Re: Marketplace apps policy

[Nukeador]

El 14/06/12 02:28, Asa Dotzler escribió:
> On 6/13/2012 2:47 PM, Nukeador wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to know more about apps policy in terms of what we should
>> and what we shouldn't allow.
>>
>> * Flash dependant apps?
>> o I think we shouldn't or we will end as Chrome Store where most
>> apps won't be able to run outside desktop.
>
> Flash is still a required part of the Web. Disallowing critical pieces
> of the Web from Web apps is counter-productive. Also, Firefox Mobile
> supports Flash.
Flash is part of the web but is not part of the open web. How different
would our "open" webapps be if we allow privative technologies to be used?

Also keep in mind that Flash won't work on B2G, in some Android devices
y we don't know if Adobe will drop Android support in near future for
Android.
>
>> * Glorified bookmarks.
>> o Maybe we should have a independent category for these when they
>> are just bookmarks and the site is not device-optimized to
>> perform like an app.
>
> I'm not really sure how you'd draw the line here. Gmail has been a
> great "app" for years and years. Disallowing an app of that quality
> because they also host a version for web browsers seems like it could
> have a pretty big negative impact on getting high quality existing web
> applications to bring their great products to the Marketplace.
Here I'm not talking about disallowing, but categorizing. The user
expects webapps and should know when it's just a glorified bookmark that
would lead to a poor user experience in terms of an independent app.
>
>> * Country policies.
>> o In some countries some apps are "forbidden" due their content.
>> o I think we should follow the nature of the web and don't filter
>> as they where a website.
>> o Problem for having the server in the US?
>
> Are web sites with the same content as those apps also forbidden?
Yes, for that reason I think we shouldn't do anything to filter. But if
a country is blocking a similar site, it will also block this app? The
whole marketplace? Tricky issue :S

Also I assume that due the marketplace server is based in the US, some
policies will apply that maybe in other countries don't.
>
>> * Age policies.
>> o Same as country but with age.
>> o Same opinions as above.
>
> Again, how is this different than the Web?
Is the same. Here it's just an age classification for apps.

Regards.

--
Rubén Martín [Nukeador]
Mozilla Reps Council Member
http://www.mozilla-hispano.org
http://twitter.com/mozilla_hispano
http://facebook.com/mozillahispano

[Gervase Markham]

On 14/06/12 09:42, Nukeador wrote:
> Flash is part of the web but is not part of the open web. How different
> would our "open" webapps be if we allow privative technologies to be used?
>
> Also keep in mind that Flash won't work on B2G, in some Android devices
> y we don't know if Adobe will drop Android support in near future for
> Android.

Quite so. Having "open web apps" which don't work on our premier
flagship open web app mobile platform because they use a large and
explicitly not-supported technology would be a bit of an own goal.

We should ban Flash-dependent apps as inconsistent with the Mozilla mission.

Gerv

[Jason Smith]

Hi Gerv,

Isn't banning a little extreme for flash-based apps for the Mozilla
Marketplace? I think discouraging it is probably a better approach,
given that I do agree with the rationale stated above that we should
encouraging app developers to get away from flash, but banning it will
greatly decrease how many apps we can initially get in our market.
Also, we know that we know flash is a reality of the web and we've seen
reviews such as on the first version of fennec where lack of flash
support lead to some negative reviews. Additionally, there are flash
apps that are perfectly functional even if they are pure flash apps.

I do understand that B2G currently lacks flash support, but a way to
get around this issue for B2G is the same approach Mozilla Marketplace
has been using with device support - easily flag apps as "flash
required" when flash is needed to a major part of the app. That
something I think wouldn't too be hard to add to the developer flow of
marketplace.

Sincerely,
Jason Smith

Desktop QA Engineer
Mozilla Corporation
https://quality.mozilla.org/

On Monday, June 18, 2012 9:50:44 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 14/06/12 09:42, Nukeador wrote:

>> Flash is part of the web but is not part of the open web. How different
>> would our "open" webapps be if we allow privative technologies to be used?
>>
>> Also keep in mind that Flash won't work on B2G, in some Android devices
>> y we don't know if Adobe will drop Android support in near future for
>> Android.
>

> Quite so. Having "open web apps" which don't work on our premier
> flagship open web app mobile platform because they use a large and
> explicitly not-supported technology would be a bit of an own goal.
>
> We should ban Flash-dependent apps as inconsistent with the Mozilla mission.
>
> Gerv

> _______________________________________________
> dev-marketplace mailing list
> dev-mar...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-marketplace

[Gervase Markham]

On 18/06/12 17:59, Jason Smith wrote:
> Isn't banning a little extreme for flash-based apps for the Mozilla
> Marketplace?

Imagine the experience:

- Person buys new "Powered by Firefox and Open Web Apps" B2G phone
- Person goes to Mozilla Marketplace for Open Web Apps
- Person installs App
- App fails to function due to lack of Flash

I cannot immediately think of a more effective way to shoot ourselves in
the foot and make the idea of open web apps a bad joke.

If the person is not shown such apps, it's somewhat better. If the
Marketplace had a capabilities system, such that it has the ability to
only offer you apps which will work on your device or system, then
allowing Flash is not an absolute disaster. If not, then it certainly is.

> I think discouraging it is probably a better approach,
> given that I do agree with the rationale stated above that we should
> encouraging app developers to get away from flash, but banning it will
> greatly decrease how many apps we can initially get in our market.

Are you saying that most web apps people are building or have built rely
on Flash?

> Also,
> we know that we know flash is a reality of the web and we've seen
> reviews such as on the first version of fennec where lack of flash
> support lead to some negative reviews.

That's an entirely different issue. A UA supporting Flash, or not, is
different to a site listing apps which depend on Flash, or not. No user
is going to come to the Marketplace and say "I demand apps powered by
Flash; there must be at least a proportion of apps powered by Flash, or
I won't use this market!"

> I do understand that B2G currently lacks flash support, but a way to get
> around this issue for B2G is the same approach Mozilla Marketplace has
> been using with device support - easily flag apps as "flash required"
> when flash is needed to a major part of the app. That something I think
> wouldn't too be hard to add to the developer flow of marketplace.

But I thought your argument was that the app marketplace would suck
without Flash apps? So are you saying it's going to suck for the B2G launch?

Gerv

[Jason Smith]

Comments inline.

Sincerely,
Jason Smith

Desktop QA Engineer
Mozilla Corporation
https://quality.mozilla.org/

On 6/18/2012 10:27 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> On 18/06/12 17:59, Jason Smith wrote:

>> Isn't banning a little extreme for flash-based apps for the Mozilla
>> Marketplace?

> Imagine the experience:
>
> - Person buys new "Powered by Firefox and Open Web Apps" B2G phone
> - Person goes to Mozilla Marketplace for Open Web Apps
> - Person installs App
> - App fails to function due to lack of Flash
>
> I cannot immediately think of a more effective way to shoot ourselves in
> the foot and make the idea of open web apps a bad joke.
>
> If the person is not shown such apps, it's somewhat better. If the
> Marketplace had a capabilities system, such that it has the ability to
> only offer you apps which will work on your device or system, then
> allowing Flash is not an absolute disaster. If not, then it certainly is.

That definitely sounds possible to be able to flag apps on marketplace
as "requires flash" for significant functionality and not allow those
apps to be shown on consumer pages on B2G. I'd file a bug for this in
marketplace product.

>
>> I think discouraging it is probably a better approach,
>> given that I do agree with the rationale stated above that we should
>> encouraging app developers to get away from flash, but banning it will
>> greatly decrease how many apps we can initially get in our market.

> Are you saying that most web apps people are building or have built rely
> on Flash?

On the desktop side, I know there's apps built that heavily rely on
flash (e.g. Private Joe, Internet TV). Don't know too much on the mobile
side yet, as app compatibility testing on mobile is in its initial phases.

>
>> Also,
>> we know that we know flash is a reality of the web and we've seen
>> reviews such as on the first version of fennec where lack of flash
>> support lead to some negative reviews.

> That's an entirely different issue. A UA supporting Flash, or not, is
> different to a site listing apps which depend on Flash, or not. No user
> is going to come to the Marketplace and say "I demand apps powered by
> Flash; there must be at least a proportion of apps powered by Flash, or
> I won't use this market!"

Right, makes sense.

>
>> I do understand that B2G currently lacks flash support, but a way to get
>> around this issue for B2G is the same approach Mozilla Marketplace has
>> been using with device support - easily flag apps as "flash required"
>> when flash is needed to a major part of the app. That something I think
>> wouldn't too be hard to add to the developer flow of marketplace.

> But I thought your argument was that the app marketplace would suck
> without Flash apps? So are you saying it's going to suck for the B2G launch?

I think we'll better know that answer after conducting an app
compatibility study for mobile with B2G and possibly Android, as right
now, I think I need more data before making that conclusion (definitely
need to put this on QA's to-do list at high priority). The immediate
solution though proposed for flagging apps on marketplace that require
flash sounds like a good solution though, so long as developers by into it.

[Ian Bicking]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote:

> > Also,
> > we know that we know flash is a reality of the web and we've seen
> > reviews such as on the first version of fennec where lack of flash
> > support lead to some negative reviews.
>

> That's an entirely different issue. A UA supporting Flash, or not, is
> different to a site listing apps which depend on Flash, or not. No user
> is going to come to the Marketplace and say "I demand apps powered by
> Flash; there must be at least a proportion of apps powered by Flash, or
> I won't use this market!"
>

There are more games in Flash than pure HTML5, so to the degree that we
want the Marketplace to support a wide variety of games we need to support
Flash. B2G will struggle with this too, but that's how it goes. People
are developing or adapting desktop Flash games to mobile for Android, so
even if B2G won't support these games it doesn't mean mobile in general
will be excluded.

And users will say "I demand games; there must be at least a proportion of
games, or I won't use this market!"

Ian

[Kumar McMillan]

On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:50 AM, Gervase Markham wrote:
> We should ban Flash-dependent apps as inconsistent with the Mozilla mission.

The web doesn't fully work without Flash, sadly. I agree with others that we should flag apps w/ Flash but not ban them. I developed an app that requires flash because it plays an MP3 stream for a radio station. The radio station's service does not support OGG and neither will any other major audio provider. MP3, like it or not, has become the industry standard for web audio. MP3 support just landed in B2G though and after some optimizations it should be useful: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714408 I don't think this change is scheduled for desktop Firefox yet.

As others have pointed out, many games cannot fully convert to HTML5 in today's world. This is mostly due to audio and video precision limitations.

-Kumar

[Nukeador]

El 18/06/12 22:42, Kumar McMillan escribió:

> The web doesn't fully work without Flash, sadly. I agree with others that we should flag apps w/ Flash but not ban them. I developed an app that requires flash because it plays an MP3 stream for a radio station. The radio station's service does not support OGG and neither will any other major audio provider. MP3, like it or not, has become the industry standard for web audio. MP3 support just landed in B2G though and after some optimizations it should be useful: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714408 I don't think this change is scheduled for desktop Firefox yet.
>
> As others have pointed out, many games cannot fully convert to HTML5 in today's world. This is mostly due to audio and video precision limitations.

I thought that one of the reasons of including the ability to support
privative codecs (if the user has them installed) was because it's
better than a privative plugin (flash). Watching Adobe moves I think B2G
will never have Flash support, since they are abandoning most platforms
(Linux, maybe soon Android...).

So if the reason is "let's support flash we'll have more apps!" I guess
we'll support java apps too? (Just kidding but I think you get my point
here) ;)

Also, I don't see how different are then our open apps compared to other
webapps in the Market, "open" for me means no third party plugins
involved, means that runs in every modern browser (desktop and mobile).

[Gervase Markham]

On 18/06/12 19:07, Ian Bicking wrote:
> There are more games in Flash than pure HTML5, so to the degree that we
> want the Marketplace to support a wide variety of games we need to support
> Flash.

Do we want a wide variety of games? I'd say it's better if we have fewer
but _good_ games. Cut the Rope and Angry Birds have demonstrated that
decent gaming can work in HTML5.

If we allowed apps to access OS APIs, I'm sure people could make better
games. That doesn't mean we will do it, because it's completely
antithetical to the entire point of an HTML5-portable-app-based OS. And
so is Flash.

> And users will say "I demand games; there must be at least a proportion of
> games, or I won't use this market!"

There are already games in the Marketplace; there will be a proportion
of games.

Gerv