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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @wycats @andreasgal and
We needed offline support (but app cache was a nightmare, we tried and "shipped" at jsconf 2012 FxOS with appcache'd apps) and code signing to open access to some apis. To this day, the only hope is web packages for code signing + real urls afaik.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fabricedesre @andreasgal and
AppCache was a known nightmare in 2012. A bunch of us ran for TAG to fix it, and advocated for (and worked on) Service Worker. We could have used strong support from FFOS (for arguments w/ other browsers), but now I'm repeating myself.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wycats @andreasgal and
I think Jonas had a proposal to replace appcache at the time (not SW though).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I spoke with Jonas at the time. His proposal was a new declarative manifest. I mentioned it in my 2013 post on SW: http://yehudakatz.com/2013/05/21/extend-the-web-forward/ … We really, really needed a primitive to avoid locking the web into another round of mistakes.
-
-
Replying to @wycats @fabricedesre and
Relevant quote: "Something like Jonas Sicking's app cache manifest is a great companion proposal, giving us a nice starting point for a high-level API. But this time if the high-level API doesn't work, we can fix it by using the low-level API to tweak and improve the manifest."
0 replies 0 retweets 0 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.