| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Creating the future of mobile with Firefox OS |
| By Thom Holwerda, submitted by MOS6510 on 2012-10-11 01:44:15 |
| "Just under a month ago I wrote a personal post about my thoughts on Firefox OS and why I think there is something 'magical' about what it stands for and the possibilities it brings to the table. This post is a follow-up that aims to cover much of the same ground but with extra detail and more of a technical focus." |
|
| RE[3]: When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail huh |
| By Mrokii on 2012-10-12 00:08:13 |
| Exactly. I don't see why they'd even want to implement all these Html5-abilities, simply because it would bring regular Webapps closer to their native apps. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail huh |
| By Mrokii on 2012-10-12 00:10:26 |
|
> If the only result of FFOS would be sufficient and validated in a real world set of JS APIs that are standard and that Apple and Google must implement (preserving FFOS performance) then the project can be considered a success. Which isn't going to happen, imho. They can't be forced to do that. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail huh |
| By Mrokii on 2012-10-12 00:18:58 |
| I wonder if they'll succeed with that. And even if, how long it will take until all these "standards" are really working reliable in other browsers/OSs. I just fail to see what iOS or Android would gain from implementing them, as they already have enough native apps. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail huh |
| By Lennie on 2012-10-12 13:07:30 |
|
Webkit, the open source project includes it I think. The Safari and Chromium/Chrome developers will (or have already) made it work on the desktop/laptop. Why would the for example the iOS developers not enable it ? I assume the library for getting the stream is the same on iOS as on the Mac OS X desktop/laptop. They have not prevented something from available on Safari on iOS before. They however did limit the number of HTTP-connections a hybrid application (HTML5 application with native wrapper -> aka webview) can make. I'm not sure why. The replacement rate of the feature phones was about 2 years, for smartphones this is a little longer. So in a couple of years many will. Also getUserMedia is also used for: webrtc. Which allows webdevelopers and app developers to quickly build video/voice chat applications and is almost 1 to 1 compatible with VoIP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web... To allow this it will also add P2P support to the HTML5-stack (yes browser to browser encrypted connections which support audio, video and data which could also be files). There is a lot of interrest from the Telco's in webrtc, because they think it is a way to prevent OTT (over the top) providers like Whatsapp. And the developers of Skype/Lync (Microsoft) and Google Talk seem to have a lot of interrest in using it too. The audio quality is better than what is currently available on all the others because a new and better codec has been developed. Many apps are also build as hybrid apps to allow easy crossplatform app building. And I've not seen Apple or Google close their appstore to developers to prevent people from uploading even more apps ;-) |
| - Score: 2 |
| Interpreted Language for a GUI? |
| By tuaris on 2012-10-13 04:31:19 |
|
I like Firefox and stand by it. The only thing I dislike is that it's GUI is written in a non-compiled scripted language. Seems to be the "fad" these days, GNOME Shell, Firefox OS, Metro, etc... Why? All this is doing is taxing the CPU, using more power, and making such interfaces unusable on older hardware and even modern hardware. The simple yet pretty GUI that would run just fine on a 486 CPU now needs a Quad Core CPU running at 4GHZ with massive fans, Multi Core GPU's, Gigabytes of RAM, and 800 watt power supplies. Imagine how great it would be to run a good old fashion pre-compiled will designed high performance GUI on such hardware. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Interpreted Language for a GUI? |
| By zima on 2012-10-14 15:27:51 |
|
Not really Metro itself, I think ...and anyway, from the current crop of smartphone operating systems, Metro might even be the smoothest when run on modest hardware - if anything, Metro is a "well designed high performance GUI" (but not "old fashion" - and luckily: because, in the past, adequate performance often meant nasty hacks, wasting lots of resources on them and asm). And it runs fine on netbook-class CPU, as does GNOME, don't exaggerate. But yeah, it is a bit funny when coming from Mozilla, with how they had at least two abortive mobile attempts - and after each saying "we'll just wait for more powerful hardware" basically (in the meantime, Webkit and Opera took over) |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[3]: When you have a hammer everything looks like a n |
| By zima on 2012-10-18 23:33:22 |
|
> one of its biggest upsides is that it puts a lot of pressure on delivering top-notch performance from fairly limited hardware. The large optimization and tuning effort required will deliver within Firefox too (the codebase is shared) and generally should raise the bar on what kind of responsiveness and performance users will expect from web pages in general. Funny, this coming from Mozilla, which aborted two earlier mobile efforts while essentially saying "we'll just wait for more powerful hardware" - meanwhile, Webkit & Opera took over mobile (when they deliver more than enough perf, or better than FF in the experience of me and many; for other "more HTML5-like" stuff, there are apps) |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |