Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla Handhelds Iphone Media (Apple)

Firefox Mobile Threatens Mobile App Stores, Says Mozilla 278

Posted by timothy
from the race-to-the-bottom-price dept.
Barence writes "Mozilla claims that its new Firefox Mobile browser could be the beginning of the end for the hugely popular app stores created by Apple and its ilk. Mozilla claims Firefox Mobile will have the fastest Javascript engine of any mobile browser, and that will allow developers to write apps once for the web, instead of multiple versions for the different mobile platforms. 'As developers get more frustrated with quality assurance, the amount of handsets they have to buy, whether their security updates will get past the iPhone approval process ... I think they'll move to the web,' Mozilla's mobile VP, Jay Sullivan, told PC Pro. 'In the interim period, apps will be very successful. Over time, the web will win because it always does.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Mobile Threatens Mobile App Stores, Says Mozilla

Comments Filter:
  • web-app-web (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ghetto2ivy (1228580) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:22PM (#30480988)
    Not without better connectivity.
    • Re:web-app-web (Score:5, Insightful)

      by maxume (22995) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:23PM (#30481004)

      Or perhaps the local storage features present in html5.

      • by maxume (22995) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:36PM (#30481154)

        My above post is flamebait in much the same way that marshmallows are meat.

      • Re:web-app-web (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Greenisus (262784) <.michael. .at. .mayotech.com.> on Thursday December 17, 2009 @09:43PM (#30482406) Homepage

        I've used the local storage features and they're great. Even made a simple hash store based on it [github.com]. But you're still stuck in the browser, so the user experience isn't quite as good as a native app. Also, you have all of the overhead of the browser, so even the leanest and meanest Javascript will have a hard time keeping up with the speed of a native app. At least, that has been my experience with the iPhone and Mobile Safari.

        But it's definitely moving in the right direction, especially when you throw in CSS-driven animation (which is sadly slow on the iPhone).

        • Re:web-app-web (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @11:25PM (#30483194) Journal

          Local storage is pretty cool, and the CSS animation and stuff doubly so. There's still the problem of having a good way to back up local storage.... *sigh*

          That said, it's still not even slightly close to what you can do in a native app. Even if performance was identical, the DOM is beyond half assed as a GUI environment. There's not even a drag and drop mechanism built in that works across all browsers. There's no way to guarantee that your handlers won't get stripped out by some overzealous UI library that you load. Basic functionality like contentEditable (for WYSIWYG editing) is barely supported in any browser, replete with hundreds of serious bugs that make it very hard to deal with. There's no way to set up an automatically recurring callback with a guaranteed period. There's no way to spawn multiple threads of concurrent execution (except for a FireFox-specific mechanism). There's no standard way to talk to hardware. And those are just the huge problems.

          Even simple things like specifying which UI elements should grow proportional to the window size is an utter pain. Creating clickable buttons that don't get their text content selected can be rather entertaining. Convincing the browser to not deselect the selected text in a contentEditable region when you do so is doubly so. Then, you have that fun box model that only a committee could love (all of us are dumber than any of us). Don't get me started on trying to do column layouts with CSS. I could go into specifics, but if you've ever tried to build any significant web application, you're already nodding in agreement.... :-)

          Yeah, it's going in the right direction. It's got a long way to go, unfortunately. Right now, it takes mounds of custom GUI libraries just to get usable UI, mainly working around the fact that the web browser just wasn't designed to do this stuff. When I can write a web app that's lightweight and doesn't require bringing in something as heavyweight as Prototype just to get anything done, we'll be at least in the right ballpark./p>

  • Ahem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Captain Splendid (673276) <capsplendid@g m a i l . com> on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:23PM (#30480994) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, worked for java didn't it? Not sure Apple's any likelier to just roll over any more than Microsoft or Adobe did.
    • You see, the difference is, this time we're dealing with something that actually is write once, run anywhere. Who honestly wants to maintain two separate codebases? Sure, if Apple decides iPhones shouldn't have Internet connectivity or a built-in browser, they can beat what's coming. I'm not seeing that happening, somehow...
      • Re:Ahem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MichaelSmith (789609) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:35PM (#30481152) Homepage Journal

        But the only really successful app store is on the iphone, and apple won't allow firefox on that platform.

        • Re:Ahem (Score:4, Insightful)

          by aztracker1 (702135) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:48PM (#30481260) Homepage
          I'm pretty sure I'm not the only android user that would disagree. I have a friend who's a die hard mac fan, who's getting a Droid. There are a lot of things the users don't like in the iPhone, Apple's App Store and AT&T.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ckaminski (82854)
            Only supporting 1, a SINGLE, ActiveSync account, for one. That I think is perhaps the biggest flaw in the iPhone email setup... this coming from the Pre, which could support multiple ActiveSync accounts, so I could sync GMail and my Corporate mail. With iPhone, it's one or the other.
        • Taken in isolation, that's true, but the fact of Firefox's speedy Javascript implementation means that Apple will have to follow suit with Safari. In other words, you don't need Firefox on an iPhone to take advantage of the apps that will become available as a result of this development.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by jo42 (227475)

            You have it backwards. The original way of developing apps for the iPhone was via webapps running in Safari. Then Apple released the native SDK and the world changed forever.

        • That's the point of this whole thing. With better apps that just run in the browser, you don't need the app store anymore. Other "app stores" pop up to sell you subscriptions to rich web applications that you access over your phone's net connection.
        • I should clarify my last reply; while Firefox Mobile is moving forward with better performance on mobile devices, Apple can't just let Safari sit forever. Sooner or later, they'll have to bring its performance up to par too.
          • I take your point but I expect Steve Jobs will try to improve javascript performance while structuring the APIs to ensure that his OS retains control.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Yvan256 (722131)

        Different screen resolutions, different interfaces, etc, etc. You won't be able to write once, run anywhere. Or are they thinking they can force everybody to use Firefox on both phones AND computers? That's as bad as Microsoft, isn't it?

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          Nope, because they can't actually force anyone to do anything. And even if they tried you could use iceweasel.

    • by darjen (879890)

      If I recall correctly, javascript/ajax did actually catch on way more than applets.

  • Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 7Ghent (115876) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:25PM (#30481020) Homepage

    Not until mobile OSes allow for direct hardware access from the browser. Palm's Web OS does, but I can't imagine Apple allowing Fennec to access the accelerometer or camera, say. Particularly if it begins to cannibalize their App Store profits.

    • by BZ (40346)

      Fennec on the n900 has access to the accelerometer and camera.

      Fennec can't run on the iPhone at all (since it includes a JS engine), so the Apple case is pretty irrelevant to it...

  • Seems Unlikely (Score:4, Interesting)

    by saisuman (1041662) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:27PM (#30481052)
    I saw my wife playing Assassin's Creed on the iPhone today. I can't imagine a game of that quality being remade in Javascript unless it comes with some funky O3D-like capabilities.
    • I thought the same thing, then I saw Quake live, which, though it does have its own plugin/extension it is very much a "real game" done in a browser. While the iPhone might not have the horsepower to do it yet, technology moves quickly.
    • by WiseWeasel (92224)

      Enter WebGL, recently released as a draft spec by Kronos Group, the people who maintain the OpenGL standard; that problem is close to being solved as well. The only remaining question is whether device vendors will provide web browsers running on their platforms access to OS and hardware APIs on par with the native SDKs.

  • by danaris (525051) <.moc.cam. .ta. .siranad.> on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:28PM (#30481054) Homepage

    First of all, you can be 100% certain that unless Mozilla's made some kind of specific arrangement with Apple, this will not be allowed on the App Store. It's plainly and obviously against the SDK terms.

    Second...how many times have people complained that web apps are totally inadequate substitutes for native apps, for many types of application? I mean, sure, you can make an RSS reader, or a Twitter client, but what about (for instance) Myst? That's now an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly. Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?

    Third, unless you're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out, how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads? Again, consider Myst. No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood. And I doubt that people will want to pay a monthly fee to access a single-player game, either.

    Fourth, if you're writing a plain web app, however fancily mobile-enhanced, how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones? The iPhone has a camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch. I admit I'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones, but a) do they all have these? b) can you access them from web apps? and c) can you access them all in the same way from web apps?

    I'm betting the answers to these are all, to greater or lesser extent, "no."

    Mozilla can dream about "killing the App Store." But if it ever happens, it's not going to be Firefox Mobile that does it.

    Dan Aris

    • Spot on. I'd also add that since telcos are already complaining about the data-load that the iPhone (and others) are adding to their networks, the cost of the kind of volumes that would be needed make the "web" a decent mobile app platform is (for the moment) prohibitive.

      But let's say that bandwidth goes up and cost comes down, your final point "can you access them all in the same way from web apps?" is the final nail in the coffin. As a result of the differences, developers will make (again) the same decis

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BHearsum (325814)

      1: You're missing the point. The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.
      2: Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.
      3: There's already lots of subscription websites - Mozilla need not do anything to support this - people can do this on their own.
      4: The browser already has access to everything you listed: camera,

      • by GooberToo (74388) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @08:37PM (#30481796)

        You're missing the point. The point is that developers will move to browser independent webapps rather than writing an iPhone+blackberry app+htc touch app, etc.

        You're missing the point. If that were going to happen, Palm would have had a smash success on their hands. As is, they've had just enough success to keep the wolves at bay. Developers AND users don't want browser apps. And from what I've read, Apple will remove the app at the first sign of success. Simply put, article's rant is nothing but a wet dream. It simply isn't going to happen - at least not any time soon.

        Web browsers are not appropriate for everything, but they're becoming increasingly faster, and increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks.

        Right - and that's only just barely started to happen on the desktop where enough power exists to allow for JIT of JS. Mobile devices are no where near powerful enough at this point to allow for those types of optimizations. Maybe sometime over the next decade... Until then, its not practical, and that's just from a CPU perspective. Broadband radios drain the holy crap out of the battery. Forcing basic functionality to the browser is simply going to make users even more unhappy in addition to the crappy interfaces.

        You're point four is certainly a good one but that also means additional layers on layers. That's not going to fly and simply make it unusable for vast too many applications, given the limited nature mobile platforms.

        Simply put, a wet dream is a wet dream, no matter now much you want to rationalize its real. In the end, your friends are still going to roll their eyes when you insist you nailed that super model last night. Even if everyone wanted to buy into your wet dream, the technology just isn't there yet.

        • Developers AND users don't want browser apps

          Inconclusive. Developers and users like the store model. If the store sold polished browser apps (like bookmarks with a little authentication piece), would end-users even notice the difference in many cases?

          It obviously wouldn't work for every app, but the "find a restaurant/movie theater near me" apps are essentially internet applications anyway with a little bit of native display logic.

    • Fourth, if you're writing a plain web app, however fancily mobile-enhanced, how are you going to make use of the cool features of different phones? The iPhone has a camera, accelerometers, GPS, and multitouch. I admit I'm not terribly well-versed in the features of other smartphones, but a) do they all have these? b) can you access them from web apps? and c) can you access them all in the same way from web apps?

      PhoneGap? [phonegap.org]

    • by hedwards (940851)
      If Apple chooses to go that route, they're going to have to be extremely careful not to run afoul of the US' antitrust regulations dealing with this sort of vendor lockout. Especially if it harms the customers or damages competitors. Just because Apple was able to get away with this sort of crap under the previous DoJ doesn't make it a guarantee that there anti-competitive behaviors will be allowed into the future.
      • by Dog-Cow (21281)

        And one day maybe you won't be an idiot.

        Apple DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY.

        No amount of wishing will change this fact.

    • Myst? [...] an iPhone app, weighing in at over 500MB, if I recall correctly. Do you really think that's going to be a viable app to distribute as a web app?

      Yes of course. And thanks for the flashbacks of people asking me to download the Internet onto a floppy.

    • by natehoy (1608657)

      No one is going to accept ads suddenly popping up when they try to link from Myst Island to Channelwood.

      Well, they could be subtle and work it into the game dialogue/gameplay...

      "Bring me the BIG BLUE pages!"
      "D'Ni" could become "Sun'i" and they could have everyone drinking Java there.
      The "Linking Books" could be Nooks or Kindles.
      The clock puzzle could have a brand on the face.

    • by selven (1556643)

      Third, unless you're going to have some sort of subscription thingy worked out, how are you going to make money on web apps without intrusive ads?

      You solve this problem by having some sort of subscription thingy worked out. Or at least a one time payment. Piracy is impossible when you aren't distributing most of the program.

  • Deja Vu (Score:5, Informative)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:29PM (#30481076) Homepage

    This sounds like Steve Jobs before he announced that the iPhone would be supporting native apps and not just web apps. It already had a pretty fast, capable browser, and there were hardly any apps for it. Within a week of shipping an SDK, there were hundreds.

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      My first thought too. Hey, web apps are just fine! You won't even be able to tell the difference!

      Yeah right.

      Besides, Mozilla doesn't have the fastest javascript renderer on the desktop, why would their first foray into the mobile world be better than everything else?

      • Well, Firefox doesn't have that much to compete with on the mobile front. Lets see, Mobile Safari is decent, but its a bit behind the times and of course will be slow to move to new technologies without a major update by Apple. Android's Browser is pretty decent, and is perhaps one of the best ones, but fragmentation may eventually make it unusable due to older versions of Android. Mobile IE is a joke, Opera Mobile is decent but doesn't really excel in any are (well, aside from making Windows Mobile handset
    • Re:Deja Vu (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jo42 (227475) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @09:14PM (#30482162) Homepage

      What the PHB-tard from Mozilla forgot was the initial way of developing apps for the iPhone was in Safari via HTML, CSS and Javascript. Since day one Safari on the iPhone supported sending multi-touch info to Javascript code and many, many other Apple originated extensions to Webkit and proposed HTML and CSS standards (which Mozilla will have to add to Firefox if they haven't already). The iPhone app market exploded when a native SDK became available. Comparing developing apps in Javascript to native SDKs, on any platform, is like comparing skateboards to cars - yeah, both are transportation, with one being a toy and the other the real thing.

    • One big difference was that, originally, there was also no way to get your "Web App" into the iPhone Springboard (that thing that launches Apps). So you had to hope that your user would bookmark it. Of course, launching your Web App consisted of launching Safari and going to your bookmarks to find the App and then waiting for it to load across AT&T's 2.5G network.

      The iPhone has improved enough to use Web Apps. I use sigalert.com on my iPhone to view traffic--it sits in Springboard and, when I tap it,

  • by ZombieRoboNinja (905329) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:31PM (#30481096)

    I'd say this comment misses the point of phone apps pretty terribly. At least the ones I use tend to rely almost entirely on the phone's hardware features. Not just accelerated graphics and GPS and camera, but tie-ins to the address book and calendar, etc.

  • Care to hack your phone over it?

    This is exactly why proprietary systems that are built on anti-competitive practices and don't give you the ability to install applications without approval are a very bad idea in the long run, regardless of initial cool factor.

  • i thought web browsers weren't allowed on the iphone, or opera would have done it. So no firefox on iphone, either...
  • Always... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daVinci1980 (73174) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:40PM (#30481194) Homepage

    It's a little shortsighted to use "always" to describe the web's winning streak for two reasons:

    1) The web has not always won. Despite Google's Office suite, Microsoft continues to dominate the office space and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. So at least in one market, thick clients have continued to win out over thin clients.

    2) The web is just not that old. Claiming that the web will win because it has always won is a weak appeal to tradition made especially weak by the fact that the web is realistically 13-15 years old.

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      Where has the web won?

      The only place I can think of where a web app seems to have made significant progress where a regular app is available is in e-mail, and much of that can be attributed to most webmail accounts being free.

      • by WiseWeasel (92224)

        Retail and distribution. Classified ads. Matchmaking/dating. Socializing and people finding. These are just a few of the sectors where the web has quickly risen to dominance, representing a large portion of the economy.

    • by westlake (615356)

      1) The web has not always won.

      Suppose, for example, the SSD or its successor became almost unbelievably small, capacious, efficient, and cheap.

      Local storage is no longer a problem for your mobile device even if what you need are high resolution marine charts or topographical maps for the whole of North America.

      Databases that are updated infrequently - but when you need to access them, you need to access them now.

  • by obarthelemy (160321) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:43PM (#30481216)

    I want local apps, with local data, that I can synch with anything (one of my PCs, on-line storage...).

    I don't want to be dependent on a wireless net connection to access my apps nor my data. In my experience, even wifi is flaky. And I can't trust 3rd parties to have my apps and data available, secure, and safe.I'm a big ASS fan. I'd be interested in local javascript apps, with local data storage, maybe...

    Plus the smallest-common-denominator issue: as long as different devices have different capabilities (color, accelerometer, multi-touch, video/3D acceleration...)

  • by nmoog (701216) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @07:44PM (#30481226) Homepage Journal
    "Over time, the web will win because it always does." Yeah, over time... "over time" linux will win too. It's true most of the apps from the app store could have been made identically as web apps. But then they wouldn't have been on the app store - and no one would have ever seen them. I'm continually shocked at the amount of money the non-nerds (bosses, project managers, those other people who I'm not sure what they do except go to corporate lunches) at my work spend on the app store. MONEY! that's crazy - I've never seen people voluntarily spend MONEY on apps before! But Apple made a great system for "the normals". They don't want to trawl the web for nifty web apps (like this JavaSript platform game [mrspeaker.net] I may or may not be shamelessly plugging). The just want a happy little environment where they can buy stuff while pretending to be typing important emails during meetings.
  • Beta is terrible (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jspenguin1 (883588)
    The current beta is far worse than the native Maemo browser (itself based on Firefox): - No inertial scrolling. - One window per instance, no tabs. This is a deal killer. I don't necessarily need tabs, but opening a separate instance for each page I want to view simultaneously is unacceptable. - Extremely slow to start and load pages. - Package is not "optified" - it installs to the device root instead of /opt, taking 20MB out of 256 available in the root. - Currently there are only three add-ons not marke
    • No inertial scrolling.

      The nightly I'm using has it.

      One window per instance, no tabs.

      The betas have had tabs for a long time. They're in the left toolbar.

      Package is not "optified" - it installs to the device root instead of /opt

      Fixed 3 weeks ago [starkravingfinkle.org]

      Currently there are only three add-ons not marked "experimental"

      I myself have written five add-ons for Mobile that are out of the sandbox, so I don't know where you're getting your numbers.

      even in experimental there's no AdBlock Plus

      Support added 2 weeks ago [starkravingfinkle.org]

      It sounds

  • Two things. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted.slashdot@org> on Thursday December 17, 2009 @08:05PM (#30481418)

    Two things, my friend:

    1. Java is THE dominant platform if you want to program anything that works on pretty much all mobile phones on the planet. Apart from the iPhone, and some Windows Mobile phones, I don’t think there is a phone that can’t do Java.
    2. In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone. It has only 3-4% percent of the global market share, and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in Japan, was a novelty for about a month in most of Europe, and only in the USA has gained more than 10% for obvious reasons. Which means, others are still hugely dominant. So much in fact, that I don’t even think it’s worth targeting the iPhone platform. (I’m sorry, but if you now think I’m trolling, that’s the reality distortion bubble, created by the hype. I’m in no way hating the iPhone or anything. It has great raw power and a good UI. I’m just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market, and keeping up to date, because I need that to make a living. Prejudice is just stupid, and am happy to be corrected. :)

    So I really see no point in yet another layer of inner-platform failure [wikipedia.org], to use JavaScript, when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL, EAX-like audio support, and tons of functions. (Be aware that as much of it is accelerated, Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power, than on desktop VMs.)

    If they can offer me all those hardware-accelerated APIs, an ability to check if the phone supports them, a fast JavaScript compiler, and 96% of all phones of the world having it pre-installed, I might consider writing for their platform. ;)

    • by WiiVault (1039946) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @08:59PM (#30482014)
      Sorry but you are wrong. The iPhone has 17% of the mobile share globally, 50% of the global app usage, and an insane 65% of the mobile HTML request. Unlike you I did the research instead of making shit up. Want the source? Here [macrumors.com]
      • by Marcika (1003625) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @09:15PM (#30482168)

        Sorry but you are wrong. The iPhone has 17% of the mobile share globally, 50% of the global app usage, and an insane 65% of the mobile HTML request. Unlike you I did the research instead of making shit up. Want the source? Here [macrumors.com]

        Sorry, but the MorganStanley slide is talking about 'smartphone' share - and not even market share but _shipment_ share. I am very sure that my current phone along with hundreds of millions of other SonyEricsson or Nokia phones didn't count in their survey, although they've been dealing with GMail or Google Maps just fine years before the iPhone was a glimmer in Steve's eye.

        In short: GP is very likely closer to the truth than you are.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by defjesta (620657)

      While you seem to have some industry experience, I think you perhaps write off the iPhone a little too easily. I can certainly see some parallels with Apple's Mac strategy in the 80's, but they have done a lot of things right (from a dev point of view), and are seeing success accordingly. 100k apps and rising speaks for itself really.

      I agree that the iPhone has a small marketshare of total mobile phones, however the vast majority of mobile applications (where a web app won't do), are targeted towards smartp

    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @09:48PM (#30482452)

      It has only 3-4% percent of the global market share, and technologically already was surpassed when it came to the market in Japan

      True that it currently has 3-4% of global market share of all phones - but here you are talking about Java, which does not run on all phones either. So why not speak to the smartphone percentage, which is more like 20%.

      As for Japan, if it was surpassed years ago then why is it so popular [bcnranking.jp] there? It's not number one (that's a list updated every week), but it's been in the top ten ever since it was pointed out that it reached number one [cnn.com].

      In the real world, not many people care about the App Store or the iPhone.

      Except for thirty or forty million users worldwide. By all means feel free to leave them to me.

      I'm just stating the facts as I know them from actually being in the market, and keeping up to date, because I need that to make a living.

      I think you need to do a better job keeping up. I'm in the market as a full time mobile developer, so my living depends on this too...

      when you already have fast Java with accelerated OpenGL, EAX-like audio support, and tons of functions. (Be aware that as much of it is accelerated, Java on mobile phones is vastly faster per raw CPU power, than on desktop VMs.)

      You won't find a much bigger Java fan than myself. But the reality is that even if you have some of that on every platform, you have almost no platforms that offer all of that - and the testing required across so many devices makes "reality" that you have to target a handful. Real-world apps are moving in droves to the iPhone/Android, and only the simplest apps or some games are still going to J2ME platforms.

      Now if you are including Android in there it's a different matter, but it's really different than J2ME.

      All that said... I agree with your conclusion that the mobile browser app market is just not compelling compared to the iPhone or Android - or even J2ME. They'd have to add a ton of stuff just to get close and the native platforms swill simply always be ahead of the game.

  • This is joke of the year material. For those who don't know, the current versions of Fennec for the Nokia N900 basically crashes left and right on pretty much anything. Fennec isn't threating anything, anything soon.
  • PastryKit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fandingo (1541045) on Thursday December 17, 2009 @08:28PM (#30481686)

    Ars Technica had an article about a hidden framework that Apple was developing before Apps hit with 2.0. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2009/12/pastrykit-best-iphone-web-app-library-you-never-heard-about.ars [arstechnica.com]

    Actually looks pretty cool and could allow more web-based apps.

    I still think that local apps will be preferreable. The thing is that a lot of apps are only useful on the web, so the concerns about not being able to access them w/o a net connection are baseless. Not all apps, but there's lots of social networking apps and others that need networks.

  • Like Apple will allow them on the iPhone and I doubt it will get me to switch from Google Android browser. I enjoy using the Opera browser for Android sometimes but even that doesn't feel as intuitive. I doubt Firefox will be better.
  • Sorry, but having a structure that manages Movies, Videos, Audio, Apps seemlessly for Apple only Hardware will never be threatened by a non-Apple product that has no means to duplicate the AppStore via iTunes.
  • And, if my app requires significant bandwidth would normally be used by the user, I now have to source it all myself for every user?

    That sucks.

  • Opera Mobile claimed to be the fastest browser of them all, but all the masses got was a fast browser that locked up almost ALL of the time and was bogged down by incredible resource usage. I've been hearing about Firefox Mobile for years now; I'll believe it when I see it.

    Plus, Safari is one of Apple's core tools! Does anyone think Mozilla can finagle their browser into Apple's app store? That'd be awesome if they pulled it off, but I see it as being quite unlikely.

  • "More intense tasks" (Score:4, Informative)

    by Animats (122034) on Friday December 18, 2009 @01:01AM (#30483746) Homepage

    Javascript "increasingly more appropriate for more intense tasks."

    Yeah, right. I'm getting really tired of web sites that use 100% of the CPU while doing essentially nothing. It's bad enough on a desktop machine. On a phone, that eats the battery.

  • by Ilgaz (86384) on Friday December 18, 2009 @11:09AM (#30487382) Homepage

    Currently, Opera 10 is available on every handset which is open to 3rd party. Read it as iPhone excluded.

    J2ME (via Opera Mini), Symbian (which has 40% share and not even mentioned by Mozilla), Windows Mobile and Android supported. It is basically the same engine as Desktop one, bit by bit thanks to their ultra portable web renderer. Even "dead" (chap 11.) UIQ3 is supported somehow with a native client.

    They are packing "Widgets" which are based on W3C standards for desktop right now, Opera 10.20 alpha does run same widget across 3 desktop platforms. Linux, OS X and Windows. It doesn't need to crack into their build system to predict they will go mobile with that idea.

    What bothers me is, PC Pro, a UK based site doesn't even ask why on earth Symbian is not even mentioned or supported since Symbian is actually a british thing to begin with. Nor they fail to bother checking Opera which supports some handsets/operating systems which are abandoned by vendor themselves.

    For web designers, widget developers, there is nothing to bother. They as a small company always supported standards, somehow failed to get market share because of it. So, there is no "Opera specific" quirk. It is all W3C.

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...