.3.

Which points to another issue with Android (and potentially its worst nightmare): the enormous fragmentation caused by manufacturers still shipping 2.3. Right now 2.x has more than 45% share to this day, when 4.0 was launched more than a year ago. It is much easier for Firefox OS to compete against 2.3 than against the latest and greatest 4.2!

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 10:52 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Less than $100 with Android 4.0? I have not found any, all those sub-$100 phones run 2.3.

Really?. Here is the first link, here is the second

It is much easier for Firefox OS to compete against 2.3 than against the latest and greatest 4.2!

Well, if FirefoxOS will reach shops in the second part of the 2013 it'll be competing against Android 4.2, not against Android 2.3. Of course most likely Android 4.2 will not be "latest and greatest" by then.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 14:09 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

OK, let me restate: I have not found any sub-$100 phones on Amazon or local retailers, and I am not willing to risk buying a cheap unbranded phone direct from China. (Although I hear that some of those sub-€100 tablets are not bad at all.) In this (admittedly exquisite) of branded, guaranteed category there are no 4.0 ICS phones yet.

The segmentation problem means that in Q4 2013 there will be almost as many Android 2.3 phones on sale as there are now, and that is a real pity. Just look at this chart and extrapolate: Android version renewal is getting slower as time goes by, not faster.

Painfully obvious truths

Posted Feb 26, 2013 15:23 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

I've seen sub-$100 Android phones in CVS and Safeway in the US. Near stands with various phone cards.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds