- No performance regressions. Somehow, the blazing fast device I bought a couple of years ago now feels sluggish. Core apps should be timeless: the dialer, the keyboard, task switcher shouldn't be slower two years after purchase.
- Graceful degradation. Websites have no easy way to detect how fast a device is, so they are built for the majority with a bias for the newest and fastest. The result is that cheap and old devices get obsoleted even for the simple stuff. If a $25 phone is as powerful as a 2000 computer, then let the developer feature-detect it and design for it.
- Good permissions. I don't know the solution but there's a problem. Android's model is depressingly bad. iOS's is too dumbed-down to be trustworthy. Firefox's granularity is good to have but web developers seem to assume the user is always going to grant the permission. I always grunt at websites which want my position to find a store near me and display a blank page when I reject it.
- Timely OS updates. Firefox already has a fast release cycle regardless of the desktop OS. Why can't mobile be the same? I believe kernel patches are less of an issue with web apps because the kernel isn't the first line defense.
- Reasonably priced. The $100-200 range is already full of good Android devices. Just make deals with manufacturers to sell a Firefox version of those. They already sell dozens of different phones, so it should be feasible to convince them to add a couple identical devices with a different OS. FirefoxOS only needs one good device.
- Security. Better sandbox the blackboxes (drivers and radio).
Those were my pain points, but I'm willing to make sacrifices:
- 60 FPS isn't that important for me. I care more about response time when I tap something.
- Most animations/transitions won't be missed. Some add value but marginally so. Most are arbitrary and useless.
- Most apps won't be missed. I only use a few.
Apple is margin-driven. Google is ad-driven. They already cause pain to the consumer and market dominance will only make matters worse. They also are walled gardens so they cause pain to the developer. Mozilla is indeed in a similar position to that of the 2000s.
- No performance regressions. Somehow, the blazing fast device I bought a couple of years ago now feels sluggish. Core apps should be timeless: the dialer, the keyboard, task switcher shouldn't be slower two years after purchase.
- Graceful degradation. Websites have no easy way to detect how fast a device is, so they are built for the majority with a bias for the newest and fastest. The result is that cheap and old devices get obsoleted even for the simple stuff. If a $25 phone is as powerful as a 2000 computer, then let the developer feature-detect it and design for it.
- Good permissions. I don't know the solution but there's a problem. Android's model is depressingly bad. iOS's is too dumbed-down to be trustworthy. Firefox's granularity is good to have but web developers seem to assume the user is always going to grant the permission. I always grunt at websites which want my position to find a store near me and display a blank page when I reject it.
- Timely OS updates. Firefox already has a fast release cycle regardless of the desktop OS. Why can't mobile be the same? I believe kernel patches are less of an issue with web apps because the kernel isn't the first line defense.
- Reasonably priced. The $100-200 range is already full of good Android devices. Just make deals with manufacturers to sell a Firefox version of those. They already sell dozens of different phones, so it should be feasible to convince them to add a couple identical devices with a different OS. FirefoxOS only needs one good device.
- Security. Better sandbox the blackboxes (drivers and radio).
Those were my pain points, but I'm willing to make sacrifices:
- 60 FPS isn't that important for me. I care more about response time when I tap something.
- Most animations/transitions won't be missed. Some add value but marginally so. Most are arbitrary and useless.
- Most apps won't be missed. I only use a few.
Apple is margin-driven. Google is ad-driven. They already cause pain to the consumer and market dominance will only make matters worse. They also are walled gardens so they cause pain to the developer. Mozilla is indeed in a similar position to that of the 2000s.