On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:45:21 PM UTC-7, Pablo Brasero Moreno wrote: > Well, thank you for your input everyone. I have put together some > > conclusions. Please let me know if you disagree or have something to add. I > > also have some questions towards the end, for those brave enough to read > > the whole thing and still be wanting more. > > > > Developers of FxOS applications should develop with 1.1 in mind for now. > > Mozilla is planning to make the Flame be the reference device, but this > > will only be relevant in the mid/long term, once there are more 1.3 devices > > available to the general public. > > > > Interestingly, Mozilla is currently encouraging developers to use 1.2+ > > simulators, as well as practises (chiefly flexboxes) that don't work well > > in earlier versions and whose support cannot always be detected at runtime. > > This means that a number of newly arrived developers are going to develop > > new apps without being aware of these downsides. > > > > These developers can be divided into these categories: > > > > A) Those who have 1.0.1 or 1.1 devices. They will try their apps on their > > own devices and realise that something is amiss > > B.1) Those who have 1.2+ devices: they may create apps that don't work on > > old devices, and they may be unaware of this problem > > B.2) Those who don't actually have a FxOS device and just use the > > simulators. (Do these actually exist...?) > > > > Those under (A) may be upset if they have been using a 1.2+ simulator and > > suddenly find they can't use their own app on their own devices. At least > > they'll realise the problem in time and fix it (hopefully). > > > > Those under (B) will only become aware of the problem at the Marketplace > > review stage. However, if the review isn't thorough enough, problems could > > be missed, hitting end users. > > > > OS upgrades are not the solution. At the moment they are not automatic, > > require using adb in the best of cases, and even then they doesn't always > > work. I'm a tech-savy individual and I couldn't upgrade my ZTE Open to 1.2 > > following the instructions (although now I think I should stick to 1.1 > > anyway). This means we definitely cannot expect end users to upgrade their > > phones at all. > > > > (Speaking of which: LG is evil. Its case serves as evidence that Mozilla > > shouldn't be so confident about devices always being upgradeable/hackable: > > hardware vendors will always ultimately do whatever they want, regardless > > of their users' best interest). > > > > But there's still hope. I haven't been through the Marketplace submission > > process yet, so I can only speak from what I read. The Marketplace review > > criteria [1] state that, apart from checking the manifest, a reviewer will > > use the app for a few minutes. Also, Lisa tells us on this thread that 1.1 > > is being used for reviewing. > > > > My perception is that the apps available on the marketplace right now are > > not terribly complex. If this is true, reviewers should be able to catch > > these problems. Also, the criteria say that reviewers may be able to point > > developers in the right direction when problems are found. This could > > potentially help a lot. I wonder if the Marketplace team have data > > available on how this is working out so far. > > > > I wonder how much of a problem the current situation is after all. For > > example, how many owners of FxOS devices are not developers? FxOS phones > > lack some very popular apps (eg: WhatsApp). Why would these people choose > > theses devices in the first place? Do they actually care about apps? Maybe > > they are just content with basic phone functionality and browsing. > > > > If this is the case, then all this is still not a problem. It will become a > > problem in the future, as new web technologies emerge that are not > > supported by 1.3 or whatever comes later, but we'll still be in a better > > place. Mozilla's strategy of starting FxOS by kindling the fire with a > > couple sub-standar versions will have paid off. > > > > [1] > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Marketplace/Submission/Marketplace_review_criteria > > > > > > On 30 April 2014 23:37, Lisa Brewster <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Not that it's a very high bar to beat, but there will definitely be better > > > support for Flame than ZTE Open. + Asa, who might have details to share. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[email protected]> > > > Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 at 5:27 PM > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: Baseline target platform > > > > > > >Lisa, I hope those of us who choose to buy a "Flame" on the open market, > > > >since we're not eligible for a Mozilla-supplied device, will not suffer > > > >from the same dismal fate as those of us who bought a ZTE Open. I just the > > > >other day managed to get a home-compiled build of 1.4 flashed to my open, > > > >and since I got the device in September of last year it's been nothing but > > > >trouble. If there was a partnership between ZTE and Mozilla to support > > > >developers, I didn't see *any* evidence of it. > > > > > > > >Is there in fact a plan, strategy, web site, whatever for supporting > > > >"Flame" devices for those who plunk down the cash for one? > > > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Lisa Brewster > > > ><[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > >> Pablo, this is a very articulate outline of our current areas of > > > >> fragmentation. Thanks for writing it up! > > > >> > > > >> I feel some of your same pain, here's what I can add from an app review > > > >> perspective. > > > >> > > > >> By default, today we test apps on v1.1, because that's the latest > > > >> commercially available version. During submission, developers have the > > > >> ability to specify that certain api's are required, in which case the > > > >>app > > > >> will not be shown to users whose devices don't support those api's. Api > > > >> support will vary by hardware capabilities and Firefox OS version. > > > >> > > > >> Feature detection is the right approach here philosophically, but in > > > >> practice it causes edge cases where not all features can be detected > > > >>yet, > > > >> or sometimes there are platform bugs that cause the app to break on > > > >> earlier versions of Firefox OS. When this happens, we ask that the > > > >> developer specify the min version and requirements in the app > > > >>description. > > > >> We'll review on up to v1.3 on a Keon. > > > >> > > > >> Devices running v1.3 will be released in the near future, which puts us > > > >>in > > > >> a complicated spot. Standardizing on the Flame reference device is the > > > >> answer here, but will have tradeoffs ensuring app compatibility for > > > >>users > > > >> who can't update. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Kind regards, > > > >> Lisa Brewster [:adora] > > > >> Marketplace App Review Manager > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Pablo Brasero Moreno <[email protected]> > > > >> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 at 4:44 PM > > > >> To: <[email protected]> > > > >> Subject: Re: Baseline target platform > > > >> > > > >> >On 29 April 2014 19:02, Fabricio C Zuardi <[email protected]> > > > >>wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> FxOS 1.1 is our personal IE6 here in Brazil alreadyŠ > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> >Oh God... > > > >> > > > > >> >What target do people develop for then? 1.1 or 1.0.1? > > > >> > > > > >> >According to MDN both versions are based on Gecko 18, although 1.1 has > > > >> >some > > > >> >additional APIs, which I take are the ones listed in the release > > > >>notes[1]. > > > >> > > > > >> >Assuming I don't need any of these APIs, is there a reason to use > > > >>1.0.1 as > > > >> >my baseline, or can I stay with 1.1? > > > >> > > > > >> >Thank you! > > > >> > > > > >> >[1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/notes/1.1#webapis > > > >> >-- > > > >> >Pablo Brasero Moreno > > > >> >[email protected] > > > >> >_______________________________________________ > > > >> >dev-webapps mailing list > > > >> >[email protected] > > > >> >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> dev-webapps mailing list > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Twitter: http://twitter.com/znmeb; Computational Journalism on a Stick > > > >http://j.mp/CompJournoStickOverview > > > > > > > >My poltergeist can beat up your zeitgeist. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > > >dev-webapps mailing list > > > >[email protected] > > > >https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > dev-webapps mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Pablo Brasero Moreno > > [email protected]
This seems pretty similar to https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=793884 _______________________________________________ dev-webapps mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-webapps
