As much as I appreciate the efforts to build a successful, truly open mobile OS, the "browser as an OS" approach is an incredibly dumb idea. It's another step away from general purpose computing, and I don't like this direction one bit. Some people here on HN might not really want to hear this, but web apps aren't the future. You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it.
What would interest me more in B2G is whether the Linux base underneath it is fully functional. And not just a slightly advanced "bootloader" for B2G. A fully functional, mostly free GNU/Linux system that gets widespread adoption, even just as a smartphone OS, would be a great blessing to the efforts of the Free Software community.
It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it.
Depends on what you mean by "incredibly simple". If you look at the most popular apps besides games, it's hard to imagine why they can't be implemented in HTML5.
As for games, stay tuned. Folks are working hard on it:
TL;DR: I disagree. The web stack is becoming the greatest general-purpose toolkit ever built. Already it's a great platform choice for building an entire "app" ecosystem on top of, and it's only getting better.
DISCLAIMER: Although I'm not in the B2G team, I work for Mozilla. However, the above is strictly my personal opinion.
I don't work for Mozilla, don't use Firefox, and am not a front-end developer (I write C). That said, I agree 100% that Apps of the future will be delivered over HTTP to general purpose runtimes that will essentially be browsers (maybe they'll drop the need to wrap everything in chrome, or something).
Browsers are increasingly become a dynamic language runtime attached to a powerful graphics rendering library. Make the runtime faster, provide better graphics widgets, and get past this "remote everything with shitty local caching" thing and you've got yourself one hell of a toolkit.
At which point, the OS isn't doing anything but hooking that runtime to the device drivers, and the natural question will be, "Why shouldn't the browser just be the OS?"
You're completely right. I don't understand why everyone thinks we need to standardize on the web browser as the one true computing platform either. The sheer overhead involved is so upsetting when you see simple canvas/etc. demos that just chug when running on incredibly powerful computers and see people applauding the effort. Native compilation is too sweet a prize to give up; -webkit-box-shadow, the fucked box model, <video>, <canvas>, and friends are no substitute for a real, efficient software stack that isn't incredibly bloated and underperforming. The sooner HN at large realizes this, the sooner it can get to working on things that are actually new and interesting.
The only reason the web is considered the end-all-be-all is because people want to reach "average users" who can't handle installing native software and don't want the inconvenience of maintaining their computers' software. They never will, but that doesn't mean that the future of computing should be decided by the least common denominator of end-users.
The current trend in "web technologies" is to implement a wrapper for every native technology. When we finally finish, we'll end up with what can't possibly work better than what we had before, and it'll have taken incredible amounts of effort for programmers to optimize it enough that it's even usable for real jobs (see javascript engines at large). If all that programmers want is a standard software interface, they should construct one, but the browser as an environment has too much cruft from its history as a /content navigation tool/ to be an effective programming environment.
I'm also really annoyed by the more locked-down future that the new OS environments are facilitating, but I've been continually amazed at the boundaries "web" apps are pushing (e.g. WebGL, WebAudio )
Why can't you put everything on the web? Right now it is not powerful enough for 3D rendering but that is mostly a limitation of Javascript and people using old browsers.
Other than than I don't see any program which is used by ordinary people today that you couldn't put on the net. Most of them properly already should have been.
Why would I want to? I really don't see the point of trying to run a real time industrial automation control from a javascript engine inside fire fox. It might be a fun hack but I fail to see any real use.
Well obviously you need someway to write to the physical wires and if true real-time is required you will have to skip Javascript, but I can't see the issue with having the user facing part of the system be a webapp -- in fact it would properly be easier to do and would be safer too since the system is better walled of from things like viruses and malware.
> You just fundamentally cannot put everything on the web. It works for incredibly simple things. But that's it.
The web isn't everything - no perfect solution exists for every problem. But you go way too far in the other direction. Modern web browsers can run very complex code at very high speeds. Saying the web can only do incredibly simple things is like saying Java can only do incredibly simply things (which people did say, several years ago).
> What would interest me more in B2G is whether the Linux base underneath it is fully functional. And not just a slightly advanced "bootloader" for B2G. A fully functional, mostly free GNU/Linux system that gets widespread adoption, even just as a smartphone OS, would be a great blessing to the efforts of the Free Software community.
The problem is that such an OS cannot easily get widespread adoption, because it would have no apps. That is the problem of every new phone OS today, people develop for iOS and Android, and that's it.
That's what makes it so hard for Bada and Windows Phone and WebOS to get any traction - developer attention is all on the top two mobile OSes, and users buy those OSes to get those apps.
So inventing a new development platform is incredibly hard, and that's what using Linux as a development platform would get us. The only real way to get around that is to leverage an existing development platform. The best existing such platform is the web - it's open, has multiple compatible implementations, is royalty-free, and a lot of effort is going into it (look at recent advances in web browsers).
That's why B2G, WebOS and Tizen are all using the web as their development platform. It's the only approach that has a chance.
They are all also using Linux underneath - it's the best OS for that. But it's not the best app development platform.
The problem is that such an OS cannot easily get widespread adoption, because it would have no apps. That is the problem of every new phone OS today, people develop for iOS and Android, and that's it.
So true. And that's what I base my assumption that there will be no enthusiast-phone on the market in the future (today we have Maemo/meego and that's it).
But, an enthusiast OS running linux could, in theory, run android apps and that could be a loophole. I know work was put in to doing this on Maemo but it never got mature (or else I should have heard about it).
The same goes for the web. It might suffice for the average Joe but for those doing "real" work on their machines or want more control of their machine will suffer.
In this evolution I truly hope that the mainstream-focus doesn't get all the attention. An App/OS doesn't have to be dumb to be beginner-friendly, an advanced application doesn't have to be beginner-unfriendly and please for the love of god realize that beginner friendliness IS NOT the same as easy to use. Those are completely separate topics and today when people talk about user-friendly interfaces they only talk about beginner-friendly and actually making them very hard to use but easy to learn.
There are experts everywhere. Ten-year-olds that utilized every obscure shortcut available on the old phones without for that matter being interested in tech or even phones have no parallel today. They just learned how to use their phone effectively but today there is no room for growth on our dumb devices (thanks apple).
A good interface is an interface that is easy to use and depending on the target audience relatively easy to use up front (or very easy to use up front) and sports advanced features and room for growth.
A bad interface is one that is easy only because it is dumb.
I generally agree with what you say. I'm yet to be won over by the browser as an OS idea, whether from Google or Mozilla and also while Web App might be the future, they're far from the now. That said, Mozilla seems to be really be behind B2G so let's wait and see whether their OS can do everything that ChromeOS has failed to.
"Browser-based" does not have to be synonymous with "web apps".
You could also see it as giving up control over your local cache of (photos, mails, apps, etc) in exchange for ease of use. This could replace "I want to play Angry Birds, so I download it and then run it" by "I want to play Angry Birds, so I click this button". Then, your device could download the app, if it was not already cached on your device, and run it.
That's exactly my point. The post I replied to objected to "everything in the browser" because "you cannot put everything on the web". I pointed out that A does not imply B.
For example, consider a browser with local storage that allows for running locally stored apps (written in SVG + JavaScript, Flash, NaCl, whatever). Such a device could run games, word processors,cetc, without a network connection.
From The Article:
-- With Boot to Gecko, carriers would have an open operating system, based on an open browser and framework, with a truly open Marketplace. Carriers could create their own Open Web Marketplace and populate it with their own apps, and create their own rules. They could brand the OS and load it up with as much or as little bloatware as they like. With B2G, carriers would once again be in control. --
Wait a second.. they think it's a good thing that the carriers can create their own walled gardens with this new OS? That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard. While Google/Apple have their own barriers they are nothing compared to what the phone industry had in place pre-iPhone. Before the iPhone/AppStore/Android you could not even use the GPS that was built into your device unless you paid $10 per month, any apps that even remotely affected carrier revenue were blacklisted (Free SMS etc..) Sorry but I would rather deal with Google or Apple's walled gardens than the prisions we were in before.
> their infrastructures have been reduced to that of a dumb pipe
This is a bad thing how? As far as I can see, carriers have far too much control over the devices that are used on their networks. I can't imagine consumers opting for devices where carriers have EVEN GREATER control!
I'm frequently surprised by how much power the US carriers seem to have. Here in the UK they are mostly reduced to dumb pipes. There are (almost) no operator exclusive phones, except for the cheapo own-brand ones, which few people would choose a network for. On top of that any phone you buy can be legally unlocked and switched to any other network.
It seems like a much better position as a consumer to be able to pick an operator based mainly on the line-rental charges and included data, minutes, etc.
I don't know if this is a consequence of laws around unlocking phones or simply because the operators in the UK pretty much match each other in coverage. Most built up areas have even coverage from them all so there is little to lock a buyer into one network or another.
You paint a rather rosy picture of UK carriers. Whilst you are right with regards to phone availability, while contracts and PAYG are still centred primarily around voice minutes and text messages, we are far from 'dumb pipe' territory.
Yes, I see your point that the pricing of the pipes is still weird and uneven. What I mean is that I can pick my network based mainly on the price of their pipe, not the availability of some handset or because it's the only one available in a certain area. This seems to be the theme of US carriers: driving people to buy the service not because of the service itself, but because of the other details. But then I suppose coverage is a service, especially in the large and sparse fields of the US.
Of course nothing is perfect. Just interesting as a contrast.
I really hope this survives, IMO we need a truly free mobile OS since meeGo died.
Concerns about 'browser as an OS', web apps only, and carrier control are way premature-- wait until we have seen the thing. For me, the fact mozilla are behind it trumps these concerns-- i know it will be truly open and consumer oriented.
..
If i had to guess, i would say that it would ship with carrier modification, but that this could be easily reverted with a simple, freely available 'add-on' (think ad-block-- no rooting, jailbreaking etc required), and that gecko would provide the default UI[1], with the option for native web apps to share the same front-end, and the linux backend would be available too.
..
1. Since the web is the only 100% cross-platform environment, and all smartphones are going to have a browser rendering engine loaded a lot of the time, this makes a lot of sense to me.
EDIT: OP didn't pick the picture of the girls, those are actually LG "booth babes." Sorry OP!
Metacomment (about the article): The author created a fake photo for the article based on the dialer and app screens and photo of two young girls, presumably to draw the eye and get clicks (or for lack of any actual applicable images). I have a couple of issues/questions:
1: Is it reasonable for a tech blogger to create fake images of a product and lead the article with them? (It says in the title attribute that the image is fake but I don't make a habit of hovering over each image to find out if it's fake.)
2: I know that using sexualized pictures of women to draw readers is a common practice that isn't going away (see Wired, Psychology Today, every other magazine), but these girls look peripubescent. I'm annoyed by the practice in all cases, but it seems especially poor taste to use images of such young girls in this context. (If someone wants to make the case that I'm imagining the role sexuality plays in this practice, I'm happy to hear it, but I'm highly skeptical.)
Holy crap... That's really quite shocking and makes me seriously question whether I'd want to do business with LG. If you had a 14 year old daughter, would you appreciate LG or whoever paying her to wear a very low cut shirt and make eyes at a bunch of older (mostly) men to entice them to buy a phone? I don't consider myself an "overprotective" parent, but I think this sort of sexualization of young girls by a large company is really sick and distasteful. /r/jailbait got shut down for sexualizing girls of this same (apparent) age, just as LG is doing. Gross.
One thing that is sure is that this one seriously lack ethics. Note that even in real journalism there is that kind of practice. Just look at tabloids.
The part that scares me most is the thought that Mozilla is willing to give any power back to the carriers. I do not want this, not in a million years. I'll take Apple's walled garden over AT&T's heap of shit, any day of the week.
Which is the advantage (to users) of the self-appointed benevolent dictator for life model.
What do users want? Something that's cheap, easy to use and unlimited.
What do the carriers want? Something that's branded to them and customised so they can upsell features. (Which requires an ecosystem they can customise, such as BtG.)
What do the platform vendors want? Ecosystem control so they can be the gatekeeper selling apps and ads.
I hate to say this as a long-term Mozilla fan with a strong distaste for iOS, but the most user-friendly model appears to be tied to platform vendors, not carriers. They are the ones with an incentive to maximise service; carriers, OTOH, have demonstrated a very noticeable tendency to salami-slice everything. Want your apps? Sorry, got to go through your network's app store. (And devs, you now have to negotiate with hundreds of vendors, each with different rules.) Want to use more than Facebook and YouTube? Sorry, that's the 'enhanced web' package. (Some have already done this.) Want tethering? Sure, that'll be £30 per month. And, once the carriers have the ability to have their own branded and locked-down smartphoens, just wait to pay a surplus to use an 'unsupported device' like an iPhone.
The carrier-controlled model has been tried before, and found wanting. Returning control to them could set the market back five years in one fell swoop.
If the power is somewhere, I'd like it to be with Apple or Google, not AT&T. At least they tend to aim for making their customers happy, when AT&T seems quite intent on screwing me over.
Yep, possibly -- though, obviously, users aren't likely to go for a phone that's _worse_ than iOS or Android, so I don't think carriers would screw things up too badly.
The main thing is B2G is COMPETITION!
Much in the same way that Firefox rocked the IE boat, B2G should hopefully offer a sound alternative to iOS/Android.
I should note that the browser on Boot2Gecko is really not related to Firefox on Linux at all, outside of using the same Gecko renderer underneath. B2G -- unlike Firefox -- doesn't require X, doesn't support extensions, and the browser chrome and all that is actually just a web app itself. So sure, it shares a renderer, but it's like saying that ChromeOS is powered by Safari.
I agonized about leaving in that 'lower tech' bit. Basically, B2G is built on the Android kernel. Chrome OS has a ton of security features that aren't present in Android. By 'lower tech', I mean that B2G won't have Chrome OS's verified boot, double sandbox, and other tweaks like that.
(Though I suppose B2G could have those eventually!)
It's odd that you would equate different design goals with being "lower tech". By the same criteria Android is a lower tech than Chrome OS.
Chrome OS was about building (a desktop computer) around the web as it exists today whereas B2G is about building (a mobile phone) around the web as it will (hopefully) exist in the future.
Hehe, well, I'm fairly sure that B2G and Chrome OS share more similarities than you grant them. They are both an attempt to build a cloud-based, web app-based thin client. The Chromebooks have 3G connectivity, don't forget -- and I'm sure there will be a B2G tablet, too (a Chrome OS tablet has been rumoured for a long time, as well).
I don't think you can compare Android to B2G. But yeah, perhaps I should say 'simplified' rather than 'low tech' :)
You seem to be implying that Chrome OS and B2G are really close, except B2G is missing a couple of things that Chrome has and is therefore "lower tech" or "simplified" but they simply have different design goals. Here's a list of APIs that B2G ships with that Chrome has no equivalent: https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI
Side note: I hope "Boot to Gecko" won't be the official name of the OS. First, most users don't know what booting is or what Gecko is. Second, it will be awkward to use an imperative phrase as a noun. "This phone has Boot to Gecko." "Did you see that game for Boot to Gecko?" Very awkward. GeckoOS might be OK; something inspired by the word "gecko" would be better still. A quick look at the Wikipedia article suggests "Gekkota", "Adhesion", etc.
Is it just me or the author of the article did everything he could to make Boot to Gecko look bad, even if we know very little from it yet.
Since when being fully open source and easy to hack is a bad thing? The argument of operators crippling the phone with their apps is another problem. And I don't think Mozilla would approve distributing an OS which seriously limits the user freedom.
> And I don't think Mozilla would approve distributing an OS which seriously limits the user freedom.
Just like China can ship a Linux distro that's locked down and full of spyware, someone could ship a device based on Boot2Gecko that's insanely user-unfriendly. However, that's part of the point: you're free to do what you want with the OS, and that cuts both ways. The same freedom that allows people to do amazing things with their hardware is what could allow evil people to ship a horrendously locked down phone. Do I think it's likely to happen? No.
(Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla on B2G, but obviously this is just my own personal opinion and I don't speak for the company, etc etc.)
Oh great. It wasn't bad enough that Android lacks a real-time user interface, now all my apps will be in JavaScript and HTML5, making everything even slower and crappier. It's so funny how phones made 10 years ago were more real-time than those today. On top of that I get the bulkiness of a Mozilla product combined with the security vulnerabilities of a Mozilla product.
"Basically, Apple and Google have so much control over the smartphone landscape that carriers have effectively become nothing more than retailers. Worse than that, their infrastructures have been reduced to that of a dumb pipe, where it is Apple and Google who ultimately decide how the network will be used."
THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE MOBILE CARRIER INDUSTRY IN ITS HISTORY. And somehow you find this a bad thing? Jesus christ people can be thick.
"It's so funny how phones made 10 years ago were more real-time than those today."
Oh come on that's just not true. Phones 10 years ago barely had color displays and 0 apps other than contacts,phone and maybe music and I don't even think java games were there yet.
As far as I know, getting contacts synced between your phone and computer meant buying some huge palm or blackberry and hooking it up to your computer with a special cable. No Real time over the web syncing of contacts between your email client and phone like you have today.
Really java made the phones less real-time, but it was 10 years ago that one of the first Java phones in the US was sold by Sprint. Nextel I85s came out in 2001, and the Sanyo SCP-4900 (with 12-bit color!) came out in 2002.
All those apps and games and syncing? Means diddly squat if the god damn phone is locking up from apps clogging the CPU and preventing me from pressing the "Pick up" button when i'm receiving a call. Phones today are (in general) overrated, overpriced, hardly usable pieces of shit.
I understand what you mean but I'm just making the point that phones were a lot simpler and in my view much less useful. It's obvious that somethings might have been loss since then like how my phone reacts less well to me answering the phone or pressing number but the amount of new functionality in my view more than make up for that small annoyance.
Real-time as in real-time computing isn't as big a selling point today as it was pre-iphone. RIM is making that mistake. QNX is awesome for what it does but I don't think people care about it's strong points as much as they do with the strong points of Android and iOS.(And that's what I meant when I twisted the definition of real-time to fit my syncing example. It's a different unrelated concept to what you were implying.)
I would like to know if it is possible in the future to write a 'native' app for this OS, and by that I mean one that is not encumbered by the speed limitations of Javascript.
What would interest me more in B2G is whether the Linux base underneath it is fully functional. And not just a slightly advanced "bootloader" for B2G. A fully functional, mostly free GNU/Linux system that gets widespread adoption, even just as a smartphone OS, would be a great blessing to the efforts of the Free Software community.