Hi Fabrice! Thanks for bringing up this topic and sorry for replying that late (was on PTO).
It¹s clear that the situation is far from ideal for consumers. For making FirefoxOS a success, we need happy customers, and hence this is also a problem for operators launching devices with FirefoxOS. What is the current problem with updates? - Updates require certification as regulators, operators and OEMs want to check that legislation is met, reduce CRC calls and device returns. - Certification is usually expensive (especially the cost-per-device taking into account FirefoxOS volumes) and takes time. - Even for a small modification in a an app (e.g. For modifying the Gallery) a full system update should be sent to the device. We are not the first ones to face this issue, Android did in the past and their approach was to move feature inclusion and updates from system upgrades to independent app upgrades [1]. I think the thread open by Ben is a starting point for following a similar approach to what Android is doing (which seems to be as a pattern to explore). I know there are many other activities to be done, such as guaranteeing compatibility between gaia apps and gecko, a more granular update system and so onŠ not sure if there is a meta to track all this work already. We are already following a similar approach for new features such as Loop where we are doing our best to keep the app separate from the system. With respect to the capability to change the update channel, my concern is that this feature might be blocked by carriers and OEMs and hence useless for end-customers. Thanks! [1] http://lifehacker.com/slow-down-why-fast-android-updates-dont-matter-anymor -1496261791 El 16/04/14 06:12, "Fabrice Desré" <[email protected]> escribió: >On 04/15/2014 07:42 PM, James Ho wrote: >> +1 to Gabriele's comments here, all valid concerns before we can roll >>out our better update mechanisms. >> >> Re-certification is definitely the overhead that can't be ignored, in >>terms of time and money. We should deal with this requirement in mind >>when designing the new update. It should be flexible enough to allow >>users to update their own codes without the need of doing a maintenance >>release (and certification). Minimizing the core apps as Gabriele >>suggested is a reasonable approach. As FxOS starts to allow more things >>to be customized thru MarketPlace, such as home screens, lock screens, >>we will gradually move some of the update efforts to MarketPlace, not >>the "firmware" or "system" side thru OTA/FOTA. > >It seems that you misunderstood my proposal. What I want is to add the >means for users to switch to another update provider. I never said that >Mozilla would have to be this provider and support the overhead you are >mentioning. Communities like cyanogenmod and xda have shown that there >is interest from a lot of people to do that. > > Fabrice >-- >Fabrice Desré >b2g team >Mozilla Corporation >_______________________________________________ >dev-b2g mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
