Certified 'Powered by Firefox OS' devices require Marketplace...

[techbeck]

Mozilla says that in order for Firefox OS phones to bear the Firefox logo, they'll need to meet a variety of software and hardware requirements, including mandatory installations of the Firefox mobile browser and the official Firefox Marketplace app store.

Though the existence of a "blessed hardware" program is similar to Google's model for Android ? which only permits compliant devices to ship with the Google Play store, the Gmail app, and other elements ? there's a key difference: Mozilla is actively encouraging carriers and developers to embrace alternative app stores and payment methods. A carrier launching a "Powered by Firefox OS" device would very likely have its own branded app store on deck alongside the Firefox Marketplace, for instance, since it could enable direct billing and give the carrier a cut of the sales revenue.

Does Mozilla have the leverage to stop a carrier from going rogue?

As for hardware specs, the base requirements are low: an 800MHz single-core processor, 256MB of RAM, and just a QVGA display ? a far cry from even low- to midrange Android phones currently sold in most Western markets. That helps explain the underwhelming ZTE Open and Alcatel One Touch Fire, the first two retail Firefox OS phones to be announced, which are being targeted primarily at emerging markets where smartphone penetration remains relatively low. If Mozilla's strategy works, a device like the Open or Fire could be the first smartphone many wireless subscribers in these markets will own.

Mozilla also says that there are additional requirements for certification set forth in agreements with individual partners, though the terms of those deals are confidential.

Like Android, there's nothing preventing a hardware manufacturer or carrier from going rogue by taking Firefox's open-source elements and launching a device based on it, but Mozilla won't allow it to bear any Firefox branding unless the requirements are met. It's unclear how much leverage Mozilla has with its branding: are customers picking up their first smartphone familiar with Firefox? And if so, does the Firefox name carry weight that would contribute to a purchase decision?

OEMs shouldn't have trouble meeting these hardware requirements

Regardless, an uncertified device without Mozilla's blessing (or branding) would still likely be able to participate in the ecosystem, since the "ecosystem" is simply the web itself. The official Firefox Marketplace, even if left out of the phone's default menu, is simply a website that a Firefox OS-based phone should be able to view and use to download additional apps. That's a contrast to Amazon's situation with its Android devices ? the Google Play store can't be installed on a Kindle Fire in any official capacity, and owners use the Amazon Appstore instead.

Firefox OS will launch commercially later this year on a number of carriers globally, including industry giants like Telef?nica and Deutsche Telekom. Mainstream manufacturers like LG and Sony have announced their intentions to launch Firefox OS devices; Mozilla CEO Gary Kovacs expects US availability in 2014.

http://www.theverge....fox-marketplace

[+LogicalApex MVC]

This is to be expected.

The interesting part will be if Mozilla has the branding power to pull it off.

Targetting the low end I thnk was a fantastic move.

[TPreston]

Currently, developers keep 70% of each app purchase or in-app payment, while Mozilla and its partners take 30%

Shameful practice, Why bother putting in the time making awesome software like getright when the os developer takes 30% of your profits.

[siah1214]

Currently, developers keep 70% of each app purchase or in-app payment, while Mozilla and its partners take 30%

Shameful practice, Why bother putting in the time making awesome software like getright when the os developer takes 30% of your profits.

Yes, shame on Mozilla for creating the platform, hosting the app store, providing the e-commerce system, and then wanting some restitution. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE! Free for ALL! Forever!

It's like saying stores shouldn't pay rent for the mall space. Get real.

[Chasethebase Reporter]

Yes, shame on Mozilla for creating the platform, hosting the app store, providing the e-commerce system, and then wanting some restitution. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE! Free for ALL! Forever!

It's like saying stores shouldn't pay rent for the mall space. Get real.

Exactly this, high street retail stores need to pay rent, bills and more to have their presence there, the same should be for any other store, the 30% is there to support the company so they can host your app in the store, and to keep the store running. It's like eBay's fees to put things up for auction.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of carriers being able to host app stores though, because they'll charge a premium and force you to use them...

[TPreston]

Yes, shame on Mozilla for creating the platform, hosting the app store, providing the e-commerce system, and then wanting some restitution. EVERYTHING SHOULD BE FREE! Free for ALL! Forever!

It's like saying stores shouldn't pay rent for the mall space. Get real.

Im no FSF fan but A 30% flat tax do you honestly expect that to fly ? Should Microsoft charge adobe 30% of their master collection sales for the pleasure of hosting it ?

And how much of that 30% goes on the actual costs of hosting the files ? not much id imagine.

Im fine with developers paying to host their files you know the actual cost but not with them being fleeced with these outrageous rates which are after tax.

It was outrageous when apple did it and Google + Mozilla have shown they are no better.

[DJGM]

Im no FSF fan but A 30% flat tax do you honestly expect that to fly ? Should Microsoft

charge adobe 30% of their master collection sales for the pleasure of hosting it ?

And how much of that 30% goes on the actual costs of hosting the files ?

not much id imagine.

Im fine with developers paying to host their files you know the actual cost but not

with them being fleeced with these outrageous rates which are after tax.

It was outrageous when apple did it and Google + Mozilla have shown they are no better.

The difference between Mozilla and the big 3, (Apple/Google/Microsoft) is that the big 3 are 100% "for-profit" companies,

whereas Mozilla is a much smaller non-profit based organisation, that happens to own a small profit based subsidiary.

If anything, Mozilla is far more deserving of a 30% cut of the proceeds from mobile app sales than the big 3.

[BajiRav]

...Mozilla says that in order for Firefox OS phones to bear the Firefox logo, they'll need to meet a variety of software and hardware requirements, including mandatory installations of the Firefox mobile browser and the official Firefox Marketplace app store...

seriously? :laugh: after years of bitching and moaning to US/EU about Windows+IE?

(not surprised but just having a good laugh)

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

The difference between Mozilla and the big 3, (Apple/Google/Microsoft) is that the big 3 are 100% "for-profit" companies,

whereas Mozilla is a much smaller non-profit based organisation, that happens to own a small profit based subsidiary.

If anything, Mozilla is far more deserving of a 30% cut of the proceeds from mobile app sales than the big 3.

I had the same thought (about Mozilla being non-profit), but a little research shattered that illusion. The Mozilla Foundation is non-profit, whereas the Mozilla Corporation is a profitable, taxable entity that has taken over the major operations of the Mozilla Foundation, including the development of their flagship products Firefox and Thunderbird.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation#Establishment

[DJGM]

I had the same thought (about Mozilla being non-profit), but a little research shattered that illusion.

The Mozilla Foundation is non-profit, whereas the Mozilla Corporation is a profitable, taxable entity

that has taken over the major operations of the Mozilla Foundation, including the development

of their flagship products Firefox and Thunderbird.

The Mozilla Corporation makes profits that are ploughed right back into the Mozilla Foundation, as opposed to the

way the likes of Apple Google and Microsoft divvy out their own profits ... lots of dividends for their shareholders.

Mozilla.org is still a non-profit based organisation at heart ... most of it's actual income is from Google!

[Torolol]

so i rent a space in mall,

i must pay 30% earning, regardles if i selling expensive rings or a cheap snacks ?

it would better if the cost are determined by apps sizes.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

Currently, developers keep 70% of each app purchase or in-app payment, while Mozilla and its partners take 30%

Shameful practice, Why bother putting in the time making awesome software like getright when the os developer takes 30% of your profits.

You don't need to use the Mozilla marketplace to sell an app, you can do it right from your own website. Or a competing app store, for that matter. The protocols to do so are completely open.

[HawkMan]

Im no FSF fan but A 30% flat tax do you honestly expect that to fly ? Should Microsoft charge adobe 30% of their master collection sales for the pleasure of hosting it ?

And how much of that 30% goes on the actual costs of hosting the files ? not much id imagine.

Im fine with developers paying to host their files you know the actual cost but not with them being fleeced with these outrageous rates which are after tax.

It was outrageous when apple did it and Google + Mozilla have shown they are no better.

70% is a LOT more than developers get on any other platform, publishers, boxes, retail stores. the store generally takes 30%,, 20% on the low end, the publishers takes 30%, lots of money spent on packaging and other materials.

stop pretending like app stores are somehow a bad deal for developers.

[TPreston]

70% is a LOT more than developers get on any other platform, .

Yeah 3% better than apple good job guys,

publishers, boxes, retail stores. the store generally takes 30%,, 20% on the low end, the publishers takes 30%, lots of money spent on packaging and other materials.

With physical media. equivocation. These stores are glorified file servers.

stop pretending like app stores are somehow a bad deal for developers.

Yeah giving away 30% of their earnings after tax to have their 5mb (being generous) program stored and added to a web page is a good deal :rolleyes:

[HawkMan]

um those glorified file server also provide all these things and more:

- advertising

- payments

- international payments and country specific regulations and extras like MVA, that the developer would otherwise need to do.

- automatic update systems and push.

- refunds

- stats

in addition to the giving the developers the platform on which they're making all the money and the SDK with which they make them.

30% is pocket change compared to what they would have to fork out doing it any other way, and the troubles they would have to work out themselves.

the size of the app is in fact entirely irrelevant.

and hey, android supports sideloading, heck you can install APK's drectly from webpages if you want.

so if it's just a webpage and storage they provide, then why don't all android developers just sell their apps on their own and distribute them from their own hosted webpages...

could it be because the app store gives them about a million times as many sales and this income as doing it on their own, and they they don't have to deal with local MVA's and refunds and all that other crap..

[+Xinok Subscriber²]

so if it's just a webpage and storage they provide, then why don't all android developers just sell their apps on their own and distribute them from their own hosted webpages...

I'm not arguing the rest of your post, but just this specific point. Google has an unfair advantage with their Android phones because the Play Store comes pre-installed on every shipped Android device. Other methods of distribution simply can't compete with that. Google has no real competition which means they have no reason to give more of the profit to developers. The 30% was more likely chosen, not based on any actual cost, but market research which concluded that 30% is the most profitable while remaining a psychologically acceptable percentage for the developers. It's no different than why every store on Earth prices every single item with "99 cents" at the end.

[Noir Angel]

I'm not arguing the rest of your post, but just this specific point. Google has an unfair advantage with their Android phones because the Play Store comes pre-installed on every shipped Android device. Other methods of distribution simply can't compete with that. Google has no real competition which means they have no reason to give more of the profit to developers. The 30% was more likely chosen, not based on any actual cost, but market research which concluded that 30% is the most profitable while remaining a psychologically acceptable percentage for the developers. It's no different than why every store on Earth prices every single item with "99 cents" at the end.

Not completely true, I hear that the Amazon app store does reasonable business.

As for the original subject of this thread: Given that Mozilla are a charitable foundation I don't see their terms as being unreasonable.

[HawkMan]

I'm not arguing the rest of your post, but just this specific point. Google has an unfair advantage with their Android phones because the Play Store comes pre-installed on every shipped Android device. Other methods of distribution simply can't compete with that. Google has no real competition which means they have no reason to give more of the profit to developers. The 30% was more likely chosen, not based on any actual cost, but market research which concluded that 30% is the most profitable while remaining a psychologically acceptable percentage for the developers. It's no different than why every store on Earth prices every single item with "99 cents" at the end.

30% is also the target all stores aim for as the profit on items they sell. some item may actually have a higher margin so they have something to work with on special deals or because it's a product that's simply worth that much when you sell it but is cheaper to buy in, other items in highly competitive areas may sell at a lower 20-10% range simply becase that's as much as you can make and still be able to sell the product(laptops typically land closer to the 10% than the 20 here, and often sell for 3% on deal times or even at a loss, generally even at 3 they are at a significant loss when you add in paychecks, rent and everything else).

30% has just always been the aim for target on profits.

and what does it matter if there's no worthwhile competition, that wasn't his point. his point was that it was just a webpage with a file host. wich is patently false, and something any android developer can do themselves, but they don't because the 30% take is more than worth it for the service and thousands of times increase sales it offers. Heck it's worth it just to avoid the headaches of self publishing and dealing with different tax and MVA laws in 50 different countries and refunds.