[programminggeek]

I like the idea of Boot2Gecko, but it's 100% pointless as a project. We had a shot to have a pure web based OS with webOS, and absent awesome hardware and marketing nobody bought it. Mozilla building their own Firefox version of webOS is not going to make this kind of thing successful.

Great devices are a marriage of hardware and software. Focus too much on one at the peril of the other.

Shipping an OS to basically closed hardware devices - phones is a much different ballgame than shipping a web browser app on a preinstalled operating system and with Android already being both free and popular and open source, I don't know why any hardware maker would use Boot2Gecko.

[mcot2]

I actually started to write a response to this post about how WebOS and this project seem totally different in terms of the companies involved and being open source from the start, but then I thought more about it...

This project doesn't really feel like mozilla is trying to compete with Android or iOS in terms of developing a traditional mobile operating system.

It almost feels like mozilla is trying to lay down the ground work for what a web based mobile device SHOULD be. The entire UI using web technologies, JavaScript API's for everything. Think about that for a second... What users think about as the "OS" (basically the home skin, application launcher, widgets, themes and UI controls) is just an infinitely hackable web project for any company to come along and build on top of. Gecko or Webkit + Linux under the hood and thats it.

[robot]

IMHO the underlying technology has no significance. People still write native iOS apps even though HTML5 is available. Nobody will say oh they used javascript and web for every thing I must use/develop for this phone.

[thekingshorses]

I went to their boot2geco meetup, and their goal is to make sure that apple, google and microsoft implements browser friendly apis like dialer, phonebook, etc. Nokia and Samsung already pushing webkit and MS to implement device apis based on Mozilla's implementation.

Mozilla is betting on Javascipt and open web. They think that is the future and I agree with them.

Google is already restricting how much manufacture can customize with latest android versions, and this opens a new door for them.

Mozilla is already working with manufacture to make sure they can build boot2geko devices on existing product line without adding additional cost.

[joelanman]

As far as I understand, B2G feel that their USP is performance on lower-spec phones, for use in the developing world. Yes, you can get cheap Android phones, but they generally run like crap. I think B2G are aiming for sub $100 smart phones that actually run the web and web apps/games well. Good luck to them - its an admirable aim.

[mtgx]

That's a nice theory. But so far I haven't seen a single demo of B2G running on "low-end hardware". I've only seen it running on last year's high-end Galaxy S2 phone, which still costs like $500 unlocked.

I also don't know how Javascript can possibly run any faster than Java apps, especially on low-end hardware. Unless all you're showing is a webpage with text?

Show me B2G on a 600 Mhz ARM11 CPU phone, that's faster than Android, and then I'll buy it.

[joelanman]

I agree, but I guess if the future really is web apps, then it doesn't matter how fast Android runs Java? Web rendering is everything in that situation.

[daa]

I think the real trick isn't convincing hardware makers -- they do what the operators ask them to (at least in the non-Apple world). Operators like Telefonica are interested. See e.g. http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/02/27/mozilla-in-mobile-th...

[otoburb]

Mobile operators spend a lot of management cycles trying to figure out how to avoid becoming 'dumb pipes' like their broadband counterparts.

They know they have unique infrastructure capabilities and, to their credit, want to create additional value to end-users. In conjunction with their current purchasing power and influence over hardware vendors, forward-looking mobile carriers can definitely view B2G as a possible competitive edge if they can figure out how to bring one to market in the most cost-effective (read: cheapest and least disruptive) way possible.

It's a breath of fresh air considering the capabilities and branding that Mozilla has. I would love to be a fly on the wall in those discussions.

[moondowner]

Well Mozilla partnered with Telefonica on this one: http://www.openwebdevice.com/

So I guess only a hardware vendor is missing?

[tankenmate]

Technically you don't need a hardware vendor on board as it uses firmware from android; hardware support is there already.