An entire Mobile OS built using HTML, CSS and JS - by Mozilla

I feel like I have just seen the future and it is very bright. This would make mobile development so much easier and open up a completely new range of possibilities.<p>Just imagine ....<p>- writing just one app that runs on every desktop and mobile phone out there.<p>- apps which update entirely automatically, without any extra line of code, because they are basically just cached versions of a website.<p>- a designer, who just knows CSS &#38; HTML, can make an entirely new GUI for your phone.<p>- an eco-system where the development of the interface (HTML) is completely separate from the kernel/browser and you can choose which kernels/rendering engine to run on your phone, independent of the user interface and vice versa.<p>- etc. etc.<p>Kudos to Mozilla for their vision and for not just developing the technology, but making a good looking prototype to demonstrate it.<p>However, I am a little bit skeptical that a web-based OS will perform the same as a native OS, especially in terms of battery consumption. But smartphones only get more powerful and html rendering engines only faster, so it can only be a matter of time. Also a little nitpick with respect to the title: the OS not entirely build using HTML, CSS and JS, it's just the user interface, which is just small part of the OS (compared to the kernel, etc.).<p>EDIT: I know most of this is already possible in principle, but the user / developer experience would be completely different.

"This is now just running the web directly."<p>This makes absolutely no sense. This is borderline an insult to system developers -- because system software <i>is</i> what the device is running directly.<p>I'm all for people to state a bit of sensationalist statements so they can sell there shit and be understood by the general public and so over, but this is going way too far. Being proud of an intrinsically limited product (this is a linux that runs only one program by design, so this is less capable than an android or whatever) for the improvements it can brings as side effects is one thing, but a statement like "this is running the web directly" is misleading because it will be understood as the real stuff by less knowledgeable people who will believe in some kind of incredibly innovative magic, like a magical processor "running the web" or i don't know what idiotic fantasm, instead of taking the thing for what it is: a system that can do less, with maybe <i>some</i> advantages as a side effects, but of course some inconveniences too.

This runs a Linux kernel with some components in common with Android like libusb, so really linux is the operating system and there is a browser running on top of it.<p>Lots more info: <a href="https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.mozilla.org/B2G</a>

There are a lot of "looks promising" comments here. Am I the only one who thinks this does NOT look promising?<p>Aside from games, rendering a markup language is one the most taxing things we do on our mobile devices. When I get handed a new phone to play with, the first thing I do is load a non-mobile optimized website and see how it scrolls. This worst-case scenario is a good indicator for how laggy and jittery a mobile OS will be at sporadic times throughout the day.<p>Now a mobile OS built entirely on the worst-case of rendering HTML, CSS, and JS for every interaction? Sure, devices will keep getting faster as time goes on. But keep in mind that as device performance over the years increases, so do our expectations. I am skeptical that this will ever deliver a sufficient user experience when compared side by side to other mobile OSes.

"You can run on less expensive hardware, because you've got less technology going on under the covers. You don't have to pay the penalty of a big smart phone operating system if you're running directly on the web."<p>That's misleading. Sure, you might need fewer resources to pull something like a simple web page. But try using web apps that are the equivalent of native apps on Android or iOS, and you'll need a lot better hardware to run those just as well.

Boy, the video's constant use of "<i>the</i> web" really annoyed me. I know that you have to cut down the jargon to make it presentable, and "HTML, CSS and JS" gets a bit confusing. What about "web technologies" or even just "a browser"?<p>Also: <i>"You can run on less expensive hardware, because you've got less technology going on under the covers."</i><p>You can't really call a full HTML5 stack light-weight. Sure, you save some libraries, but that's mostly a space issue. I sincerely doubt that a JS-based "Angry Birds" would use fewer resources than a native app.<p>Having said that, I'm really looking forward to this. Hope there's a way to get it on older Android phones soon, my Nexus One is waiting for new life…

This is a really promising direction to take for Mobile Apps. If I can write amazing HTML5+JavaScript apps for the Mobile then the logical extension to this is to write the Uber-app "Phone OS" using these technologies as well. Lets get this working on at least the Dual &#38; Quad core beasts first and worry about the lesser-hardware ones as B2G evolves<p>Good work Mozilla and keep Pushing the "Open Web". A walled garden despite its many advantages, is still a Gilded Prison for some.

Regardless of how it is, it's too late: Android is the new Windows, iOS the new System7, and everything else is the equivalent of AmigaOS, OS/2, BeOS, etc...<p>About ease of development being a gateway to shovelware, yeah right as if the artificially high and expensive barrier to iOS is keeping all the fart apps away. The fact is if there's money to be made then everyone will try to get in, even the wantrepreneurs hiring cheap coders to copy some old game and repackage it as something new (for more information check Harvest Moon).<p>If Android has more freemium shovelware is simply because it became the dominant OS in that industry, so wantrepreneurs are targeting that market instead, same as it happened with Windows and MacOS.

Looks like with Enyo, the JavaScript app framework, and leveraging this new Boot2Gecko, smartphone hardware will become the focus rather the phone OS.

Just looking at that demo makes me want to install it. I wouldn't mind running a unstable version if _basic_ stuff would work (i.e. - calling).<p>Unfortunately I own this Tegra2 based POS thing and I'm quite positive that I'll never see even a glimpse of the B2G experience on this device.<p>Still, this is remarkably close to the WebOS approach and - I like the idea very much.

This definitely blurs the line between calling an app native or web based, at least from a business-marketing standpoint. However, far more interesting is to see the waves of innovation that APIs have created. APIs are becoming the personality of computer systems in the sense that they allow interaction and shielding from the outside world. As long as developers know how to interact with a system's personality they can now build just about anything. Furthermore, experience is becoming the new IP so I believe that such technologies will bring more and more experience innovation by providing easier and faster paths for high-level programmers to contribute to the ecosystem.

So, I noticed there was no mention of multi-touch events in the video, and none of the apps demonstrated used multi-touch. I did some digging to see whether this was a gap or whether mozilla had been working on multi-touch in browser (since the consequences of such a change for JS APIs are interesting to consider).<p>Mozilla has apparently been working on multi-touch in browser as one can see in these two links:<p><a href="http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/08/multi-touch-firefox/" rel="nofollow">http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/08/multi-touch-firefox/</a><p><a href="http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/multi-touch/" rel="nofollow">http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/multi-touch/</a>

The reason I'm excited about this that I won't need to wait for the carriers to update my UI. I imagine there will be a whole rage of interesting 3rd party interfaces I'll be able to browse and download.<p>Want and interface that's just command line. Somebody will make it.<p>What about an interface for Grandma that just has really big fonts in just a dialer, contacts and photo album.<p>I feel like I got burnt when I bought my 7" Samsung Tablet because Samsung is not supporting it anymore and it has some really clunky interfaces.<p>I would love to see and ecosystem where I have full and easy control to install and remove apps from my phone easily. Fingers crossed.

So, this is WebOS, over again?<p>What is different about this other than Mozilla making it?<p>Appreciate any insights.

Is everything cached to the device? What are my limitations in "airplane mode"?<p>I don't mind the concept of making cross-platform apps. My limited knowledge of HTML/CSS has shown me that while it is extemely difficult to make robust content look good across multiple browsers/platforms, it IS possible... but will developers really have the access to multiple platforms to test their UI on?

This is awesome.. and it is the way forward if every device can just run a browser then what is the need for an OS, you can port anything straight to the browser.<p>With the likes of HTML5, jQuery, WebGL, AWS everyone could be making their own OS on the web.<p>It is really not that hard or revolutionary it's just using existing services effectively.. Let's carry on this way.<p>+rep for mozilla (gone up in my estimates)

I love the mentality behind this effort. More stuff can and should be done in the browser on mobile devices. For this to succeed, the most important problem is not exposing mobile hardware (camera, gps, etc) - it's user input. The cornerstone of the web is typing a url into the address bar, and typing is still a miserable experience on phones. Clicking links on touchscreens isn't exactly stellar either (hence the new verb 'fat-fingering'). If someone can solve these problems, the browser stack is already powerful enough to do to phones what it already did to the desktop.

The user interface doesn't look very smooth. It doesn't matter how good the UI looks (and it does look good) if it doesn't feel right.

He is right about one thing: every device should be able to download and run html apps natively.

That would be awesome if it actually became a mainstream mobile OS.<p>Otoh, what about security here? Having JS from a web site dial the phone or taking pics? How will they make sure that lazy I-don't-read-popups-but-just-click-okay users will not get pwned?

We already have a lot of miles on ChromeOS. Why isn't it more popular? Is there anything fundamentally inferior about a device that is all web browser? Will B2G have the same barriers?

Google is laying the groundwork for this as well. Chrome is slowly making its way into Android &#38; my guess is that Chrome Apps are going to be next.

Pretty cool. This is like a spiritual successor to WebOS, which was awesome btw.<p>Though, WebOS didn't take the API idea nearly this far.

I like how that video in the "HTML5 zone" was using a flash player...the irony was amusing.

Would this not dramatically increase data usage? ie data fees to carriers

Its just like what ChromeOS did to the Desktop/Laptop world.

Mozilla should skip working with the carrier just go to the phone manufacturers and develop their own phone. Once they have their own phone it's only an matter of time before carrier jump on board with them.<p>Imagine the $50 smartphone!!

Who decided to market this as an <i>operating system</i>?

This is actually a battle cry for Mozilla. The desktop GUI paradigm is done for, it's at the end of the line. Once desktops die off in popularity there will be no growth for web browsers like Firefox unless they own the whole stack like Apple and Google have successfully done, and Microsoft and RIM are attempting to do. Mozilla is developing Boot2Gecko because without expanding into a full mobile platform Mozilla is in a really tough spot in the smartphone/tablet markets. Predictions for the future put Apple/Safari at 45% marketshare, Google/Android at 54% marketshare, and the 1% scraps left over for RIM, Microsoft and now Mozilla.<p>Mozilla will to have sell an awful lot of these phones for their organization to be viable in the future.

"This browser-based OS will revolutionize how users interact with their apps and how developers write their apps, allowing everyone to take their apps everywhere." -Jon Rubinstein, January 2009, commenting on webOS<p>(not a direct quotation)

Didn't they try this with HP web OS. That failed I wouldn't put money on this.

looks promising!

As a prototype this is cool, as a daily use phone, it kind of sucks. Scroll/swipe latency, anyone ? P.s iOS user here...