Sony jumps on the Mozilla bandwagon, will launch Firefox OS device in 2014

[Sailfish]

REF:
http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2013/02/25/sony-jumps-on-the-mozilla-bandwagon-will-bring-launch-firefox-os/

[excerpt quote="
Sony becomes the fifth company to commit to Firefox OS behind ZTE,
Alcatel and the above-mentioned LG and Huawei.
" /]

Good for Sony and Mozilla!

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://www.projectit.com/

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/25/2013 6:31 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF:
> http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2013/02/25/sony-jumps-on-the-mozilla-bandwagon-will-bring-launch-firefox-os/
>
>
> [excerpt quote="
> Sony becomes the fifth company to commit to Firefox OS behind ZTE,
> Alcatel and the above-mentioned LG and Huawei.
> " /]
>
> Good for Sony and Mozilla!
>

In my opinion, suicide for those companies in this market.
We will see.

[»Q«]

Suicide, seriously? How long do you think it will take for LG to be
driven from the smartphone market by this decision? Or do you mean that
LG will be driven completely out of business?

[»Q«]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:58:32 -0800
Sailfish <NIXCAPS...@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 2/25/2013 5:54 PM:

> Surely, it will be a tough market to gain any traction with but if
> Mozilla really could offer a system that eschewed walled-gardenism
> and the phone manufacturers came out with nicely styled devices, it
> could work well enough.
>
> While I'm sure Mozilla wouldn't balk at becoming a major contender in
> this market, my guess is that they mostly want to garner enough
> market share so as to have some influence on the direction of the
> mobile web technology. Even so, it will be tough going in order to
> achieve even that.

They're targeting a lot of so-called emerging markets, with a phone that
costs less than 100 USD. ISTM that's a pretty good plan for gaining
some market share.

As best I can tell from reading tech blogs (ugh), lots of service
providers around the world are sick of the control Apple and Google
exert and are happy to support something that might break their
stranglehold. (This is somewhat ironic, since they formerly welcomed
the stranglehold.) That should be incentive enough for them to market
the things aggressively. (OTOH, I saw a couple of articles speculating
that they'd just like to use FirefoxOS as leverage to get concessions
from Google and Apple, such as a higher share of app store(tm?)
revenues.)

I don't know enough about these emerging markets to speculate much on
the merits of Mozilla's plan, but on the face of it ISTM it has a
chance to make a difference.

[Sailfish]

My bloviated meandering follows what �Q� graced us with on 2/25/2013
7:35 PM:

By "emerging markets" I'm assuming they mean non-1st world markets (and
most especially, not US.) If so, I could see that as a way to get a good
foot hold on which to build a foundation.

> As best I can tell from reading tech blogs (ugh), lots of service
> providers around the world are sick of the control Apple and Google
> exert and are happy to support something that might break their
> stranglehold. (This is somewhat ironic, since they formerly welcomed
> the stranglehold.) That should be incentive enough for them to market
> the things aggressively. (OTOH, I saw a couple of articles speculating
> that they'd just like to use FirefoxOS as leverage to get concessions
> from Google and Apple, such as a higher share of app store(tm?)
> revenues.)
>

Yeah, I could see that; especially, for 3rd tier mobile companies but
first, FxOS has to gain a minimum double-digit following, I think.

> I don't know enough about these emerging markets to speculate much on
> the merits of Mozilla's plan, but on the face of it ISTM it has a
> chance to make a difference.
>

I'm with you in them being able to offer a viable alternative to the
walled-garden juggernaut between two behemoth corporations.

[»Q«]

And right after I posted that, I read that America Movil has more phone
customers than any other service provider in the western hemisphere,
but only 15% of them have smartphones. As Ron says, we will see.

[»Q«]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:53:38 -0600

I meant to give the URL,
<http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-MIMSLA6KLVRE01-1C9ND1I7GMK2OVRGMTCB9VJ7QC>.

[Jay Garcia]

On 25.02.2013 20:05, »Q« wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> Suicide, seriously? How long do you think it will take for LG to be
> driven from the smartphone market by this decision? Or do you mean that
> LG will be driven completely out of business?
>

You mean out of THE (smart phone) business, not out of business.

--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org

[Ron Hunter]

Smartphone market, of course. Sony has a very small part of the
smartphone market as it is. This will assure it remains small, or gets
smaller.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/25/2013 8:58 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 2/25/2013 5:54 PM:

> Surely, it will be a tough market to gain any traction with but if
> Mozilla really could offer a system that eschewed walled-gardenism and
> the phone manufacturers came out with nicely styled devices, it could
> work well enough.
>
> While I'm sure Mozilla wouldn't balk at becoming a major contender in
> this market, my guess is that they mostly want to garner enough market
> share so as to have some influence on the direction of the mobile web
> technology. Even so, it will be tough going in order to achieve even that.
>

Rather like going against two 400lb tigers.

[Ron Hunter]

If they make a difference in Sudan, and Botswana, great, but I don't
think they will penetrate the Android and iOS market to any extent.
Still, there are a lot of countries that are markets for just about
anything that works, and is cheap enough to buy. I don't look for it to
do well in the major markets.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/25/2013 9:50 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 2/25/2013

If they concentrate on rugged design, and smooth function, and keeping
the price down, they may do well in 3rd world countries. Sell them with
those $100 laptops.

[Ron Hunter]

?? Don't see them here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers

[Ron Hunter]

Thanks for the link. I guess we can start identifying illegals by their
smartphone... Grin.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/25/2013 10:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 25.02.2013 20:05, »Q« wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> Suicide, seriously? How long do you think it will take for LG to be
>> driven from the smartphone market by this decision? Or do you mean that
>> LG will be driven completely out of business?
>>
>
> You mean out of THE (smart phone) business, not out of business.
>

Yes, in both cases.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/25/2013 11:17 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 2/25/2013
> 7:53 PM:

> Yeah, they own TracFone, the prepaid mobile company, of which I'm a
> customer :_)
>
> * Current phone offerings:
> http://www.tracfone.com/phones.jsp
>
Ahh, yes the cell phone for the non-user. Grin.
Good to have one in the car for emergencies, but keep it turned off,
because no one EVER calls you on it. Grin.

[Jay Garcia]

On 26.02.2013 03:03, Ron Hunter wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> On 2/25/2013 10:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 25.02.2013 20:05, »Q« wrote:
>>
>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>>> Suicide, seriously? How long do you think it will take for LG to be
>>> driven from the smartphone market by this decision? Or do you mean that
>>> LG will be driven completely out of business?
>>>
>>
>> You mean out of THE (smart phone) business, not out of business.
>>
> Yes, in both cases.
>

Do you have any idea how diversified LG (Lucky Goldstar) is ?? From your
response, I don't think so. Lucky Chemical and Goldstar Electronics
merged in 1958 and has become a powerhouse in both ventures.

You know what "face cream" is, yes? LG (the Lucky Chemical division) is
the largest mfgr on the planet. And you've heard of Friedrich A/C's yes?
Has an LG compressor. There's a lot more ...

[Jay Garcia]

On 26.02.2013 03:05, Ron Hunter wrote:

--- Original Message ---

How do you know that if it's turned OFF? ;-)

--
Jay Garcia - www.ufaq.org - Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Thunderbird
Mozilla Contribute Coordinator Team - www.mozilla.org/contribute/
Mozilla Mozillian Member - www.mozillians.org

[»Q«]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:55:29 -0600
Jay Garcia <J...@JayNOSPAMGarcia.com> wrote:

> On 26.02.2013 03:03, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> > On 2/25/2013 10:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> >> On 25.02.2013 20:05, »Q« wrote:
> >>
> >>> Suicide, seriously? How long do you think it will take for LG to
> >>> be driven from the smartphone market by this decision? Or do you
> >>> mean that LG will be driven completely out of business?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You mean out of THE (smart phone) business, not out of business.
> >>
> > Yes, in both cases.
>
> Do you have any idea how diversified LG (Lucky Goldstar) is ?? From
> your response, I don't think so.

I believe he meant "yes, in both cases" as "yes, both parts of your
sentence are correct".

The idea that producing a FirefoxOS phone will lead to the total
destruction ("suicide") of their smartphone business seemed ludicrous to
me, but from another followup I gather that by "suicide" he just meant
he thinks these companies' smartphone market shares will not grow.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/26/2013 8:55 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
> On 26.02.2013 03:03, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>> On 2/25/2013 10:33 PM, Jay Garcia wrote:
>>> On 25.02.2013 20:05, »Q« wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>> Suicide, seriously? How long do you think it will take for LG to be
>>>> driven from the smartphone market by this decision? Or do you mean that
>>>> LG will be driven completely out of business?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You mean out of THE (smart phone) business, not out of business.
>>>
>> Yes, in both cases.
>>
>
> Do you have any idea how diversified LG (Lucky Goldstar) is ?? From your
> response, I don't think so. Lucky Chemical and Goldstar Electronics
> merged in 1958 and has become a powerhouse in both ventures.
>
> You know what "face cream" is, yes? LG (the Lucky Chemical division) is
> the largest mfgr on the planet. And you've heard of Friedrich A/C's yes?
> Has an LG compressor. There's a lot more ...
>

Yes, I mean out of the smartphone business, yes, not out of business.
People really have trouble interpreting negatives, and positives, just
like in math.

[Ron Hunter]

I guess you forgot my story about what my sister-in-law gave as her
reason for only turning her cell phone on when she wanted to make a
call. "No one ever calls me on it." She STILL doesn't understand why I
thought that was funny.

[Ron Hunter]

Should they put all their smartphone eggs in the FirefoxOS basket, then
I suspect it will tank, at least in the US and Europe. If it is cheap
enough, it might sell well in 3rd world countries.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/26/2013 3:03 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Sailfish graced us with on
> 2/25/2013 4:31 PM:

>> REF:
>> http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2013/02/25/sony-jumps-on-the-mozilla-bandwagon-will-bring-launch-firefox-os/
>>
>>
>> [excerpt quote="
>> Sony becomes the fifth company to commit to Firefox OS behind ZTE,
>> Alcatel and the above-mentioned LG and Huawei.
>> " /]
>>
>> Good for Sony and Mozilla!
>>

> REF:
> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-57571256-78/mozilla-ceo-android-ios-leave-lots-of-room-for-firefox-os/
>
>
> [excerpt quote="
> *Mozilla CEO: Android, iOS leave lots of room for Firefox OS*
>
> Mozilla has a mammoth challenge, though. Working in its favor is the
> fact that Firefox is a browser-based operating system, meaning that Web
> applications such as Facebook already work for it without the need for
> Mozilla to marshal an army of programmers to write apps.
> " /]
>
> Sing it out, Brother!
>
What about contact lists, calendar, and file management?

[»Q«]

It looked like your "suicide" comment was in response to the article
about what they actually *are* doing.

If you'd mentioned you'd invented something they are *not* doing and
that you were responding as if they were doing it, that would have been
much less confusing.

[F1...@nospampobox.com]

On 2/26/2013 12:52 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

They must not be. I read that HP sold WebOS to LG.



--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[»Q«]

They did, but LG doesn't plan to use it for phones.

[The Real Bev]

I want a cheap smartphone, but only if it has a decent camera, GPS and
other useful non-phone apps. The phone part would be T-Mobile $10/year
pre-paid that I hardly ever use. I also want a car with mechanical
windows and mirrors and doorlocks and NO computer that wants to kill me.

I'm pretty sure I can't have either one.

--
Cheers. Bev
==========================================================
It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament
to repeal Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they
met too much resistance.

[Ron Hunter]

I rather doubt they will even try to market smartphones based on Firefox
OS in the US or Europe, or other 'first world' countries, but rather to
the 3rd world countries where price is of paramount importance, and
people are willing to try something new if it makes the product feasible
for them. Trying to buck iOS and Android in the US is something even
Microsoft is having trouble doing. I don't think Mozilla would succeed,
and I don't think LG and Sony will try that here.

[Ron Hunter]

Federal regulations prohibit that kind of car, basically. As for the
smartphone, there are current options if you look at some of the Android
models. Pick one with the camera, GPS, etc. you like, pay for it, and
then select a service provider.

[»Q«]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:10:21 -0600

They will market it in Europe. From Mozilla's 24 February
announcement, "The first wave of Firefox OS devices will be available
to consumers in Brazil, Colombia, Hungary, Mexico, Montenegro, Poland,
Serbia, Spain and Venezuela. Additional markets will be announced
soon."

> Trying to buck iOS and Android in the US is something even Microsoft
> is having trouble doing. I don't think Mozilla would succeed, and I
> don't think LG and Sony will try that here.

I hope the U.S. market isn't permanently locked down by Google and
Apple; that would be a shame for the open web.

I do think FirefoxOS will be marketed here, and while I don't think it
will unseat Android as the market share leader, neither will it destroy
the businesses of the manufacturers and service providers who offer it.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/27/2013 2:51 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on

> 2/27/2013 12:10 AM:

> Europe was one of the first regions to sign up to it.
>
Let's see how it sells.

[Ron Hunter]

I don't see this as a web issue, but a walled garden on a particular
device, or class of devices. Open access has advantages, and
disadvantages. IF the walled garden isn't limiting to your needs, then
it really doesn't matter. If you feel restricted, then perhaps Windows
Phone and Apple aren't the way to go.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/27/2013 11:25 AM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what »Q« graced us with on 2/27/2013
> 7:04 AM:

> I think it will be marketed in the US, too. For example, I could see
> TracFone offering these inexpensive handsets as part of their pre-paid
> offering.
>
>
Do you see that impacting the iOS, or Android markets, or as a separate
market?

[»Q«]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:15:52 -0600
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:

> On 2/27/2013 9:04 AM, »Q« wrote:

> > I hope the U.S. market isn't permanently locked down by Google and
> > Apple; that would be a shame for the open web.

> I don't see this as a web issue, but a walled garden on a particular
> device, or class of devices. Open access has advantages, and
> disadvantages. IF the walled garden isn't limiting to your needs,
> then it really doesn't matter. If you feel restricted, then perhaps
> Windows Phone and Apple aren't the way to go.

These are web devices we are talking about. These restricted means of
accessing the web have a negative impact on its openness. As it stands
now, rather than using open web standards, developers who want to reach
many users are building things that work only inside the walled
gardens. It's analogous to the bad old days in which developers had
to provide stuff that worked in IE rather than stuff that worked
according to open standards.

[Ron Hunter]

On 2/27/2013 12:46 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 2/27/2013 10:17 AM:

> Impacting? In terms of market share, not appreciably. Influencing, yes,
> I believe it could.
>
Well, Blackberry has, but that's because of the business market. Window
Phone, not so much, and the older OSs, have mostly faded into the under
5% usage, leaving the field for iOS, and Android. Is there really room
for a number 3 with significant (double digit) market share? I doubt it.
Still, Mozilla might make a lot of money, even with a very small market
share. Maybe they could even take a shot at Microsoft, who has shot
themselves in the foot with Win8, and seems to think they are going the
right way.

[Ron Hunter]

I don't see it that way. If I have a browser on my smartphone that
allows me to display web pages as they were intended, that is complies
with current standards, then I don't really care if it is the same,
internally, as that run on an Android system. I only care about the
user interface, and the display. That's as 'open' as it needs to be.
It just means programmers have to work a bit harder to hit all the
market segments.

[»Q«]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:47:54 -0600

Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:

> On 2/27/2013 2:45 PM, »Q« wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:15:52 -0600
> > Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/27/2013 9:04 AM, »Q« wrote:
> >
> >>> I hope the U.S. market isn't permanently locked down by Google and
> >>> Apple; that would be a shame for the open web.
> >
> >> I don't see this as a web issue, but a walled garden on a
> >> particular device, or class of devices. Open access has
> >> advantages, and disadvantages. IF the walled garden isn't
> >> limiting to your needs, then it really doesn't matter. If you
> >> feel restricted, then perhaps Windows Phone and Apple aren't the
> >> way to go.
> >
> > These are web devices we are talking about. These restricted means
> > of accessing the web have a negative impact on its openness. As it
> > stands now, rather than using open web standards, developers who
> > want to reach many users are building things that work only inside
> > the walled gardens. It's analogous to the bad old days in which
> > developers had to provide stuff that worked in IE rather than stuff
> > that worked according to open standards.
> >
> I don't see it that way. If I have a browser on my smartphone that
> allows me to display web pages as they were intended, that is
> complies with current standards, then I don't really care if it is
> the same, internally, as that run on an Android system.

It's no longer about web *pages* displaying as intended with any
browser, it's about web *apps* that work on any device. Just as the
former was achieved by marketplace penetration of open
standard-compliant browsers, that latter could be achieved by
penetration of standards-compliant web devices.

> I only care about the user interface, and the display. That's as
> 'open' as it needs to be. It just means programmers have to work a
> bit harder to hit all the market segments.

ISTM you're like the people who were happy to just use IE in, say, 2000.
They didn't care that developers had to "work a bit harder" to make
their sites work with standards-compliant browsers in addition to IE,
and they didn't care about the negative effect IE was having on the
entire system.