Mozilla is Shutting Down Its VR Web Browser, Firefox Reality (techcrunch.com) 55
A top VR web browser is closing down. Today, Mozilla announced it's shutting down its Firefox Reality browser -- the four-year-old browser built for use in virtual reality environments. The technology had allowed users to access the web from within their VR headset, doing things like visiting URLs, performing searches, and browsing both the 2D and 3D internet using your VR hand controllers, instead of a mouse. From a report: Firefox Reality first launched in fall 2018 and has been available on Viveport, Oculus, Pico, and Hololens platforms through their various app stores. While capable of surfing the 2D web, the expectation was that users would largely use the new technology to browse and interact with the web's 3D content, like 360-degree panoramic images and videos, 3D models, and WebVR games, for example. But in an announcement published today, Mozilla says the browser will be removed from the stores where it's been available for download in the "coming weeks." Mozilla is instead directing users who still want to utilize a web browser in VR to Igalia's upcoming open-source browser, Wolvic, which is based on Firefox Reality's source code. This browser will be available for download starting next week, so users won't have to go without -- they'll just have to make the switch.
ok (Score:3, Interesting)
The actual news to me is they started it...
Re:ok (Score:5, Insightful)
They have all that Google search money to throw around. The problem with being ahead of the curve is that you assume that everyone is following you. They suddenly realized they were all alone on a tangent nobody else was on.
Re: (Score:2)
They have all that Google search money to throw around.
Weren't they mostly just throwing all of that at their executives?
Re: ok (Score:2)
They also threw $20M at Pocket because they wanted to use it to collect your PII.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: ok (Score:2)
I have a Valve Index and didn't know this even existed
Re: (Score:2)
Same for Oculus. There's a browser built in that is clearly Chromium based, and it works. Why would I go out of my way to get this thing, and how was I supposed to know it even existed?
Re:ok (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been pushing 3D Web/VRML/whatever for a couple decades now.
And it pretty much always fails. Because they're trying to map an inherently flat medium into a 3D environment.
So fuck-tons of money gets burnt and they go "Wow! Dunno why it failed! We figured this 300th time of doing the same shit would be different!"
Re: (Score:3)
VRML! That's a blast from the ancient past.
People love reinventing it every 5 years or so though. What we desperately need is to combine all the disadvantages of physically navigating to places with all the disadvantages of being on a computer.
Re:ok (Score:4, Insightful)
They should have just rebranded it Firefox Metaverse -- then they'd be rolling in VC cash.
Re: (Score:1)
The only use case for 3D content is to communicate with machines.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't 3D websites, it's websites in 3D.
There are already some experimental desktop environments for VR. You can have half a dozen giant monitors in VR, not taking up space in the real world. Mozilla thought that there might be a market for apps designed for in-VR use, but the market never appeared because VR desktops are a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I used it frequently with my Oculus. It was pretty nice and it's a shame it's going away.
Re: (Score:2)
Figures (Score:2)
Of course they would. I just started using it (and mostly enjoying it, despite some bugs).
All they know how to do is double down on bad decisions these days
Re: (Score:2)
You were the only one, apparently. This is the first I've heard of it.
VR briefly came back a few years ago, but seems to have mostly faded away again. Kids aren't talking about it either, which isn't a great sign for the technology. I even briefly thought that VR would go another round thanks to the pandemic with virtual meetings and classrooms, but that didn't happen.
I'm surprised, honestly. There are a ton of cheap headsets in the ~$20 range that work with a cell phone, and even cheap phones are more
Re: (Score:1)
I'm surprised, honestly. There are a ton of cheap headsets in the ~$20 range that work with a cell phone, and even cheap phones are more than up to the task.
The problem with VR is that now you have a display on your head, cutting you off from your immediate surroundings. The idea is pretty cool but only as an idea. It doesn't execute well.
The problem with cheap VR is that the display is like 5 cm from your eyes and focusing on that just has to strain after a while. It's really bad for your eyes to try that on for any length of time.
Re: (Score:3)
You're completely out of the loop. VR is bigger now than it's ever been. Global VR-only gaming revenue is $22.9B, there are 171M VR users, and Facebook is absolutely dumping money into the Quest 2 and its future headset. I've seen more new users on VRChat now than ever, usually all with Quest 2s, and they're 90% kids.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. Bigger. As in larger piles of money being constantly burned.
It's no closer to being production ready or useable than it was back in the early days of VRML (fyi, 1997).
Re: (Score:2)
lol
Tell that to the millions of concurrent users. Have you heard of a little game company called Valve making a game called Alyx?
I saw a VR demo in the 90s. It was a massive headset without 6 DOF, no motion controllers, connected to servers, with periscope mirrors going to a massive box on the head and many wires running 12 feet to a computer. And you could see Virtua Fighter level graphics, with no social capabilities whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Makes a splash for a while.
Then reality catches up about what a shitty thing it is to develop and use.
It then crashes and burns for another 5 years or so.
It's kinda like computer herpes.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an educated guess, but you may have to accept the fact that you're too old to understand why people adopt new technologies. I've gotten into VR and can tell you it's teeming with young people that use it for forging friendships and relationships. And you must not be a developer of popular things, as it's as easy to develop for as any other Unity or UE game.
Re: (Score:1)
Too old?
Nah. I've probably been a tech junkie longer than you've been alive.
But I'm also old enough to see how cyclical this shit is.
Or are you going to try to sell me on "The year of the Linux Desktop" too?
The paperless office?
That mobile tech is going to completely replace desktop powerhouses?
Vaporware game consoles.
The Hyperloop and self-driving electric big rigs?
Microsoft attempting, AGAIN, to push itself into mobile device software outside the x86 platform...
OOH! And touch interfaces completely repla
Re: (Score:3)
I even briefly thought that VR would go another round thanks to the pandemic with virtual meetings and classrooms, but that didn't happen.
VR is a lot more about interaction in 3D space than just seeing things in 3D. It was never a good idea to use it for meetings.
Re: (Score:3)
VR briefly came back a few years ago, but seems to have mostly faded away again.
What are you talking about? VR is at an all time high and devices are flying off the shelves. Developers are reporting record sales of their VR games.
Don't spread FUD.
Re: Figures (Score:2)
All time high, record sales, still a minuscule portion of the computing market. A novelty at best. Probably will continue to grow though, escapism sells. Still, it's a fart in a windstorm at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comments sound like what people said about the iPhone in 2007.
History is filled with people buying imperfect products that meet the concept of "minimally viable" that bootstrap whole new product sectors that rise to shitcan legacy products. In computing alone we've seen mainframes and terminals fall to servers and PCs, we've seen the mighty desktop fall to laptops, and we've seen multiple generations of smartphones eat each other - Palm / Windows Moblie eaten by Blackberry, eaten by iOS / Android.
And
Re: (Score:2)
The mistake in reasoning here is that just because other things started off as "mere novelties" before going mainstream that VR will as well.
The fact is that most novelties are simply forgotten. Odd footnotes in the history of technology, at best.
You, and everyone else, have no idea what could come along in the next 6 months for VR to make it hockey-stick into the next major market.
I guarantee that VR 6 months from now will be nearly indistinguishable from VR today. There are only two things that drive technological adoption: utility and fashion.
Utility is right out. The loftiest vision people have for VR today is creation of virtual worl
Re: (Score:2)
A novelty at best
Yeah, that's why Apple, Google, and Facebook are pouring BILLIONS into developing the teach.
"No one is going to buy one of those ridiculous iPhone." - Steve Ballmer
"We're not worried about those PC guys," - CEO Blackberry
"Is it a Jesus phone apparently, but I don't get it." - The WSJ
The iPhone was a novelty at first too.
Re: (Score:2)
The iPhone is something almost everyone wants, whether they want that particular example. The VR headset isn't. They're spending money on it because they don't know what else to spend money on. But the cost has to come down because while people will pay a grand for a phone, they aren't going to pay three grand or whatever for a headset with the power of three phones in order to play phone games on their face. The massive margins aren't there for what has to be a much more complex device than a cellphone unl
Re: (Score:2)
I was using Firefox's VR headset since it was so much less annoying than the Chromium based version that came with the Rift. The Rift has been my lock down exercise program. It's great as long as I don't punch too many walls while playing Gorn.
I can't believe they had one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their problem was branding. If they called it the Firefox Metaverse Browser they'd be swimming in VC cash right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Their problem was branding.
Worse, their problem was marketing. As an early adopter of VR currently on my 3rd headset, this is the first I heard of this browser.
Re: (Score:2)
It was one of the first suggested apps when I started using my Occulus.
Re: (Score:2)
I've literally never seen any Mozilla suggestion. I see tonnes of games, a few media players, some educational and creative arts tools, but never a browser.
Re: I can't believe they had one (Score:2)
They have tens of millions in the bank, so this is a senseless failure. They failed to market their application, decided it was a failure because of limited uptake, and canned it. If Mozilla worked any harder to be like Google they would have to change their name to something stupid.
I haven't even heard of this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a VR headset, but because they targeted app stores I don't use, I didn't even know this existed. Did Mozilla just fail to target a broad enough audience?
It sounds like they narrowly targeted and already narrow audience.
VR is just too limited in scope (Score:2)
Microsoft Bob had failed because using a computer was not conclusive to interacting with real life. Even as things progress there is less connection to real world icons, but perhaps just using icons as a way to save screen space. Computing is in general a 2d venture. With the only exceptions would be for 3d manufacturing designs with CAD, and Games.
Web Browsing isn't something that is really useful in 3d.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't tell that to Meta; they're dumping shiploads of money into it. Microsoft Bob 67.34 will catch on, dammit!
Re: (Score:2)
Web Browsing isn't something that is really useful in 3d.
The point of web browsing isn't to browse the web. It's to see content. There's no reason that content should be 2D. A classic example is going shopping. Shopping online is an experience orders of magnitude worse for selecting an item compared to being able to see it live.
Some content works better in 2D, some better in 3D. There's nothing intrinsically better about the web being 2D, though typing on Slashdot definitely is one of those things.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be so sure. You get a lot more information about most products online than you do in person. You often get little more than what's printed on the packaging. Things like clothes are easier to evaluate in person, sure, but VR is no substitute there.
See, most of the advantages of handling a product in person don't carry over into VR at all. You can't hold a product and feel the weight or get a feel for the quality of materials. You can't touch, taste, smell, or anything. All you get is a 3d model.
I'm
Re: (Score:2)
You're making a lot of assumptions about a product. It sounds like you're talking about a a review of some electronics. Now compare that to e.g. selecting the correct sized hammer, or seeing how cloths look.
Sometimes you need information, sometimes you need experience. One of the single most painful experiences imaginable is buying stuff from a hardware store online.
Never underestimate the value of a scale 3D model, and that's the great thing about VR it gets scale correct.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making a lot of assumptions about a product [...] Now compare that to e.g. selecting the correct sized hammer, or seeing how cloths look.
Try reading more than the first few words. I do talk about clothing. It's in the first paragraph.
If you're not going to read my post, why waste my time replying?
that's the great thing about VR it gets scale correct.
This is false.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Bob had failed because using a computer was not conclusive to interacting with real life. Even as things progress there is less connection to real world icons, but perhaps just using icons as a way to save screen space. Computing is in general a 2d venture. With the only exceptions would be for 3d manufacturing designs with CAD, and Games.
Web Browsing isn't something that is really useful in 3d.
Got to disagree, VR is inclusive of all other mediums, you can literally create EVERY other medium type inside of it, so the 'problem' is not that it's "limited in scope', the 'problem' is that it's limitless in scope ad the core use-case has not been exposed yet.
Same thing happened with the Internet, we had all the tools to create Twitter back in the mid 1990s, but the use case had to be uncovered and that didn't occur until ten years later.
Clay Shirky wrote “Communications tools don't get socially i
Re: (Score:3)
Not my 4-dimensional browser, you cannot... Sheesh, the presumptuousness of some people.
Re: (Score:2)
Got to disagree, VR is inclusive of all other mediums, you can literally create EVERY other medium type inside of it, so the 'problem' is not that it's "limited in scope', the 'problem' is that it's limitless in scope ad the core use-case has not been exposed yet.
That's pure fantasy.
Imagine just simulating your office. Even just a desk and a computer. The experience is inherently inferior to actually sitting at a desk with a computer. That's assuming it can be meaningfully simulated at all. I can't imagine how awful trying to type or use a mouse would be, even with hand-tracking technology far better than what we have today. That's to say nothing of how much lower quality the display would be.
No, what you're imagining is some science fiction technology, not th
Re: (Score:2)
All Microsoft Bob tells us is that skeuomorphism does not make a good UI. An interface being in 3D does not require it to look like "things."
VR is for fun not surfing (Score:1)
Firefox what? When did this exist? (Score:2)
I'm on my 3rd headset, the first was the Oculus Rift, back when it was called the Rift rather than the CV1. Somehow this is the first time I heard of Firefox Reality.
Like seriously I think it's time the marketing department gets taken out behind the shed and put out of their misery. No not fired, if we fire them they'll just go screw up their job at another company.
Mozilla has a huge marketing problem.
Ok.... (Score:2)
3D is only for talking to machines (Score:1)
The only use case for 3Dimensional content is to communicate with machines.