Packed apps were a hack because app cache was so horrible. It was a quick fix. @fabricedesre hacked it in a day or two. Took years to get the real thing in place. We had to ship so some day we can do the right thing. That day never came
-
-
Replying to @andreasgal @slightlylate and
If you ship a crappier native experience, you'll get canned before you can do the right thing. Because of a desire to ship fast, FFOS didn't have any vision other than "native, but worse". Again, don't want to armchair quarterback, but this vision didn't sell.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @wycats @andreasgal and
You are totally wrong on the reason for the lack of success of FFOS. Rather, look at what makes or break a mobile platform: official support from top apps.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @fabricedesre @wycats and
I enthusiastically owned the FireFox Phone with FFOS and for a little while, when my Samsung Galaxy S4 died, I limped to end of my AT&T contract on it. Terrible experience mainly since the Google Maps and Twitter ports sucked beyond all comprehension.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kevvurs @fabricedesre and
Gmaps: we were getting the 'basic' version because the full version was chrome only and had js errors on other platforms (same for Gmail). Twitter had a basic Web version, not so bad but not as good as the desktop webapp.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jwajsberg @kevvurs and
Were you getting the basic version on desktop firefox? Twitter was an enthusiastic early adopter of service worker, so perhaps teaming up with them would have helped? Did you talk to the Chrome team about what would need to be standardized for GMaps?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @jwajsberg and
It’s not standards. It’s reach.
@firefox is mere distraction from@google ‘s viewpoint. Small minority of GMaps users use it. They can use those engineering cycles for features to reach more users with. Bonus: those users might switch to@chrome if GMaps ignores them long enough2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @andreasgal @jwajsberg and
There are at least some folks on Chrome who were desperate to make progress on standard tech (SW etc), and packaged apps in Firefox denied them an argument for migrating to more portable solutions. As has often been said, there's a lot of different views at a co like Google.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wycats @andreasgal and
Not true: the FxOS team was pushing very hard inside Moz for service workers and web components. The brakes were put on by the "platform" team (now "firefox backend").
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @fabricedesre @andreasgal and
"packaged apps denied them" is not about people. I meant that people inside of Google who believed in SW has a hard time arguing against packaged apps internally when the other WebOSes were publicly saying the web is incapable and we need packaged apps to go fast.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
(because that was exactly the same argument packaged apps proponents were making inside of Google, so they felt validated)
-
-
Replying to @wycats @fabricedesre and
yeah, this was mostly an implementation issue badly mistaken as a fundamental issue. SW and appcache not fast enough + need to preload apps on a phone.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.