Firefox OS Smartphones Arriving For Developers 124
Nerval's Lobster writes "For quite some time Mozilla has been working on Firefox OS, a lightweight mobile OS built in HTML5. Now it's whipped the curtain back from the first developer preview phones. The developer preview phones are unlocked, requiring the user insert their own SIM card. If those specs seem a little underpowered compared to other smartphones on the market, it's because Firefox OS is intended for lower-end smartphones; target markets include developing countries such as Brazil and China. (The first developer preview phones will be available in February.) The Firefox OS (once known as 'Boot to Gecko') is based on a handful of open APIs. The actual interface is highly reminiscent of Google Android and Apple iOS, with grids of icons linked to applications." The specs really aren't that bad; reader sfcrazy points out that they include the usual features baked into medium- and high-end phones these days: Wifi N, light and proximity sensors, and an accelerometer (though no mention of NFC).
Competition (Score:3)
Re:Competition (Score:4, Funny)
This is to compete with the Winphone and Nokia markets.
Talk about aiming for a low market share. Can firefox break even if they only sell a thousand?
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Re:Competition (Score:1)
or is AC going to tell me I used it wrong?
uh, what? (Score:3)
There is no winphone market, and the nokia market is steadily going away - as it has ever since they successfully put the MS plant into Nokia's executive staff in the first place.
The only sentence here of relevance is the last sentence: having several options is a good thing. The rest doesn't even exist.
Re:uh, what? (Score:0)
you people are idiots... millions of phones sold each quarter and growing but FUCK YOU IM BITTER I REFUSE TO BELEIVE IT
Re:uh, what? (Score:3)
you people are idiots... millions of phones sold each quarter and growing but FUCK YOU IM BITTER I REFUSE TO BELEIVE IT
Windows ME sold millions
Windows Vista sold millions
Windows 8 will sell millions
Millions of Zunes were sold
Would you consider any of them successes?
Re:uh, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The zune wasn't a failure. Its "failure" was the result of MS-hate from cocky web 2.0 apple bloggers. There is nothing technically wrong with it. It's just that no product, no matter how good it is, can stand the scoffing of turtleneck-wearing "journalists" who laugh at the choice of color. "DURRR WHO WOULD BUY A BROWN ZUNE?".
But it's perfectly ok to get a one-size-fits-all ipod.
*cue in "missing the point" zealots pointing out that ipod comes in several versions*
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
I did rather like the Zune, but not enough to pay smartphone prices for one.
The 30 gig model was $249.95
Re:uh, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
and right there was the failure of the Zune. Only apple customers are stupid enough to pay that kind of money for an MP3 player. Keep in mind that, at the time, you could pick up a dozen different off-brand MP3 players at walmart for under $100 and all of them operated in the same way: You plug them into your computer, a folder opens up, you drop in music. How we got to the point that the only way to upload to an apple device is with buggy proprietary software boggles my mind.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Wow, the troll is modded up and you are moderated as a troll, I think some Apple folks got themselves some mod points.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
I did rather like the Zune, but not enough to pay smartphone prices for one.
The 30 gig model was $249.95
And how much was a 30gig iPod at the time?
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
More than I wanted to pay also, but I wasn't even interested in one. The Zune looked a lot better to me.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
But its perfectly OK to get a one-size-fits-all desktop.
*cue "missing the point" zealots pointing out that windows comes in several versions(home, corporate, pro, etc...)
Re:uh, what? (Score:3)
Re:uh, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry. Linux on the desktop is a failure both from a technical and political point of view. The fact that developers can't settle down on a single choice is what makes it fail every time.
Recently I got my hands on debian wheezy's default gnome desktop. What good is a desktop manager that tries too hard NOT to look like windows? Especially when in previous versions they did all in their power to be a Mac.
Why is it that every window manager feels that the mac-style top bar IS the way to go? Why do gnome 3.4 devs think that no one should need a minimize or maximize button? WHY OH WHY is the clock in the center of the top bar? Why can't i change the position of that bar without a plugin? Why can't I even hide useless icons from the bar (I don't need the accessibility icon, thank you very much) without a plugin?
Why is it that we STILL have two clipboards, the one that fucks everything in your copy buffer when you accidentally select something, and the other that needs ctrl-C/Ctrl-V, and doesn't quite work in every application (since some pure X11 apps don't honor gnome's clipboard). Why does it capture the screen to a file instead to the copy buffer, so i can paste straight to GIMP instead of having to open a file?
Sorry pal, the linux "desktop" is full of issues. When developers get their shit together, and start working in one direction together, it may work. But since everyone likes to do whatever the fuck they want, then we'll never get a real desktop.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
I haven't used any of the Linux desktops you refer to (at least to any serious extent), so can't answer the other issues.. But for this issue, it's simply an example of Fitt's law.
It's much easier to zoom the cursor to the top of the screen in a rough movement than to carefully aim at a specific place on the screen. (Yes, you DO end up aiming at specific places on the screen a lot, but the menubar is a very often used interface element, so getting to it quickly THEN interacting with it carefully is useful.)
BTW, I very often do keyboard navigation of the menubar (yes, on a Mac). There is a good reason to have it at the top of the screen. (There are additional historical reasons, where taking up a decent amount of the vertical space of a window for the menubar would mean even less space for your content. Though conversely, yes, the Apple IIGS toolbox, "effectively" a superset of the original Mac toolbox, does allow menubars to be put in windows, though not the 'main' menubar.)
Re:uh, what? (Score:1)
I've been running Linux as my Desktop OS for over a decade. Often when using a client's Windows machine I get quite frustrated that MS can't implement the 2nd easier to use copy/paste buffer that Linux uses. Personally I have a hard time grasping why people settle for such a low grade incomplete OS other than just using what comes with the machine. Compared to Linux, the driver support on Windows is horrible; There are more supported devices for Linux than any individual version of Windows. When I plug in a USB device or card, I don't have to track down a driver; it just works. If you don't like Gnome, run Enlightenment. Linux (or a BSD) gives me a choice of better options than the Explorer desktop.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Not everyone is a geek like you.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
There are more supported devices for Linux than any individual version of Windows.
[citation needed]
When I plug in a USB device or card, I don't have to track down a driver; it just works.
Ever since XP, whenever I plug a USB device into a Windows machine, it downloads the driver via Windows Update, then tells me the device is ready to use. The only device I have to hunt for drivers for is my capture card, and yes, I'd have to hunt for Linux drivers too.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
desktop linux fails because it is still struggling to be mediocre, its not bad, there's nothing wrong with it, its problem is it isnt particularly great.
Success is a relative term, especially when you're talking about something developed by volunteers.
For some Linux distributions, as long as the developers find it worth their time (whether that's in terms of donations, users, etc.) then it's a success. Companies like Red Hat would and should drop their desktop Linux offering if it's not profitable, but last I checked RHEL is doing well -- at least well enough that they haven't killed it yet and apparently have no plans to do so. For me personally, desktop Linux is a huge success, especially these days with more and more indie games supporting it. On top of that it's easy for me, I'm more comfortable with the development environment, the combination of security and the lack of users means I don't have to bog down my machine with anti-malware, and as an Arch user with a custom desktop environment, I know an awful lot about what my computer is doing at all times. Much of that is not so with, for example, my Windows 7 work machine.
I realize that I'm in a tiny minority, and the FOSS programs that I know and love would often be better supported with more users and thus more donations, but pretty much all of them run on other platforms as well, so often they're not just limited to Linux users anyway.
Re:uh, what? (Score:0)
Well, there was that whole deal with the Zune not being able to play any music previously purchased through MS. [wikipedia.org]
It's pretty bad to start off a music store by telling your existing customers that they wasted their money buying from you in the past.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I think you over-estimate the power of Apple-cool. If that were the case, Apple-cool would have killed off the once clunky implementations of early versions of Android devices. Zune zucked because it zucked all by itself. Also, I don't think Microsoft quite understood what made iPod a success and what really makes money for Apple.
I never bought an iThing either though. I don't buy into cool things. I buy into useful things which work in my life.
So right now, I'm looking for a car stereo which is Android based. I find many on the internet but few where I can see them and most are still running Android 2.x with no plans for updated versions. (These vendors still think they are selling hardware.) Anyone know of a good one? I want bluetooth phone calling, GPS, WiFi (so I can tether it to my phone or access my wifi when I am at home), reverse camera... hell, for that matter, multuple cameras with DVR functionality and stuff like that with a good quality display. The stuff I see out there is very, very lacking and ALSO very very expensive. Where's the good stuff?
Re:uh, what? (Score:0)
I never bought an iThing either though. I don't buy into cool things. I buy into useful things which work in my life.
No, you're just being the "I'm different, so I don't use Apple" hipster-cool, which is just as bad as someone who buys Apple products to look cool. Case in point, you are looking for an Android-based car stereo. If you were true to your word, you would just buy whatever car stereo provided you the features you want regardless of the underlying OS. You specifically want an Android-based one so you can brag about the cool factor of it running Android.
Re:uh, what? (Score:3)
The reason why I want an Android car stereo is because:
1. I know they exist
2. I know I will be able to run my apps on it including the one I use with my OBD2 reader
3. I know I will be able to have TomTom or other GPS mapping software installed
4. I know I will be able to play all my music and video
5. I know it will be hackable so I can do things it can't do out of the box
Any proprietary type system will not offer those advantages.
DIN Android help subthread (Score:2)
So right now, I'm looking for a car stereo which is Android based. I find many on the internet but few where I can see them and most are still running Android 2.x with no plans for updated versions.
I don't own a car don't want this to go lost either...we might hook others into commenting here
I recall seeing car-android systems some time ago regarding older cars, but all I could google was this slashdot link from 4/2012 [slashdot.org]. Search for "DIN" there.
No idea how you're googling, but rather than looking for numbers, you should put "ice cream sandwich" or "jelly bean"... Also Honeycomb (3.x) got skipped except for tablets, so I'm pretty sure the 2.x gap is going to be a stubborn one, hardware-wise.
Given that the official $200 Galaxy 7" 2.0 tablet *just* updated itself over the air to Jelly Bean, I doubt car makers are shipping the latter version yet, so that and the Honeycomb lowerbound make things easier on you --it's 4.0 only. Thus...
Copy-paste Search strings that may prove useful for starters:
"ice cream sandwich" car entertinment system
2 din "ice cream sandwich"
double din "ice cream sandwich"
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
The only one missing the point is you. In fact, I'm not sure you understand what the word "technically" means. I had an acquaintance complain the other day that he was trying to use his Zune after a period of non-use, and he couldn't use it. When he called Microsoft , their response was that his hardware was to old to be supported. It was a perfectly working Zune from a hardware perspective, but was as good as an expensive brick. If there isn't something technically wrong with that, then I don't know how Microsoft could ever do something "technically" wrong in your eyes.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
It's cheap mp3 players that dominated that market. iPods sold so much because they were the latest fasion, but their sales are nowhere close to cheap mp3s. Zune attempted to be a second iPod, and there's no place for two iPods.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
No, iPods sold because they work and are easy to use.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
But Apple still sells ipods because they are still profitable. Microsoft doesn't sell the zune anymore, because it never was profitable.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
You're confusing quality with success/failure. Good products can and do fail. Bad products can and do succeed. The Zune failed to sell, which means it was a failure.
And brown really was a shitty color choice for the introduction of a new product. Brown isn't a color that's been popular in electronics since faux wood grain stereo cabinets went out of style in the 70s.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
It was a failure because it didn't sell very well. Whether it was deserving of failure is a different matter entirely
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
The Zune came out six months before Apple introduced the iPhone.
Even if there was "nothing technically wrong with" the Zune, if you seriously believe it was the right product at the right time, I have a portable CD player to sell you...
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
The zune wasn't a failure. Its "failure" was the result of MS-hate from cocky web 2.0 apple bloggers. There is nothing technically wrong with it. It's just that no product, no matter how good it is, can stand the scoffing of turtleneck-wearing "journalists" who laugh at the choice of color. "DURRR WHO WOULD BUY A BROWN ZUNE?".
But it's perfectly ok to get a one-size-fits-all ipod.
This was the problem with the Zune. MS had a chance to make an MP3 player that broke the iMould. Instead all MS did was make a brown Ipod clone. As someone who hated using the Ipod due to it's crappy interface, terrible controls and complete and utter reliance on crappy software to load it I would have liked a device that acted like a USB drive and simply just played music with proper buttons for controls (in fact I did like the Cowon and Archos products I bought for these features).
MS did try to copy Apple, but they didn't have the cock 2.0 webby bloggers that Apple had in their corner in order to make a crappy product cool.
The Zune failed because it _was_ a brown ipod.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
No. It was brown but it wasn't an ipod.
Pretty sure if apple released a brown ipod it would be THE shit.
Re:uh, what? (Score:1)
You are using the term iPod to praise something. The GP is using the term iPod for exactly the opposite reason.
You'll not reconcile your differences.
Disclaimer: I own an iPod (touch) but don't have a single track of music on it.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
you people are idiots... millions of phones sold each quarter and growing but FUCK YOU IM BITTER I REFUSE TO BELEIVE IT
Windows ME sold millions
Windows Vista sold millions
Windows 8 will sell millions
Millions of Zunes were sold
Would you consider any of them successes?
I think you're confusing "being good" with "being profitable".Whether Windows ME sold one or billion copies is irrelevant to how crap it was.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
I used the word successes, and I would not consider any of them successes.
These are not products that customers wanted, but instead these are the products that were available at the time. It is hard to consider a product that nobody wants a success even if it did sell millions.
Re:uh, what? (Score:0)
It's funny, millions sold but I've never seen one in person, ever.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
My little sister had one for about a week, she absolutely hated it.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
A guy in a CS class I took had one. Everyone made fun of him, though he tried to defend it.
Re:uh, what? (Score:1)
A guy in a CS class I took had one. Everyone made fun of him, though he tried to defend it.
wow you must really be cool to be part of the group that makes fun of the kid because of the type of smartphone he has
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
A guy in a CS class I took had one. Everyone made fun of him, though he tried to defend it.
There is nothing so pathetic as a bully, except a group of bullies.
You'll all do well in the corporate world I'm sure. Don't forget to laugh hysterically at every joke your boss makes.
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
Nokia sold 87 million phones last quarter. You need to wake the fuck up
How many did samsung sell in the same period? How many did apple sell? How many of those nokia phones were dumb phones not running MS software? how many were given away for free with a contract and data plan (those aren't the phones people want those are given and they replace latter)
Re:uh, what? (Score:2)
How many did samsung sell in the same period? How many did apple sell?
Who cares? The Mac isn't a failure just because millions more Windows PCs were sold in the same timeframe.
how many were given away for free with a contract and data plan (those aren't the phones people want those are given and they replace latter)
You don't actually believe carriers that say they're giving you something for free do you? I mean if that's the case you should see all the free iphones i've gotten.
Re:Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
Low-end? More low end than the sub-$200 Galaxy Ace? More low end than even the sub-$100 (!) android phones all over Latin America?
sheesh. I like it when people from the "first world" opinates on "developing markets" and "low end". (don't take it personal, previous poster, but i mean the devs and stuff).
I live in latin america. you know why people get smartphones? cause they can't afford, or don't even want computers. and they want chat and facebook and a smartphone gives them what they need (it even works when either power is out, or where there is no fixed internet service like cable or dsl). yes, "most"people live within reach of fixed internet service. and almost everyone has wifi if they got that (from my house to the city center, in 10 blocks, i mapped over 400 wifi networks in range!)
but internet service is slow to get to the "fastest growing" areas: the "outskirts" of the cities. over there it's 3G all the way
you know which smartphones they get? Galaxy S2 and S3. Milestone/2/3. Razr. Razr I. (most of them assembled in Argentina). Myself? I got an HTC sensation. back in 2010 they projected sales of 25.000 units of Milestone in argentina. it sold over 100.000. you had to be in a waiting list. now almost every phone they offer is a smartphone. basic phones are difficult to find.
i can only speak from experience. I don't know how good or bad other countries are. some countries are supposedly better (Chile), others worse (Bolivia). but smartphones are by no means unseen things here.
the big exception is the iphone, since Apple is simply not interested in this market (no idea why. the iphone 3G was available and it was a huge success). You can buy an imported, no-warranty iphone, but you can't get a subsidized one from a telco.
Re:Competition (Score:1)
Low-end? More low end than the sub-$200 Galaxy Ace? More low end than even the sub-$100 (!) android phones all over Latin America?
The last phone I bought (for temporary on a business trip in December) cost 20 Euros, with 10 Euros of air time included. My personal phone cost $25. As far as I'm concerned, $200 is pretty damn expensive for a phone.
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Ah, good ol' AC with nothing to say. You forgot to specify which phone you bought.
Re:Competition (Score:1)
"...i live in latin america..."
Where apperently, keyboards don't come with working shift keys.
Re:Competition (Score:1)
Do your computers come with spell check ?
Re:Competition (Score:2)
Anon Coward said:
Do your computers come with spell check ?
All "Anonymous Cowards" are Karma Whores looking to make snarky comments with suffering the Karma hit.
Man up.
Re:Competition (Score:1)
Re:Competition (Score:2)
So, Brazil isn't in LATAM, AC? RTFS.
Re:Latin america and the internet (Score:2)
Yeah, one thing, the fact that you have a highly stay-at-home-doing-the-shopping-and-reading-online-reviews culture doesn't mean you're any more advanced than we are. While I'd like to have a local "amazon", the fact that there isn't one is simply a cultural thing. Even in 2013, people just don't like buying a fridge over the internet. they very much prefer going down to a big box store and get it there. It's their culture (I don't completely share it. I prefer online shopping, but then again, who am I to judge?).
It's also a culture of talking high, moving your hands a lot, and touching your conversational partner all the time - things that anglo-saxons think of as rude (simply because it's out of their comfort zone).
Again: it's a culture thing. Not a technological one.
I run a comic book shop, and I sell a lot more through facebook ads+physical store than I do over the web. In fact, the biggest problem for me isn't bandwidth or setting up a cart. It's the ridiculously lame commisions the cc processor has (over 15%) and shipping costs ($10 to ship a $3 magazine - and yes, I talked to a post sales rep. basically, they have no interest in my silly shop).
Re:Latin america and the internet (Score:2)
Even in 2013, people just don't like buying a fridge over the internet. they very much prefer going down to a big box store and get it there
Similarly, I buy cars and motorbikes fromreal shops rather than over the internet. Is there something odd about that?
Re:Competition (Score:2)
They will take symbian's marketshare in the developing world, which is huge, and largely unsupported now.
eventually they might go after android and iOS. You need to start somewhere, and they found a good place to start.
Re:Competition (Score:1)
Too bad Firefox OS doesn't have a chance in hell at competing in the low-end market. It requires higher specs than Android does to run (surprise, surprise HTML5 is slower than native - a *lot* slower), and Android is also free and open source. So cost, features, *and* performance all go to Android as a result.
A bad experience/feature set compared to high end phones, and is too slow for low-end phones. So what market, exactly, is Firefox OS hoping to compete in?
Re:Competition (Score:2)
The specs quoted for these devices are 2010 era Android specs - single core 1GHz, 512GB. Any (decent) Android phone released in 2013 and beyond will come with a quad core Cortex A15 with 2GB RAM.
JIT-compiled dalvik bytecodes should run no better or worse than JIT-compiled JS running on IonMonkey. They both use a FFI to C/C++ dynamic libraries.
Re:Competition (Score:1)
The specs quoted for these devices are 2010 era Android specs - single core 1GHz, 512GB. Any (decent) Android phone released in 2013 and beyond will come with a quad core Cortex A15 with 2GB RAM.
2010 era Android phones ran Android just fine as well. Modern high end Android phones are pushing 14x more pixels, so that comparison is rather stupid and pointless. Or if we do take into account the number of pixels, it's glaringly obvious that modern Android phones do not have 14x faster hardware, yet run smoother & faster than Firefox OS. Why? Because web technologies are goddamn slow. Mozilla is 5 years too early with Firefox OS - the hardware just doesn't have the spare cycles needed to pull off slow, inefficient software stacks.
That phone will run faster with Android than it will with Firefox OS, and it'll do so by a landslide.
JIT-compiled dalvik bytecodes should run no better or worse than JIT-compiled JS running on IonMonkey. They both use a FFI to C/C++ dynamic libraries.
That doesn't matter in the least, not even remotely. Android is not bottlenecked by Java no more than web apps are bottlenecked by JavaScript. Which is to say, not at all. The entire web stack parsing/rendering pipeline is damn slow, and that's not changing. If anything it's getting worse as more and more devs are using more and more CSS features that are slow to render. Not to mention the complete lack of ability to optimize on the web. You can't control invalidates, draws, etc...
DOA (Score:0)
Next!
An OS built in HTML5? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:1)
For some reason, I think that's not quite right. Perhaps the intent was to write "an OS with built in HTML5"?
I was thinking the same thing - unless HTLM5 is way more powerful than I realized.
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
http://bellard.org/jslinux [bellard.org]
You can even run it on a smartphone! (The perf will be *terrible* but you can do it).
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
Maybe "an OS whose primary application space is based on HTML5" is a better description.
I agree the summary seems inaccurate.
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:0)
As hard as it may seem to believe, it is built with HTML5!
The OS is just the Firefox engine running on a phone, which then loads the entire UI made with HTML5. Dialer, contacts, messages, everything is HTML5.
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
In order to understand what was written, it is important for you to have absolutely no idea what an OS actually is.
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:5, Informative)
FFOS developer here.
The entire FFOS front-end is written in HTML5. That includes the homescreen and the task switcher. So "The Web" is the API that applications use to communicate with the system.
But there's of course plenty of C/C++ below that. To a first approximation, it's probably accurate to guess that parts of Android written in Java were re-written in JS for FFOS.
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
I'm under the assumption though that these preview "developer" phones are only available to a inner-circle FFOS developer clubhouse.
The simulator is nice and all but nothing beats hacking with the real hardware.
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
They're being built by Geeksphone, a Spanish company.
They used to operate a web store for their Android phones so, in theory, direct from their website?
Failing that, the development was largely done against the Samsung Galaxy S II, which has better specs than the 'Keon' they're peddling as a developer phone. The S2 should drop in price once the S4 is released real soon now...
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:2)
Oops, it was the Nexus S...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Firefox_OS/Firefox_OS_build_prerequisites [mozilla.org]
Re:An OS built in HTML5? (Score:1)
High-end? (Score:1)
> the usual features baked into medium- and high-end phones these days: Wifi N, light and proximity sensors, and an accelerometer
I am sorry, but my low end smart phone has all of these, and it even has NFC (although it is currently not supported in software). And my previous (2 year old) low end smartphone also had all of these, except for NFC. It also had a better display (800x480).
So the hardware seems to be somewhat comparable to a middle of the road low end smartphone. If that is where they want to play, that is fine. But it is no competition for even a Nexus 4.
Re:High-end? (Score:2)
No fucking clue.
Innovation? (Score:1)
I look at that, and I see nothing but copying things others have done better before. What is the point of this? Just being a cheaper version of the same thing we already have? Why would anybody care?
Say what you want about Microsoft and Windows 8, but at least they actually tried building something on their own, instead of directly copying what was popular.
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
Then why are they doing the same thing, instead of actually doing better?
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
Yes, the entire point is to have a cheap mobile computing device for under developed countries.
Re:Innovation? (Score:3)
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
they copied from Gnome-Shell on Gnome 3. Ironicly, copying what was un-popular
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
they copied from Gnome-Shell on Gnome 3. Ironicly, copying what was un-popular
What did they copy from gnome shell? They look nothing like eachother - unless you're suggesting they've copied a 'grid of icons'.
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
Apple didn't introduce it. Their plan was web apps only. Developers begged them for a SDK to match the native apps capabilities.
Then it snowballed. For better or worse.
Re:Innovation? (Score:2)
Phone OS innovations: 1) it's truly open source 2) it's built by a not-for-profit organisation 3) it exists so that apps can be built in HTML5 and run off the internet,
None of those are anywhere near the meaning of the word "innovation". "Innovation" doesn't mean "things I like".
which is where the world was headed before Apple introduced the notion of apps and erected the walls of their garden
Apple started out with HTML apps. Everybody hated it.
DIY cell phone (from an arduino guy) (Score:3)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mellis/ [flickr.com]
I believe he's one of the arduino founders or principles.
don't know much about this - just saw it on the flickr stream - but it could be interesting. not android at all, but in a way, that could also be a good thing. sometimes you want a simple cell phone and just that.
(no connection; just saw the photo link from DAM)
"No mention of NFC" (Score:1)
That's OK, I haven't ever heard that acronym before! I guess, after googling, that it is a on-Bluetooth Bluetooth? Wat the fuck is the point of yet another short-range communications standard? Is that nickel royalty payment going to hurt the device manufacturer that much?
The down side of lacking NFC is that you can't say that you can bump your phone into random strangers' phones until they "squirt" files at each other.
Re:"No mention of NFC" (Score:2)
Turn in your geek card.
No, whatever royalty payment that might be applicable isn't going to hurt that much. But the lack of pairing requirements, much lower power requirements under most circumstances, ability to work with some existing RFID tags, faster connection establishment, and ability to work with passive devices all are things that NFC give you that Bluetooth doesn't.
NFC range isn't nearly as far as Bluetooth so it takes more of an effort to establish a connection. That reduces interception in a large area where many NFC devices might exist. It also requires that devices are noticeably close so if an exploit is found, someone trying to exploit it hopefully would be a little more apparent.
Re:"No mention of NFC" (Score:1)
Not gonna happen. Pairing a Bluetooth device is no incredible burden as it stands now.
Re:"No mention of NFC" (Score:2)
The down side of lacking NFC is that you can't say that you can bump your phone into random strangers' phones until they "squirt" files at each other.
I don't like NFC either. The downside of innovation is that one day the industry says "pony up for new hardware because we no longer support yours." Bluetooth is cumbersome to use, especially if you have to remember which devices you disabled it on due to battery life problems on your older gadgets.
My point here wasn't so much for NFC, but against the trend to ignore PCs and even the web browser with "download our APP" excuse. After all, it's not that they want to give US the news, but to track us better. And potentially monetize their app with somewhat mandatory updates --they can't quite dig up your Name, phone number, GPS location and friend list with the antiquated OS's that we currently have (meaning more conservatively private.) For instance, I have a good camera but am angry about the lack of enjoying barcode-reading programs on my fully fledged PC. The App scene right now is like a 2.0 rebirth of the nineties' shareware era, except it's mainstream AND lucrative.
Re:"No mention of NFC" (Score:1)
Bluetooth is not cumbersome to use. It's very simple, dead simple even. And interactive bar code marketing has been tried, and has flopped consistently ever since the CueCat came out. PR codes are just the latest flop, and passive radio tags are set to flop as well other than in inventory control and other logistics.
Marketers are marketers, though, and will try to sell their snake oil to companies, and succeed, despite its worthlessness. Companies want to be hip to technology even if it stupid and so we endure this shit.
I can see Apple now getting the lawyers ready! (Score:0)
"Requiring"? (Score:1)
requiring the user insert their own SIM card
This makes an advantage sound like a shortcoming. So now you have to apologize if you give people freedom and interoperability? Because that requires them to get their own SIM card? It's unbelievable how much locked-down gadgets and appified, remote controlled programs have become the default.
Cute (Score:1)
Re:Firefox phone like browser (Score:2)