Mozilla Opens the Firefox App Store To Early Testers 74
A reader sends this quote from ZDNet:
"Mozilla has opened its Firefox Marketplace, with Android device owners and developers getting the first access to the browser's app store. The access arrived on Thursday, in the release of the latest 'Aurora' build of Firefox for Android. Aurora is meant for developers and early adopters, as it is the test stream of Mozilla's browser. The storefront lets people find and install web applications delivered via the browser, and gives developers a place to publicize their apps. 'We're hoping that Aurora users, our awesome early adopters, will go experience the Firefox Marketplace on their Android phones and let us know what they think,' Mozilla Labs engineering manager Bill Walker said in a blog post. 'Our goal is to collect as much real-life feedback as possible about the Marketplace's design, usability, performance, reliability, and content.' ... Mozilla said it expects to follow with a Marketplace for the Firefox browser beta and Firefox OS launches next year."
The Firefox what? (Score:2)
App Store? Marketplace? (which is it?) Why?
Yes Apple came out with something and made lots of money, but is it really a good idea for you (as a generic non-Apple entity) to make one as well?
If Ubuntu comes out with its own Ubuntu App Store, should I kill myself? And should I stop ending every sentence with a question mark?
Re: (Score:1)
There is a Canonical Software Center. Been around for years.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the last 7, right? It originated in 9.10.
Re: (Score:2)
you means the one that has been there since before the OSX app store
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The USC has had paid apps for around 2 years. Where have you been?
Re: (Score:1)
They've had them since October 2010. You are seriously behind the times.
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Probably to encourage add-on devs to keep their app up to date with their crazy release schedule.
A lot of the current add-ons (or apps if you will) aren't compatible with the latest firefox versions.
So make the user (probably) pay for it & encourage that the add-ons stay in compliance.
Of course there is also the opportunity for new add-ons to be developed that are worth the asking price. An example on the android market would be the psx emulator. FF7 on my phone... worth the modest price of admiss
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu had a desktop apps store before apple so they are not ripping off apple but they have done more than enough to be on the fail train anyway
Re: (Score:2)
If only... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Requiring 2.3 instead of 2.2 like a lot of other apps is...weird, to say the least. And since their browser won't run in my cheap android device, I can't care less about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Chrome requires 4.0 to run and both require hardware acceleration
Well, good point. Maybe its time to go get that shiny new Galaxy Note 2 I've been lusting after...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox requires 2.3, not 4.x. Quite a lot of 2.2 devices can upgrade to 2.3 but not 4.x, so it's available on quite a lot more Android devices than Chrome, they do have quite a bit of this captive audience.
Have you used it on a Gingerbread device? Because it's head and shoulders better than any other browser available for Gingerbread. I've been using it on an old (released in 2010) tablet and even with it's higher system requirements, I won't go back to Opera, Dolphin or stock. Firefox has always moved pre
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point exactly. If every other can, why not Firefox?
Re:If only... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/mobile/platforms/ [mozilla.org] says Firefox for Android runs on 2.2.
Re: (Score:2)
Huhmm? Must be a recent change, I am pretty sure I heard the opposite from Planet Mozilla's posts about FF for Android, though, unfortunately my RSS reader doesn't keep many posts, I'll have to dig to find the source.
Also the fact that it refuses to install in my 2.2 tablet, which never refused any other piece of software marked for 2.2. It can run Chrome and Opera, Dolphin too, Firefox is the only one that doesn't, but should.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh... Chrome needs Android 4.0. There's no way you're running Chrome on a 2.2 tablet. ;)
What's the actual tablet model, if you're willing to say? I'll see if I can figure out why you can't install it. Also, what version did you try installing?
Re: (Score:2)
Andy, what Android version do you have? Firefox runs on 2.2 and above, which according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Usage_share [wikipedia.org] as of today covers about 96% of Android devices. It's possible you're in the 4%, but it's also possible that your real problem is your processor, not your Android version. If so (if you're using an armv6 processor), there is ongoing work to make Firefox work on those that should hopefully ship in late November.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhmm, I just checked and it's armv7, so it should work. There is enough space in the internal partition, and other browsers run properly. It just refuses to install.
I mean the device is cheap but not THAT cheap...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Firefox is available for almost all android platforms just not in the final versions. They are available in beta, aurora, and nightly stages. Check the link. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms/Android
Just make sure you download the version that matches your phones OS version and Processor.
Mod up parent big-time!! (Score:1)
The "App"ification of Everything Continues (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides that point, most of these so-called "apps" are worthless. I remember a time when Apple fans used to proudly proclaim that even though there was less software on the Mac platform, they were higher quality than Windows programs. Now that the iPhone has hundreds of thousands of apps, quality doesn't matter anymore.
At least Firefox hasn't gone full Windows 8 and reduced everything to 16 colors (yet)...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
On iOS the situation is better.
Anyway, what I really wanted to say is that they got a shitload of "run/converted through cider"-software to.
This criticism is well-justified (Score:2)
An Internet where people can't be trusted or bothered to enter a URL on their own would be no real Internet at all. It means that the semantics of *who* you are dealing with don't matter nearly as much as the middlemen and their enticing trails of pretty icons. It's IdiocracyNet.
I was going to donate to Mozilla this year, but I decided instead that someone there really needs to get a clue first. The flash-related memory leaks were fixed for a little while in V10, and then came back (and still back after six
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in my app we app every app, so I think it's quite app!
Hey Mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)
You're doing a halfassed job of writing your flagship browser at the moment. There's no way in hell I'm using your app store or your OS. This type of wasted effort, useless featuritis, and loss of focus is why you're losing ground.
Re:Hey Mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
You're doing a halfassed job of writing your flagship browser at the moment.
Well, considering the alternatives, I'd say they're doing OK:
IE) is and always has been an application supporting only bastardized version of the HTML standard and focused on adoption of M$ proprietary extensions/standards.
Opera) Closed source and Ad-ridden.
Chrome) All your Web belong to Google. Dubious "Sandboxed" native code execution.
Konqueror/Rekonq) Seems to work sometimes.
Given the alternatives, I don't see Firefox doing anything egregious. In fact, their efforts are laudable. They make an effort to maintain an open-source product that you can download for free. The Mozilla offerings are probably the least suspect when it comes to privacy issues. Mozilla has their fair share of bugs, but honestly a lot of the complaining I read about Firefox is due to misbehaving plugins as well as users not understanding their system resources.
Maybe I live under a rock but the Mozilla products work great for me. Can you point out some factual information behind your rant? If One of the other offerings are far superior I'd really be interested.
Re: (Score:2)
Protip: Opera removed all ads in 2005.
Re: (Score:1)
They're never going to live that down, are they? "Opera - Browser of choice for phones too shit to run a decent browser like Chrome or Dolphin, or with not enough memory to run Firefox. But hey, no adverts - and it's free now!".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah. You seem to know what you're talking about.
Not.
I do understand my system resources. Firefox do to. And Opera, Firefox and Chrome likely all use them differently. IE doesn't since it doesn't run on my machine. Well. Chrome more or less don't either, just occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I don't trust Google enough to use Chrome. I'm a SeaMonkey fan- also known as Firefox without the insane release cycle and with a decent UI. Amsuingly enough, I don't even use the rest of the programs it comes bundled with.
So... (Score:2)
The storefront lets people find and install web applications delivered via the browser
So... it's the internet? No?
Makes kinda sense (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize this will fix the things you are asking for, right. Addons are the ones that usually cause crazy startup time, shutdown time and memory consumption (which is crazy low, already). If people pay for addons, may be the addon developers can spend some quality time in fixing their addons. May be that is all is needed to fix the problems you asking for.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, most (and I think all) addons I use are GPLed. Even if the developers move into paid only version, I am sure there will be people maintaining the GPLed versions. Only reason people will pay is because the paid version is far better. It is a win-win in my opinion.
It's the new business model (Score:2)
2. ???
3. Profit!
Who's the audience for this? (Score:2)
Who's the audience for this?
1) People who love free browsers so much that they'll buy apps for them?
2) People who can't find what they want among the Android's 500K free apps?
3) People who switched to Firefox to avoid browser lock-in (e.g., IE) but now want to their apps to be locked to specific browser?
4) Developers who would purchase some kind of developers license in the hopes that someone won't instantly clone their app before they make their developer fee back?
5) ???
Seriously - can someone "on the insi
Re: (Score:2)
People who want better addons. I am not on the inside though, just some random guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Paid is not better. Paid is usually only more expensive unless there's no alternative at all.
Geez, I can't wait for the PRO version of adblock or noscript, it'll be hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you meant especially when there is no alternative. The addons I use are all GPLed. The chances of there being no alternative is close to impossible. If the developers become dicks or greedy, I am sure there will free GPLed alternatives available.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Users of Firefox OS
2) You're assuming the apps are not free as in beer. A number of them will be, of course. That's true in both the Android and Apple stores...
A: (Score:2)
People who choose Firefox OS instead of Android, iOS, etc. and want their apps available on other machines too.
The problem with this is the "apps" are mostly websites where you don't get to see the URL and you're treated like a big, fat dummy in other ways too. Mozilla are hopping on Apple's anti-browser bandwagon.