Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Firefox Cellphones Iphone Mozilla Apple

Firefox Home Coming To iPhone, Browser Next? 170

siliconbits writes "Mozilla has launched an iPhone app called Firefox Home that gives iPhone users instant access to their Firefox browsing history, bookmarks, and the set of tabs from their most recent browser session. What's more, it provides Firefox Awesome Bar capability that enables people to get to their favorite websites with minimal typing." With the Mozilla blog promising "There will be more to come," can the full browser be far behind?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Home Coming To iPhone, Browser Next?

Comments Filter:
  • by Trufagus ( 1803250 ) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @11:13AM (#32362510)
    This is not news. Mozilla is free to put as many apps as they want on the iPhone so long as they follow Apple's rules. Unfortunately, Apple won't tell us what those rules are, but we have a pretty good idea that you can't say anything bad about Apple or powerful people, and you can't compete with any Apple technologies or strategic plans (e.g. what Google Voice did). So, it would be news if Mozilla puts Firefox on the iPhone without stripping out their HTML5 Ogg support since Apple has a financial interest in H264. If Mozilla gets Firefox on the iPhone by agreeing to tailor Firefox to Apple's wishes (e.g. strip out Ogg or anything else that Apple doesn't like) then that would be a total sellout on Mozilla's part.
  • Re:Why not switch? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by babyrat ( 314371 ) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @11:29AM (#32362734)

    Have you used an Incredible? I switched from a 3G and have not noticed any user experience deficiencies. In fact when it comes to things like sharing photos via email/mms/social networking sites, it is way ahead.

  • by rednip ( 186217 ) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @11:35AM (#32362802) Journal

    ...get Apple moving with Flash after everyone sees how wonderful it is.

    Not everyone agrees that ending Flash's iron grip on video on the web would be a bad thing. Locked systems like Flash are good (sometimes) for fast adaption periods, but often fail to progress technologically long term; while becoming a cost prohibitive hindrance in a growingly commodified market.

    maybe. I'm rooting for Apple on this one, but in corporate power plays, consumer benefit is usually only a low occurring side effect.

  • Re:Why not switch? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <> on Thursday May 27, 2010 @12:06PM (#32363280) Homepage Journal

    Speaking of..flash... still no flash in the web browser! Feature? I guess.

    What you recommend that the author of, say, Homestar Runner use instead of Flash?

  • Re:Awesome Bar (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dog-Cow ( 21281 ) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @01:51PM (#32365054)

    I like the Awesome Bar. I think it's much more likely that you're an anal-retentive asshole.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Thursday May 27, 2010 @03:13PM (#32366486)

    What I'm suggesting is that, if Apple changes course and allows Firefox on the iPhone...

    Then they will have completely changed their business strategy and depending upon what the new strategy is, could do anything.

    they will require that Mozilla remove support for Ogg Video (particularly now that Ogg video is being supported by Google). Hopefully I'm wrong.

    I know that's what you're saying, but I don't see that it makes a lick of sense. Why would that be in Apple's best interests?

    I doubt anyone is making much off of H264 right now, but if you want to get some idea of how much could be made from H264 once its position is secure take a look at MP3 - Thomson is making a ton off of that and I think that video has much greater potential.

    Yeah, except Apple doesn't own MPEG-LA, they own a couple of patents in the pool meaning they stand to make little or nothing, especially compared to the profit they make by selling more hardware.

    I think that Apple's hostility to Ogg would be just as much from Google involvement with Ogg as from any ability to make money from H264.

    What hostility? Apple doesn't block Ogg using programs on the iPhone. They let you use Ogg codecs on Macs. My Safari browser open Oggs via video tags just fine, because it uses any codecs you install on the machine, including Ogg. They just didn't want it as the standard in HTML5 video for the same reason Google did not, they handle a lot of video and performance means money to them. Getting good battery performance on iPods, iPhones, etc. when it is not supported by existing hardware would be a nightmare for Apple. Added bandwidth costs for YouTube would likewise be a problem for Google. It's not that either has a grudge against Ogg, they just didn't want it to be the one and only standard in HTML for business reasons. You'll note Google isn't offering an Ogg version of YouTube.

    In any event, the ideal would be for Apple to explain the rules for what they block and what they don't and enforce them consistently.

    They can't catch all violations because they don't have the manpower, but almost every instance of an app being not accepted is a case of it not being within the published rules. Now here on Slashdot it is clear lot of people never bothered to read those rules and never bother to RTFAs that explain such when it happens in the news.

    For now, it appears that they reserve the right to block anything that is not in their financial and strategic interest.

    They certainly can, it's their application service. I find it a bit restrictive so I don't own an iPhone or use their app store. I don't see why this is a problem.

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!