This may very well be true, but completely ignores the context:
1. As far as the effect of the window manager: this isn't emacs+X11 in 1995: the drag on CPU/ram/battery of gecko/blink will dwarf the "weight" of the windowing system.
2. FirefoxOS maybe be leaner in principle, but the competition has vastly better hardware, both in the Windows Phone field and in the Android one, via what I can guess is a combination of subsidies (is mobile MS still burning piles of cash or has the division posted some profits?) and sheer mass scale production. So, for little more money you get a get a better device that actually runs all the apps that your friends have, and a web browser.
3. The appeal of FirefoxOS even in those low end markets was negligible (this has been discussed to death). Besides they released phones in places such as Italy and Spain, two markets were people will en masse shell out the cash for an Iphone. I found that simply baffling.
1. As far as the effect of the window manager: this isn't emacs+X11 in 1995: the drag on CPU/ram/battery of gecko/blink will dwarf the "weight" of the windowing system.
Firefox OS can actually run on a 1 ARM CPU with as low as 128mb. It may not be the best experience but Android and WP can't even boot given those constraints. Firefox OS can be really nimble, the main issue when people complain about performance is usually a poorly implemented app and not the OS.
2. FirefoxOS maybe be leaner in principle, but the competition has vastly better hardware, both in the Windows Phone field and in the Android one, via what I can guess is a combination of subsidies (is mobile MS still burning piles of cash or has the division posted some profits?) and sheer mass scale production. So, for little more money you get a get a better device that actually runs all the apps that your friends have, and a web browser.
That is true for some places but not everywhere. There are places where all the devices are imported and heavily taxed. In these cases Firefox OS tends to be a lot cheaper than a comparable Android. Some people can't afford an Android device, they may be stuck with dumb phones, in these cases, Firefox OS is an appealing solution. Thats the original case, migrating people to their first smartphone and give them web access.
3. The appeal of FirefoxOS even in those low end markets was negligible (this has been discussed to death). Besides they released phones in places such as Italy and Spain, two markets were people will en masse shell out the cash for an Iphone. I found that simply baffling.
I will not comment on the negligible part of your comment because I know people from those locations, real people not data points in a graph, who were delighted to have their first device. Also remember that Firefox OS is a partnership with hardware makers and carriers. The carriers decide where it will launch and both TIM and Telefonica wanted to launch on their home country. It was their decision, we may not agree, but its their call to launch on their home base.
On the first point I was specifically arguing on window management, e.g. the fact that FirefoxOS does not use surfacefinger is, as far as I can tell, minor, compared to the applications wonderful capacity to lock everything on just about every OS. FirefoxOS can indeed boot on 128MB (so the problem with Android is not really the kernel nor bionic), but if the applications do run poorly, what good does that make (yes, it does make some good, my previous post was overly cynical). My (admittely brief) experience with a FirefoxOS device with 256MB was precisely that surfing the web was quite frustrating.
On the second and the third point I'll both agree with you and continue disagreeing. Yes, in some places a FirefoxOS is the only option. And yes, negligible is was a dickish term. But I was specifically talking about points on a graph. This doesn't make the project worthless (as I guess my post made it sound), but, IMHO, also means that the result will not fundamentally change the trajectory of the web and of the mobile market. One can obviously reply that giving someone their first smartphone should be enough, and that is a perfectly tenable position.
On the specific example of those two countries, I'll happily take back my complaint.
One thing to keep in mind is that Mozilla is not a company, it has no shareholders, it doesn't need to do anything besides fulfilling its mission (while trying to be sustainable) so even if the data points on the graph are not as pleasant as we wish them to be, the fact that some people are joining the web for the first time is an important objective for Mozilla. We can't look at Mozilla progress and decisions through the same lens as we look at Apple and Google and Microsoft. They all operate in the same space (the web) but the objectives and means are different.
1. As far as the effect of the window manager: this isn't emacs+X11 in 1995: the drag on CPU/ram/battery of gecko/blink will dwarf the "weight" of the windowing system.
2. FirefoxOS maybe be leaner in principle, but the competition has vastly better hardware, both in the Windows Phone field and in the Android one, via what I can guess is a combination of subsidies (is mobile MS still burning piles of cash or has the division posted some profits?) and sheer mass scale production. So, for little more money you get a get a better device that actually runs all the apps that your friends have, and a web browser.
3. The appeal of FirefoxOS even in those low end markets was negligible (this has been discussed to death). Besides they released phones in places such as Italy and Spain, two markets were people will en masse shell out the cash for an Iphone. I found that simply baffling.