Mozilla Hitting 'Brick Walls' Getting Firefox on Phones

meteorit writes "Mozilla has been working on a mobile version of Firefox since last year, and is now looking to repeat the success of Firefox on the PC. Although development seems not to have been completed, it is known that informal negotiations have already started with mobile network operators. Firefox Mobile is scheduled to be launched by the end of the year and the inaugural version will be compatible with the Linux and Windows Mobile operating systems. Work is already underway to determine what the browser's UI will look like. In the meantime those negotiations seem to be hitting 'brick walls', as cellphone operators resist the intrusion of the open web onto their platforms."

Don't forget the iPhone

[stokessd]

There's certainly room for it on the iPhone as well. Safari is all nice, but I would like adblock on it, especially on the edge network when every byte counts.

Sheldon

and what do we call Opera?

[shareme]

And what do we call Opera and Safari? has more to do with dismal performance and lost less to do with being open

Re:Don't forget the iPhone

[pebs]

There's certainly room for it on the iPhone as well. Safari is all nice, but I would like adblock on it, especially on the edge network when every byte counts.

NoScript [noscript.net] would also help in that respect.

Their phones??

[Billly Gates]

I thought we owned all own phones like we do computers? Why can't we run our own software? Or develop software for them?

Can you imagine living in a world where you could not develop programs for your own computer?

Fuck em!

Seriously port firefox to andriod only. If enough developers switch to a platform that allows them to compete and run their own software the users will follow. I know many here hate Java but why can't we live in a world that is free?

Would you rather own a locked down phone or one where all the free apps on the internet run on? I would pick the latter.

Consumers run WIndows over Linux and MacOSX because its where the apps are at. The phone companies are going to create the ultimate competitor if they are not careful and dictate to the rest of us what to use.

Symbian OS?

[Evan Meakyl]

I am glad that Firefox is availaible on the Windows & linux phone, but why nothing is (seems?) to be done regarding the Symbian OS? (wikipedia says that it is "the leading OS in the 'smart mobile device' market. Statistics published February 2007 showed that Symbian OS had a 67% share of the 'smart mobile device' market,"

Does someone have some information about the "why?" (I know you can tell me that if I am willing, I can start developping it myself, but actually I have to much projects to cope with...)

And another question: I own a Nokia E-61. If Firefox is not planed for Symbian OS, I am willing to install Linux Mobile on it. Can someone give me a pointer to what I should do to do this?

Re:Because

[vux984]

Eventually someone like lets say google and their andriod sdk will come along and provide serious competition.

Yeah, lets all bow down at the alter of google. They'll just force us to view ads while data mining our conversations and text messages. I'd sure like to get in on that.

Re:Because

[erroneus]

...even so, it's only a matter of time.

Since recently there has been a ruling to the effect of preventing carriers from locking out equipment not sold by them, there will be pure equipment makers who will find generic software offerings such as FireFox mobile quite attractive when adding value to their hardware offerings. The first one to shed their fear of control loss will be the first one to find that giving the consumer what they want often leads to consumer loyalty and enduring profits.

Re:Firefox that cannot connect is next to useless

[Naughty Bob]

I've never experienced that, but I am in the UK, which from what I can tell has a much healthier mobile phone market.

That would drive me nuts though. Can you download 'offending' apps to a computer then transfer it locally?

I am angry just thinking about that error message.

Opera != just a browser. Firefox can't compete

[cybernanga]

Opera mini is more than just a browser. They have a proxy server that grabs the page, and re-renders it to suit your phone's screen. That causes a very slight delay, while their server re-renders the page, but it saves a heck of a lot of bandwidth. All images are resized. Long lists are collapsed etc.

I'm not sure that Firefox will be able to compete in this arena without creating a proxy server system of their own. I'm not against them trying, I just want to make it clear to those of you who haven't used Opera Mini, that it is more than just a browser.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Re:As of now

[pas256]

The question is, why even both with the carriers... Firefox should be going straight to the manufacturers!

Re:Don't forget the iPhone

[thsths]

There's certainly room for it on the iPhone as well.

The fact that the iPhone is the "most open" platform say it all. Phones are a convenient way for the networks to control customers. This also means that they are not enabling technology. I am confident that Firefox will change this, but it may take some time.

Re:As of now

[Naughty Bob]

Yup, that's the downside. And one I can accept, though others might feel differently.

I value my privacy, but have judged that, so long as I avoid sending sensitive passwords, bank card data etc., I am happy for a bunch of Swedish nerds to have access to my mobile browsing data. A damn sight happier than letting my phone company have the same data.

Re:Because

[Solandri]

I think it's a sign that capitalism is deeply and critically flawed that things are turning out the way they are. It's not a good sign for the free market that we have to resort to socialism in order to restore basic economic and consumer freedoms.

No, it's not a sign that capitalism is "deeply and critically flawed." Capitalism works most of the time. There are certain localized areas of the solution space where capitalism doesn't work. This includes the Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org] (where individuals acting in their own best interests arrive at the worst possible outcome for all), the Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org] (where individuals acting in their own best interests arrive at the worst possible outcome for everyone else), and a monopoly [wikipedia.org] (where an individual, company, or cartel controls enough of the market to thwart free market economics). Phone carrier lock-in is just a localized monopoly.

It's highly unusual for any solution to be effective 100% of the time in all possible cases. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that capitalism doesn't work in certain cases. The key is to recognize those cases, and enact legislation which makes up for those shortcomings (e.g. environmental protection laws, fisheries management, anti-trust laws). Damning capitalism entirely because it fails in certain limited cases is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and about as ideologically boneheaded as believing capitalism is always the best solution. What's needed are laws assuring the phone carrier market operates efficiently - allow people to port their phone numbers, allow non-vendor hardware to operate over the networks, and a cell-phone version of network neutrality where any non-vendor apps can run over the network.

I haven't quite decided yet about multi-year contracts since they are a legitimately chosen by customers - the problem being that apparently 99% of US customers would rather amortize their purchase and pay more, rather than pay the phone costs lump sum up front for less. At this point the only contract legislation I would support is forcing the telecos to give me a discount once I am out of contract or if I bring my own phone, since then they are no longer subsidizing the phone cost with my monthly fee. As it is right now, I pay the same monthly fee as someone whose monthly fee is subsidizing a $500 phone, even though I bought and paid for my phone myself.

Google filters mobile search results

[Jamie Lokier]

I'm on the 3 network in the UK. The internet facility is quite good: we have HSDPA, advertised as "up to 2.8Mbit/s". I've seen about 2Mbit/s at best, however download rates are sensitive to latency too. The latency is extremely variable, anything from 150ms up to 30 seconds for a ping, independent of signal quality. Whether it's usable or not is therefore also rather variable. Still, when it works, it's quite nice.

I pay a flat rate of approx £10 (US $20) to fetch up to 3GB/month, which I've never reached on it. Therefore, I'm quite happy with the price, and I don't worry at all about data charges.

It's not a walled garden: the whole internet is accessible. That's nice.

But when I visit good old Google, at their normal URLs, I find the search results are filtered by Google. I'm not sure, it may be that Google's "Safe Search" feature is switched on when using a mobile. But I notice that there are no settings to turn it off: I'm stuck with filtered results, whether I like them or not. And there's no text saying the results are filtered.

Another thing I noticed is that the BBC News page redirects to a "mobile-optimised" version which doesn't have what I want on it. That's very annoying; I would really like to be able to visit the normal page.

I wouldn't be surprised if this has nothing to do with the mobile network, and is done by the web sites themselves detecting a mobile client. It is very annoying, especially when the site in question provides no way to access the normal site.

-- Jamie