Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
DRM Mozilla Television

FirefoxOS-Based Matchstick Project Ends; All Money To Be Refunded 128

Kohenkatz writes: Matchstick, a project built on FirefoxOS that aimed to compete with Google's Chromecast, which was initially funded on Kickstarter, is shutting down and will be refunding all pledges. In a post to Kickstarter backers today, they announced that this decision was due to the difficulty of implementing the DRM components that are necessary for access to a lot of paid content. Rather than drag out the project on an unknown schedule, they have decided to end the project.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FirefoxOS-Based Matchstick Project Ends; All Money To Be Refunded

Comments Filter:
  • Good for them (Score:2, Interesting)

    This would be an excellent example of Mozilla not being willing to compromise their principles to satisfy the media conglomerates obsession with DRM. Sadly however, I'm not sure who would be surprised by this.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      This would be an excellent example of Mozilla not being willing to compromise their principles to satisfy the media conglomerates obsession with DRM.

      You mean you actually think they got all the way to this point and then thought "Oh crap! For a product like this we would need DRM! Oh we dont want that, better cancel."?

      They were perfectly willing to "compromise their principles", they just couldn't get it to work in a feasible amount of time.

    • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Monday August 03, 2015 @10:19PM (#50245947)

      This would be an excellent example of Mozilla not being willing to compromise their principles to satisfy the media conglomerates obsession with DRM.

      I know this always come as a shock to the geek, but without access to subscription services, protected media content, HD video and theatrical quality sound, you do not have a commercially viable product.

      Best Buy has the Amazon Fire Stick on sale for $25.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's unbelievable how pretty much everything relating to Firefox OS is a total, unmitigated disaster.

    We know that Mozilla has poured a huge amount of resources into its development. These are resources that could have been put to better use, like by improving desktop Firefox, the only product of theirs that really sees any actual use these days. Every cent put into Firefox OS has been, in my opinion, a complete waste. Their willingness to put money and effort toward Firefox OS in the first place is why I wi

    • I don't think there's necessarily a problem with a FirefoxOS but it has to be something substantially different and disruptive, not just yet another Linux-based somethingOS for smart devices. If you want to do web apps for all platforms you can already do that, if you want to wrap them in a native platform-specific container and sell them through whatever app store you can do that too. This is also the same reason Windows Phone is doing so poorly in the market, it isn't necessarily a bad operating system, i
    • by narcc ( 412956 ) on Monday August 03, 2015 @06:20PM (#50244505) Journal

      FirefoxOS is an extremely important project, right up there with the browser at the time it was conceived.

      As for the OS itself, years ago, there really wasn't much to say. It's improved dramatically since those early releases on low-end hardware. Check out some of the 2.5 demos. It's really something. What will really amaze you, of course, are the customization features [youtube.com] you'll likely never find on other platforms.

      As this is about the Matchstick, and you seem to like scathing reviews, take a look at this FXOS vs Android head-to-head [theregister.co.uk] in the smart TV arena. Needless to say, I was looking forward to the Matchstick.

      When we look at the big picture, it is not positive at all!

      I know. Google's spyware, Apples walled garden, it's a nightmare! That's why FXOS is so important. The mobile space needs an open platform and, most importantly, an open app package standard that anyone can implement. Users benefit by being able to keep their apps even when switching platforms and new platforms benefit from a wealth of apps ready to go from day one.

      When you have a really good thing, you don't "cut your losses" simply because some kickstarter project didn't want to see another delay. It's not like the backers were consulted. I'd have voted to wait an extra year, if necessary, to get my hands on the thing. After all, I funded the project to support FXOS, not because I was interested in the matchstick. I know how important it is, and what it can do for mobile.

      • The mobile space needs an open platform and, most importantly, an open app package standard that anyone can implement. Users benefit by being able to keep their apps even when switching platforms and new platforms benefit from a wealth of apps ready to go from day one.

        What is it that the different platforms are providing then? The other issue that, AFAIK, there is no compatible standard for doing things like interfacing with fingerprint scanners, bluetooth, USB, NFC or audio/video capture. I understand there's various ways to go about some of these and there's a few different drafts for implementations particularly for the audio/video capture but still nothing standardized. This also means new features then need to wait for standardization before people can use them.

        • by narcc ( 412956 )

          There are already standard APIs for interfacing with a number of different devices, with broad support across platforms. There are more on the way, with surprising cooperation between browser vendors. They know how important these new APIs are, after all. Though FireFoxOS is certainly doing a lot of the heavy lifting, even drafting support for VR. That's a solved problem and not the important issue here.

          What's important here is the standard app package that can be trivially implemented on various platfor

          • There are already standard APIs for interfacing with a number of different devices, with broad support across platforms.

            Of course there are, but that couldn't be a much broader and generic statement in this context. I'm pointing out a few key ones for mobile application development and these are taking very long time to resolve which means vendors wanting to add features have a very laborious process ahead of them rather than just being able to incorporate a feature into their platform. You say it's a solved problem yet these things still don't exist.

            What's important here is the standard app package that can be trivially implemented on various platforms.

            The platforms exist to run applications, if the applications are compatible

            • by narcc ( 412956 )

              The platforms exist to run applications, if the applications are compatible across all platforms then why do we need "various platforms"?

              Because homogeneity, particularly when it comes to computers, is a very bad thing. We've seen this countless times. It's why we were stuck with IE6 for so long. It's why you still need MS Word. It's killed countless vendors and made others uncomfortably influential. Worse, it leads to stagnation as the pressure to innovate and take risks vanishes. We're seeing this now with iOS and Android.

              • The issue is that right now the existing platform vendors introduce a new feature in their platform - without having to deal with committees and standards bodies that take an age to do anything - deliver it to developers who create applications for customers.
                Now your proposed system requires a standardized API across all platforms so how does a platform vendor go about delivering a new platform feature? I hope it isn't anything based on the HTML5 and CSS mess of platform-specific implementations of various
                • by narcc ( 412956 )

                  Yes, standards bodies move very slowly, though I seriously hope that you're not arguing against the need for standards!

                  Though speaking of moving slowly, you haven't seen slow until you've seen how slowly change happens once a single vendor dominate the market through proprietary formats! Maybe you're too young to remember the dark days after the browser wars, when MS, the victor, decided that IE6 was it, and essentially stopped further development, grinding the web to a halt. I don't know about you, but I

                  • Yes, standards bodies move very slowly, though I seriously hope that you're not arguing against the need for standards!

                    No, of course not. Standards are a good thing.

                    Though speaking of moving slowly, you haven't seen slow until you've seen how slowly change happens once a single vendor dominate the market through proprietary formats! Maybe you're too young to remember the dark days after the browser wars, when MS, the victor, decided that IE6 was it, and essentially stopped further development, grinding the web to a halt.

                    But we don't have that in the smartphone market, there are several major players and nobody is particularly beholden to any of them.

                    There's nothing stopping vendors from having their own native formats. They'd just also have to support the standard package as well, if they want to take advantage of that large and open marketplace.

                    But we already have that. All the operating systems have their own native formats and they all support HTML5 web apps. The standard package already exists and it's called the web, the platform is the browser and you can already use web store apps on all those operating systems through the browser.

                    What you're asking for is something

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      But we already have that.

                      You honestly can't see the massive differences between those things?

                      I can't help you.

                    • You honestly can't see the massive differences between those things?

                      In terms of functionality there is no difference, the difference is in the deployment and as a developer you can already wrap a HTML5 webapp in platform-specific containers for all the major platforms with next to no effort so defining a new container has no benefit. If there is a significant benefit here then why can't you explain it?

                      I can't help you.

                      Actually it appears you didn't understand what you were advocating for, hence your inability to articulate it.

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      you can already wrap a HTML5 webapp in platform-specific containers

                      This is the problem, not a solution to the problem. See my earlier posts for more details.

                      the difference is in the deployment

                      Yes, that's one difference. (A very important difference, as I've explained far too many times.) There are also differences, for example, in the security model.

                      hence your inability to articulate it.

                      I can only repeat myself so many times. At least read what I've written.

                      Like I said before, I can't help you. You ignore what I've written and flat-out deny the problems I put forward. Why you have such strong opinions on the matter is beyond me, as it's cle

                    • This is the problem, not a solution to the problem. See my earlier posts for more details.

                      The fact that doing so is so trivial is exactly the reason it is not a problem. This isn't a problem for vendors, it isn't a problem for developers and it isn't a problem for users. Even if users are stuck with iOS or Android and want to change but cannot because their native applications prevent it this doesn't change that at all.

                      Yes, that's one difference. (A very important difference, as I've explained far too many times.)

                      You haven't factored in the ease of which developers can already port existing HTML5 applications between platforms into your reasoning though. This is not a pain point so explain

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      Like I said, I can't help you understand the problem if you deny that it even exists.

                      What are you trying to accomplish anyway? You seem to be trying to convince me that the problems I've pointed out don't exist. The trouble, of course, is that nothing you've said addresses the issues I've put forth! All you've done, essentially, is assert that the status quo is sufficient. It obviously isn't, as it doesn't allow for the same possibilities as those afforded by the proposed solution.

                      I recommend you read m

                    • Like I said, I can't help you understand the problem if you deny that it even exists.

                      What I'm saying is the "problem" isn't anywhere near significant enough to outweigh the proposed solution's shortcomings.

                      So far your responses haven't answered these questions, if you think you have then just copy/paste the answers inline (this is next to no effort thanks to computers so you don't have to complain about that :P). For anybody who knows what they are talking about and understands the challenges involved these would be very easy questions to answer.

                      0. Demonstrate - objectively with facts - tha

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      0. If you don't believe vendor lock-in is a problem, then there's nothing I can say in a few words that will convince you otherwise. I'd recommend you just do a google search for the term if you're interested in understanding the issue from multiple perspectives.

                      1. This is simply unnecessary. The implication you make is that some unnamed new platform features will become essential very quickly to a large number of new apps in the future. This is unrealistic, especially considering that the APIs we have

                    • 0. If you don't believe vendor lock-in is a problem

                      That is not an answer. I said to demonstrate it is a problem smartphone users actually have, which you didn't do. Even if it exists, how would this stop those people from being locked in?

                      1. This is simply unnecessary. The implication you make is that some unnamed new platform features will become essential very quickly to a large number of new apps in the future.

                      No, not essential, but useful in a reasonable amount of time. HTML5 does not implement new features in a reasonable amount of time thus these will not be used in cross-platform applications so native apps will be written instead and this "standard app container" will not be used.

                      2. There's no reason to believe that 'native look at feel' is somehow essential outside core apps, where there are obvious benefits to that consistency.

                      If you have native core apps then people just

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      On 0: I don't need to prove vendor lock-in is a problem for the same reason I don't need to prove evolution happens. It's well-established already. If you don't believe it, the onus is on you to show that it's not an issue. I'll still provide you with an example, if for no other reason than my completely misguided hope that you're simply uninformed.

                      All of these developers just wrap their apps in platform-specific containers for iOS, Android and Windows Phone

                      This is why I don't think you're being genuine. I made it perfectly clear that those developers are deploying their apps using the standard app package Mozil

                    • On 0: I don't need to prove vendor lock-in is a problem for the same reason I don't need to prove evolution happens. It's well-established already.

                      We know it exists, nobody is disputing that. Are you dense or can you not parse basic English? I said prove it is a problem that users have, but you fail again. You assume that because vendor lock-in is a thing that it must be a problem that everybody has everywhere, this is a false assumption.

                      All of these developers just wrap their apps in platform-specific containers for iOS, Android and Windows Phone

                      This is why I don't think you're being genuine. I made it perfectly clear that those developers are deploying their apps using the standard app package Mozilla has proposed, which already enjoys cross-platform suppor

                    • I've taken the liberty of converting your made up example into a real one so you understand the problem:

                      Alice wants to buy the new Apple iPhone mobile, but it runs iOS. Her current mobile, a Samsung Galaxy S5, runs Android. She has about $100 worth of apps and games that she doesn't want to lose.

                      What can Alice do? She can pass on the Apple iPhone and buy the new Samsung Galaxy S6. It isn't as cool, but she'll be able to keep all her apps and games. The Apple iPhone has all those apps and games, of course, but she'll need to buy them again for the new platform, essentially adding an extra $100 to the cost of her new mobile.

                      Substituted with real things rather than made up ones. This is the problem, yes? So how does Mozilla's "standard app container" help Alice?

                      Bob wants to buy the new Apple iPhone as well. He has a Lumia running Windows Phone. Bob also has about $100 worth of apps and games.

                      Fortunately, for Bob, most of his apps and games were purchased from Appermart, which distributes apps using a standard package.

                      Whoa...let me just stop you there. Bob can't do that, because Windows Phone doesn't support "Appermart". Even if Bob were running FirefoxOS he wouldn't be able to run his apps on his new iPhone or his new Galaxy or his new Windows Phone. In fact none of the operating s

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      Let's keep this short.

                      If you take it in context you see that this "standard app container" is only used on FirefoxOS

                      You couldn't be more wrong on that point, as I've already explained. FXOS packages already enjoy support on other platforms. The goal, of course, is to continue to increase the number of platforms that support the app package.

                      No, not a made up example. A real example

                      I anticipated this absurdity, so I handily provided a common real-world example. Did you miss the bit about migrating from iOS to Android? I doubt it. You simply chose to ignore it so you can continue to argue.

                      You clearly don't have any interest in what I have

                    • You couldn't be more wrong on that point, as I've already explained. FXOS packages already enjoy support on other platforms.

                      Ok but not on 99+% of the platforms actual people use. Which is why I asked who - in the real world - has the problem that this solves?

                      The goal, of course, is to continue to increase the number of platforms that support the app package.

                      Well sort of, you can have it supported by 100 platforms but if 99+% of people don't use those platforms then it doesn't really help anybody. So you need to get it on iOS, Android and Windows Phone but if developers continue supporting those platforms in addition to the Mozilla standard then those vendors have even less reason to support it. See what I mean?

                      Did you miss the bit about migrating from iOS to Android?

                      No, but explain t

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      You know this already, but I already provided that example. You simply chose to ignore it as you're not interested in discussion, just in arguing.

                      You've also ignored the entire point of that and the subsequent illustrations. To show you that vendor lock-in is a real problem that affects users negatively. This is what you asked me to provide, I've delivered.

                      You also asked me to show how a standard app package helps to solve this very problem. I've done that as well, though the example you mangled. It shou

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      Ok but not on 99+% of the platforms actual people use.

                      I didn't realize Androids market share had shrunk to less than 1%... Oh, wait.

                      who - in the real world - has the problem that this solves?

                      My answer hasn't changed. Anyone with a sizable investment in apps that wants to switch platforms. That's a lot of people. Before you say "specific" How about this: Specifically, any iOS user who wants to migrate to Android that faces either losing their collection of apps or repurchasing them on Android. I know two people who have this exact problem right now.

                      So you need to get it on iOS, Android and Windows Phone but if developers continue supporting those platforms in addition to the Mozilla standard then those vendors have even less reason to support it. See what I mean?

                      Well, it's very unlikely that Apple with support them. Microsoft

                    • Does Mozilla have a viable offering? As I've pointed out countless times already, FXOS apps are supported on platforms other than FXOS.

                      Except it's not on any of the ones that matter, not on any of the ones used in 99%+ of the market.

                      You also asked me to show how a standard app package helps to solve this very problem. I've done that as well, though the example you mangled. It should be obvious to you that Bob would be well-served by a standard app package.

                      Wrong again. I used real things instead of made up ones, because your solution doesn't work in reality which is why you had to made up non-existent things like "WizBang 3000" and "WarpOS2".

                    • I didn't realize Androids market share had shrunk to less than 1%... Oh, wait.

                      Android does not use this app package, you're completely delusional if you actually believe people are going to worry about whether their $2 impulse buy is going to be a safe long-term investment and then see if it is available on a 3rd party store on the chance that in future they may want to switch platforms and that future platform might then also support this app.

                      My answer hasn't changed. Anyone with a sizable investment in apps that wants to switch platforms. That's a lot of people. Before you say "specific" How about this: Specifically, any iOS user who wants to migrate to Android that faces either losing their collection of apps or repurchasing them on Android. I know two people who have this exact problem right now.

                      And you actually believe Apple will support this "standard app package"? You really genuinely believe that?

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      Except it's not on any of the ones that matter, not on any of the ones used in 99%+ of the market.

                      As I've already pointed out, you can browse the market and run FXOS apps on Android. I'm pretty sure they're market share is greater than 1%.

                      Wrong again. I used real things instead of made up ones,

                      Fun fact: So did I. I even pointed this out to you after your first "mistake".

                      It's like you didn't read a single thing I wrote. Or you just don't care, and would rather repeat nonsense. I just don't understand your motivation. What could you possible stand to gain?

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      And you actually believe Apple will support this "standard app package"?

                      Did you miss this gem: "it's very unlikely that Apple with support them."? I seriously doubt it, as I seem to remember saying this several times already. Why bother to lie about this? What possible purpose does that serve?

                      Android does not use this app package

                      Not internally, that's something that needs worked out. I can browse the marketplace (or any FXOS marketplace, vendor site, etc.) and download and install an FXOS app and have it appear along side other Android apps. That they're automatically repackaged as part of the install process

                    • As I've already pointed out, you can browse the market and run FXOS apps on Android. I'm pretty sure they're market share is greater than 1%.

                      And nobody does it and the default is Google Play with APKs. The fact that nobody wants to use it shows that nobody wants it, how much more proof do you need?

                      Wrong again. I used real things instead of made up ones,

                      Fun fact: So did I.

                      Rubbish. "Wizbang 3000", "SpiffyOS", "Neat-o-rama GX2", "ZippyMobile", etc. Do not exist, but I see why you needed to make them up because your example fails with real products.

                    • Did you miss this gem: "it's very unlikely that Apple with support them."?

                      Right so your assertion that I "don't trust the promise of cross-platform apps" [slashdot.org] would be well founded. That promise is broken already as it doesn't work on the most common and best selling smartphone in the world, the iPhone.

                      Not internally, that's something that needs worked out.

                      How? What's your sell to Google and to developers? Google - the dominant player - gets a way for people to move away from its platform (the customers with ability to move to its platform comprise of less that 0.5% of the market) and developers get paid once for all platforms rather than

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      how much more proof do you need?

                      Proof of what? I still have absolutely no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

                      Rubbish. "Wizbang 3000", "SpiffyOS", "Neat-o-rama GX2", "ZippyMobile", etc. Do not exist

                      Obviously. Now, if you continue to read that comment, you'll find the "real-life" example of users migrating from iOS to Android. The example that you claim I never gave you, despite direct evidence to the contrary. Again, I've already told you this. You know that it's true, having seen it yourself. Pretending it doesn't exist won't change reality.

                      Why do you continue to deny this obvious fact? What do you possibly stand to

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      That promise is broken already as it doesn't work on the most common and best selling smartphone in the world, the iPhone.

                      So, because it's not going to work everywhere, it has no value? That's absurd. As long as it works across a range of platforms, it's useful to a range of users migrating between those platforms. Just because it's not helpful to iOS users doesn't mean it's useless to everyone. That's completely irrational.

                      I'm reminded of a guy I knew years ago who thought that any resources directed toward security were a waste, as we were unlikely to achieve perfect security.

                      I should remind you that iOS is far from the

                    • how much more proof do you need?

                      Proof of what? I still have absolutely no idea what you're trying to accomplish.

                      That people don't want it. It's there and people aren't using it. And you are still begging me to give you some validation that users want it.

                      Rubbish. "Wizbang 3000", "SpiffyOS", "Neat-o-rama GX2", "ZippyMobile", etc. Do not exist

                      Obviously.

                      Proof that this is only a solution to an imagined problem. If you put in a real life solution, like iOS user wanting to switch to Android the "app container" does nothing for you.

                      Now, if you continue to read that comment, you'll find the "real-life" example of users migrating from iOS to Android.

                      If you're referring to this:

                      "If you need me to take this as far as possible, consider the difficulty an Apple user with a sizable investment in apps and games considering an Android phone."

                    • So, because it's not going to work everywhere, it has no value?

                      No, it fails in its mission of being cross-platform when it doesn't support the most popular smartphone in the world and indeed the platform of one of the biggest content providers.

                      Just because it's not helpful to iOS users doesn't mean it's useless to everyone.

                      But the only thing you have given me that is even close to a real life example is of iOS users trying to migrate to Android.

                      I expect that we'll see better integration not from Google directly, at least not initially

                      Ok so you have no sell to Google, the MAJOR platform vendor and you have no sell to Apple the other major platform vendor...not a good start.

                      Amazon would be an example of such a vendor as it clearly benefits them.

                      Amazon is a TERRIBLE example, they benefit from selling you apps,

                    • by narcc ( 412956 )

                      We seem to be having two different conversations. I'm saying that vendor lock-in is a problem, and that a common app package is a good solution, with many additional benefits.

                      You deny that vendor lock-in is a problem (in the face of evidence to the contrary) and that a common app package is an unworkable solution because Java didn't work out as well as promised.

                      That people don't want it. It's there and people aren't using it. And you are still begging me to give you some validation that users want it.

                      You seem to be talking about FXOS specifically here. As it's a growing platform, I'd say that people do, in fact, want it. People are clearly usi

      • If the ONLY thing your product has to offer over the competition is your personal definition of "open" then YOU WILL LOSE, because nobody cares about your definition of "open" when your product is inferior in every.single.way. when compared to the other choices.

        Apple has the walled garden which offers a unified user experience, Android has the app support and wide choice of devices your apps will run on, even MSFT has an advantage in the "bang for the buck" of their quite affordable offerings and the abili

        • by narcc ( 412956 )

          nobody cares about your definition of "open" when your product is inferior in every.single.way. when compared to the other choices.

          I strongly disagree. Take a look at the video I linked earlier. I'd also recommend you take a look at the new 2.5 builds. A lot has happened since 2013. We're seeing things happen with FXOS that iOS and Android simply can't do.

          I also don't think being beholden to a single vendor, like Apple or Google, is good in any way. That includes Mozilla, of course, which is why a standard app package like they're proposing is so important. Being built on open standards, and trivial to implement on new platforms

          • I strongly disagree. Take a look at the video I linked earlier. I'd also recommend you take a look at the new 2.5 builds. A lot has happened since 2013. We're seeing things happen with FXOS that iOS and Android simply can't do.

            If you can't explain why, and someone to whom you're trying to promote the OS has to go watch a video and actually download and trial the OS you're talking about, it's probable that none of the features are actually that compelling. If they were, you would remember what they were and you could tell us about them, or at least name them.

            Don't be lazy. Tell us why we should care, or stop expecting us to.

            If FXOS succeeds, everybody wins. If it fails, everyone loses.

            That is FUD bullshit. What does FirefoxOS give me over a real Linux distribution running Firefox?

            • by tepples ( 727027 )

              What does FirefoxOS give me over a real Linux distribution running Firefox?

              Compatibility with smartphone hardware, for one. Which X11/Linux distribution were you thinking of?

              • Compatibility with smartphone hardware, for one. Which X11/Linux distribution were you thinking of?

                Full-blown Ubuntu runs on a number of devices already, and the theory is that we'll be able to use Android video drivers with Wayland, right? Or is that not the idea any more?

          • Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point as you can't name a single thing a consumer would care about and keep having to harp on and on (even slumming in FUDLand for a bit) about "free and open", thus proving my point better than I ever could that FXOS is a dead man walking, thanks.

            As others have said if you believe what you are saying? Put up or shut up, name some features that a consumer would care about that have absolutely NOTHING to do with, or depend on, the words "free" or "open". If you can'

            • by narcc ( 412956 )

              you can't name a single thing a consumer would care about

              What? I thought I made that fairly clear. Or do you think consumers don't care about those issues?

              At this point, I can only assume that you'll dismiss anything I name and then continue to claim that I "can't name a single thing a consumer would care about".

              Put up or shut up, name some features that a consumer would care about that have absolutely NOTHING to do with, or depend on, the words "free" or "open".

              I do believe I've already done that. If you'll simply take a minute to read my previous post.

              • Thanks again for proving my point as you cannot name a single feature without simply parroting "free and open" over and over.

                And I'm sorry but I have all of computer history on my side, from Linux on the desktop (which has never gone beyond 2% in 22 years, despite the competition cost over $100 USD) to Open Pandora game consoles, From OpenMoko to that open GPU that is on life support if the only thing you have is your definition of free and open you are DEAD, because NO CONSUMER CARES nor will they take a s

                • by narcc ( 412956 )

                  Thanks again for proving my point as you cannot name a single feature without simply parroting "free and open" over and over.

                  Again, I've already done that. See my previous posts. At this point, you're just in denial.

                  can you name ONE THING, just one, that a consumer that is NOT a developer will give a single flying flipping fuck about?

                  Add-ons for apps.

                  I'm betting you can't

                  That would be foolish.

                  when Moz gets tired of pissing money down a rat hole for something nobody cares about

                  You'll find that a lot of people care about FXOS. You seem to care a great deal about FXOS, and really wish it would just go away. I can't begin to guess why you have such strong feelings when you seem to know so little about it.

                  • LOL you didn't say a God damned thing that did not in some way contain free or open. Which part of DO NOT GIVE A SHIT is so damned hard for you to understand?

                    Your competition is iOS, Android, and WinPhone...Name ONE feature, just one, that does not involve the words free or open in which your chosen OS is better. And don't waste our time with html v5 bullshit, because guess what? they COULD run HTML V5 bullshit apps but they DON'T, because native runs better, surprise surprise..

                    So you have had multiple po

      • FirefoxOS is an extremely important project, right up there with the browser at the time it was conceived.

        Why? Why would I care? Why would I want FirefoxOS over a less-fucked over version of Linux running Firefox? What makes it so important? I'll let you know, and the answer is nothing. There's nothing compelling about FirefoxOS. It forgets that the whole reason that ChromeOS even exists today is that Android still isn't good enough to host full desktop Chrome. When Android Chrome reaches parity with desktop Chrome, ChromeOS is going away. And then Firefox will have doubly no reason to exist.

        • by narcc ( 412956 )

          Why? Why would I care? Why would I want FirefoxOS over a less-fucked over version of Linux running Firefox? What makes it so important?

          I've gone over this several times, it's the standard app package that's important.

          • I've gone over this several times, it's the standard app package that's important.

            I haven't seen you go over it. I haven't seen a compelling argument for FirefoxOS at all.

            • by narcc ( 412956 )

              I haven't seen you go over it.

              It's in the comment to which you replied, as well as another one of my comments to which you replied.

              I honestly don't see how you missed it.

      • by lott11 ( 1516269 )
        Why would anyone support Firefox. They betrayed there user by folding to governments push for DRM implementation. http://betanews.com/2014/05/14... [betanews.com] and this is Firefox https://support.mozilla.org/en... [mozilla.org] So do you think that they would not do same with the stick or the tablet OS. If you want a stick PC you are better of with Intel compute stick with Linux or Windows. At least this is a complete OS just ad Kodi or Plex and you have your HTPC, just configure it and you done. Or just buy a mini PC from China In
        • by narcc ( 412956 )

          I thought the DRM compromise was well thought-out. It's neatly isolated, and easily disabled. Having no compromise certainly wouldn't have benefited users, it would have simply driven them away. What would you have suggested they do? I can't think of a better option.

          Still, even if you find the DRM compromise morally reprehensible, where do you turn? To Google's spyware browser? To closed, and behind-the-times, offerings like Opera or Safari? They didn't give a second thought to DRM. There was no consi

          • by lott11 ( 1516269 )
            It all depends on what OS I am using. Konqueror Epiphany Lynx Elinks Dillo Vivaldi Maxthon SeaMokey and a few others it depends. And I know it the match stick was to be an open source project. But like all projects this days they are broken by DRM influences. Lets leave it at that, and to the point breaking down to Netflix on Firefox there where options. I develop security software and so there are ways of getting a round dose limitations. It's like windows 10, do you think that you will have any privacy
    • Like the review says, running a smartphone OS on 2007 era hardware - which wouldn't be supported by any recent release of Android or iOS.

      Try running a recent 2.5 build. I've been Android free for a year and loving it.

    • Wow, that phone review was really sad.

      It's particularly depressing considering that you can now get a $20 Android phone from your local Family Dollar or Dollar General without a contract that will outperform it in practically every performance and feature category.

    • We know that Mozilla has poured a huge amount of resources into its development. These are resources that could have been put to better use, like by improving desktop Firefox,

      The problem with Mozilla is that when they put more "resources" into "improving desktop Firefox" they shit it up and make us hate it. What they really need to do is fire a few people, cut back on their mission creep problem, and focus on keeping Firefox current and not fucking it up.

  • by adisakp ( 705706 ) on Monday August 03, 2015 @05:45PM (#50244329) Journal
    If you read the comments on the project, nearly all of the recent comments are backers that would be perfectly happy with a device that didn't have any DRM. Why don't they just completely the device development as is and skip the DRM? It's what most of their backers want anyhow.
    • by adisakp ( 705706 )
      Really, it seems like the ability to do AdHoc WiFi is the biggest feature backers wanted.... not DRM.
    • by NaCh0 ( 6124 ) on Monday August 03, 2015 @07:19PM (#50244939)

      Because the vast majority of people saying they want a device without DRM don't understand that all of the CONTENT that they want (netflix, hulu, amazon video, etc) is using DRM.

      So while firefox was smart enough to end a product that will be universally panned by reviewers, they are stupid to think that they can copy whatever Google does.

      • Because the vast majority of people saying they want a device without DRM don't understand that all of the CONTENT that they want (netflix, hulu, amazon video, etc) is using DRM.

        Yeah, right. I guess we all understand around here that a lot of the content they want (YouTube, *Tube, D:\Downloads\Videos\) is not using DRM.

        • YouTube uses various forms of DRM. You aren't supposed to just write arbitrary new frontends for it, even though people do ... but Google has both the right and the ability to crack down on that any time they like.

      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        You do know that while the Matchstick ran FXOS, it was not a Mozilla project, right?

      • by steveg ( 55825 )

        If you read the comments on the kickstarter, most of the people who are saying "We never wanted DRM" have specific reasons for wanting a non-DRM device. Mostly having to do with playing from their own internal sources.

        None of those were interested in Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon etc. for *this* device. Several commented that there are inexpensive devices available for that kind of content if they wanted it, but that wasn't why they backed this project.

        So you're wrong that most of them did not understand what

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Two reasons this failed:
    1) Chromecast
    2) Amazon Fire
    While we are at it...Roku, Netgear Neo, Slingbox.....etc

    • I don't know why they start the project so early. For hardware projects, you should have a finished working product, and the kick start should be to get volume mass production. I am sick of projects that talk about a product as if it actually exists. Typically they will claim a product does X and show a video of it. Then you find out they haven't even designed it or programmed it, and haven't even got a quote to manufacture its parts. It's just an idea with more spent on video to sell the idea. Basically

Keep your boss's boss off your boss's back.

Working...