Firefox Reality

https://mixedreality.mozilla.org/firefox-reality/

by mixedbit • 7 years ago

372 157 7 years ago

mixedreality.mozilla.org

have_faith• 7 years ago

I've noticed it's very common for VR marketing material to show young children using the devices. Is stuffing a headset onto your kid going to be the new 'give them a tablet to shut them up' in the future? going to have some very interesting repercussions.

brink• 7 years ago

I doubt it. Most don't have nearly the stamina for a VR headset as they do for a regular screen.

magashna• 7 years ago

Even as an adult, 30-60 minutes is about all I can physically take, no matter how engrossed in the game/movie/etc. I am.

tantalor2• 7 years ago

In my experience kids younger than 7 don't do well in VR.

Part of that is using the game controller blind, and having small hands as well. A controller designed for younger kids might help.

chime• 7 years ago

In my experience kids younger than 7 don't do well in VR.

I know anecdote is not data but my 4yr old loves feeding his dinosaur in Oculus Quest 'Bogo' game. I limit his VR time to about 15-20 mins/week but he would love to do more if I allowed. I only use the base Quest headset straps/controller - no custom setup. He can easily press the different buttons on the controllers and move around as well as my 60yr old mom.

djsumdog3• 7 years ago

Have you read Ready Player One?

Quekid55• 7 years ago

Do you find science fiction to be a good predictor for the near future?

cagenut• 7 years ago

VR is just "screen time" reaching its logical extreme conclusion. Put another way "fully addressable visual cortex".

It'll get really weird when "glued to your phone" starts being literal as wearable AR stuff gets adhesive bonds.

sebringj• 7 years ago

Neuralink will be filling your visual cortex soon enough. :)

lone_haxx0r• 7 years ago

"fully addressable visual cortex".

I prefer the concept of visual cortex framebuffer.

gatherhunterer• 7 years ago

Advertising always shows an exaggerated presence of young children. People like things that are cute and associate positive attitudes with them. I've seen real estate stock photos of offices with people holding toddlers and sometimes businesses like local insurance companies will advertise with just a giant picture of a baby's face; it's the kind of thing you see on bus benches and billboards.

granshaw• 7 years ago

For the millennial generation, dogs are actually the new kids in advertising - but you can't strap a VR headset onto a dog

buboard2• 7 years ago

i hope not. long term effects of a heavy constricting belt on a still-developing cranium must be severe.

zrobotics• 7 years ago

It shouldn't be adjusted that tight though, that concern would also apply to a child wearing a maladjusted baseball cap as well.

So I would suspect it's a minor concern, I would worry more about mental/cognitive effects more.

BinaryIdiot• 7 years ago

heavy constricting belt on a still-developing cranium

How tight are you making the VR headset? Whatever tightness you're using might be a bit much if you consider it "heavy constricting".

scentoni• 7 years ago

People have been doing that intentionally since prehistoric times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_cranial_deformation

seanmcdirmid6• 7 years ago

I did not see this on firefox’s reality page. Do you have a link to the offending image?

etatoby3• 7 years ago

It's on the homepage:

https://mixedreality.mozilla.org/static/kid-03fadfdcdaaabce0...

etatoby3• 7 years ago

"They" don't want you to know how and why they are brainwashing your kid. When you take it off him/her to check, it will revert to some "safe" default show.

</Tinfoil>

</Sarcasm>

partiallypro2• 7 years ago

I think it's because current VR isn't overly impressive to adults, but is to children.

forgotmypwd123• 7 years ago

Viveport, eww.

spilk• 7 years ago

yeah, really. Why not put it on Steam?

rocky1138• 7 years ago

I love Viveport, personally. It's great to just pay once and play any game.

I imagine Firefox will make tons of money this way since devs get paid by the amount of minutes the software runs.

bayofpigs• 7 years ago

Yes, note to the Mozilla team: Nobody uses Viveport except new users who are tricked. Publish on Steam if you want to reach Vive users.

andybak2• 7 years ago

Viveport has been growing since Infinity was launched.

And the software is less awful than when it was first released. To be honest, it's not much more awful than the Steam or Oculus apps neither of which are paragons of quality.

mrguyorama2• 7 years ago

Indeed. Software that barely runs and has a scummy history (supposedly). Last time I tried to find this on Viveport I couldn't, I couldn't find a search feature or otherwise locate this software

Macha• 7 years ago

Do you have any source for this? I've not heard of any issues with Viveport that'd count as "scummy", just being an inferior app store to Steam. A search for "viveport controversy" finds nothing either.

Brakenshire2• 7 years ago

I think this is Servo? Is there any progress with Servo outside of VR/AR? Really looking forward to a browser with parallel layout.

wlesieutre3• 7 years ago

Not by default yet, but you can enable it for testing. Requires a recompile with a properties file to make the option appear.

Experimental Servo support
To compile with Servo support, create a file called user.properties in the top-level project directory and add enableServo=1. Then to enable Servo in Firefox Reality, go the Developer Options panel in the Settings, and toggle the Servo option. Then a new button will be added to the navigation bar. Clicking that button will reload the current page with Servo.

https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality

pcwalton2• 7 years ago

Yes! There's an active Servo Layout 2.0 project going on right now, which is a revamp of layout to make it production-quality. Anthony developed some Rust iterator magic to allow us to write sequential-looking code that actually runs in parallel, which is a major improvement in maintainability over what we had before.

Most of the work is currently going on out-of-tree in Simon's victor project, if you're interested: https://github.com/SimonSapin/victor

krferriter• 7 years ago

Java added fairly seamless parallel iterators via streams but there is a huge amount of overhead there and often it is slower than normal iterators, depending on the work being done at each iteration. Hopefully Rust is able to avoid that sort of downside.

Brakenshire2• 7 years ago

Fantastic, thanks!

jdlyga• 7 years ago

Is this for Oculus Quest yet?

tantalor2• 7 years ago

Yep

https://www.oculus.com/experiences/app/2180252408763702

wlesieutre3• 7 years ago

Note that multi-window support isn't released on Quest yet, but should come once they get to the bottom of this: https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/1459

brianzelip• 7 years ago

What _is_ it? A new headset? A new browser? What?

djsumdog3• 7 years ago

A application for existing 3D headsets. I've had this on my Oculus Go for a while.

wlesieutre3• 7 years ago

Not sure what the situation is for tabbed browsing in this.

"Viewing multiple pages concurrently" issue repeatedly mentions tabs as something that needs to be designed https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/635, in May saying "Will keep this issue open for designing Tabs. Feel free to make changes to track the design + engineering."

But then in June it's "Closing this in favor of new meta bug #1319"

And #1319 does not mention tabs anywhere. https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/issues/1319

Maybe tabs have been implicitly bundled into "multiwindow" when they're talking about that? Can't check myself because the Quest version doesn't have any multiwindow support, it looks like they're working on a crash issue for it.

I tried a dev build sideloaded last week on the Quest and being in a single-window no-tab environment where you can only have one page open at a time is very limiting. But as soon as that's worked out, I'll be switching to this as the main browser.

I wonder if it will be possible for someone to patch Oculus Home so that the Browser button opens this instead.

larsberg4• 7 years ago

Hi! As we mentioned in the recent Quest release blog post, https://blog.mozvr.com/firefox-reality-for-oculus-quest/, we have some designs for multi-window support and synchronization of content between platforms. We're still working on options around tabs / additional content beyond the number of windows you have open, alongside our really awesome Seattle-based design partners, Podipo: http://podipo.com/

Once we have some concrete designs, we'll have issues open and on our public roadmap for comment and we often have early builds available in our releases page for sideloading if people are interested in testing and giving feedback.

cr0sh8• 7 years ago

EDIT:

I took a quick look at the codebase for the browser (https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality), and it isn't what I was expecting (once you dive to app/src) - definitions for the main three supported systems are each at this root level, and I didn't see any kind of "template" or "empty" definition file or anything to guide someone wanting to make one themselves - but maybe that's not possible.

It appears that these files are wrappers around the APIs used for those other products (?). So your only hope would be to base your wrapper on these existing ones, which while feasible (working with the API docs too), isn't what I would call "ideal". Plus, there doesn't seem to be a separation of concerns when it comes to input vs output.

I mean, what if I wanted to use my hacked powerglove with my Rift HMD? Or what if I wanted to use my Vive controllers with my Virtuality Pro?

I understand that the supported systems are nominally "all-in-one" solutions, but the parts (HMDs, controllers, tracking) are available separately (at least in some of the cases) - so mixing and matching might be something someone would want to do. It would definitely be that case for those implementing their own "mixed setup", where they might have an old VPL datasuit and glove, plus some other old pro-level HMD that they like to play with.

As it is, it seems like each setup would have to be a custom "all-in-one" for that setup, so if you had two different systems that used two different HMDs and tracking, but both used the same Powerglove Minelli interface - the code couldn't be "shared" in a reasonable manner (yes, I know with the right symlinking and other buggery it could be accomplished within the current structure, but it isn't ideal).

I was hoping the structure would be more like /plugins, with /input /output, and under those /controller /glove /wand and /hmd /motionplatform /cave, then under each /occulus /vive /google /example

Or something like that. Am I wrong here?

---

Ok - I know this is likely open source and thus can be changed, but I honestly wish that things like this offered (and marketed) a means - via plugins or something (and maybe this does - hence, marketed) - the ability to expand on what i/o devices are allowed.

Sure - should the "main players" be featured? Of course. But what about those of us who might like to - oh, I don't know - throw on an old Forte VFX-1 and a Powerglove and go at it? Maybe we want to recreate the experience of using REND386?

Or what if you have access to a Polhemus or Ascension magnetic tracking system (or any number of other "pro-level" tracking)? Or HMDs? Or other input devices? Or motion platforms?

Maybe you're a developer of something completely new, and want to play in this same environment and make it compatible...

Again - I haven't dug into the code, and maybe it's designed to accommodate these kinds of use cases. I'd just love to see that availability, if it exists, to be advertised more. I guess its because I get the same feeling around software released for my OS of choice, where Windows and Mac are prominently advertised, and Linux is at best, if it's offered at all, the classic step-child stuffed in a closet.

As an aside, I never can figure out the argument that "we don't offer support for Linux because the market is so small, it isn't worth it for us" - well, if everyone keeps saying and doing that, what do you think will ultimately occur? Do you think that market will grow, stay the same, or shrink?

djsumdog3• 7 years ago

Forte VFX-1

Man I remember seeing those in copies of PC Gamer as a kid. You can find modern reviews online. They had a lot of issues; mostly due to low resolution leading to motion sickness.

There were attempts at 3D web standards in the past. Who remembers VRML?!

cr0sh8• 7 years ago

You can find modern reviews online.

Which I don't think do them real justice; it's like people growing up with modern cars doing a review of a Model T - a fair review you have to try to replicate everything around what is being reviewed, or at least have that mindset. A good review would use an old Pentium running Duke Nukem 3D with the patches meant for the VFX-1 (for the head tracking and "puck" usage).

They had a lot of issues; mostly due to low resolution leading to motion sickness.

Most consumer HMDs of the time had low resolution, low field of view, contrast issues, etc. If they had any kind of tracking, coupled with the PC hardware and software of the era, the frame lag to changes would also cause simulator sickness issues.

One thing though - if you look at research papers from the era - there was discussion of what was termed a "looking past the pixels" effect.

That is - if you didn't focus in on the pixels themselves, the screen-door effects (terrible at those low resolutions, especially if the FOV was made large - which in most cases, it wasn't), and the small FOV - that psychologically (maybe neurologically too) some people would report seeing things at a better resolution and FOV.

It wasn't investigated too much - but what was thought was that for those participants, the mind would fill in the "gaps" using it's mental model - so long as they weren't focusing on those gaps. There are many other experiments that have been done that proves the mind does this in the "real world" - so in theory, that effect could be real. I suspect it is, but only if the imagery being displayed in the HMD matches some imagery the mind has seen before. For instance, my memory of playing Duke Nukem 3D in a VFX-1 setup seems far better than I am sure it was, but then, I had played the game a lot on a regular monitor at a higher resolution, so I had a "model" of it in my mind. It might be a different experience today, since I haven't played it in a long while - or if I played another game in that HMD that I hadn't played before.

There were attempts at 3D web standards in the past. Who remembers VRML?!

Mark Pesce was behind that - among other pioneers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pesce

These earlier attempts have led to and informed newer frameworks being played with today. VRML had its good and bad points; the main concept was to make VR as accessible to normal people as the Web was via HTML. But it really was a technology that was too early for the hardware that people had available (unless they had access to some high-end SGI machinery). That kinda gave it an unfair reputation, and was a part of the reason it never caught on well.

Today we have a range of other options, some more "standard" than others, but most things "VR" still seem to be cobbled together from "scratch", or at best layered on top of WebGL - while things like Three.js have made WebGL easier for people to use, it still isn't anything like typing in simple VRML.

Another note: One thing I liked about the VFX-1 that I haven't yet seen in current HMDs was the "flip up" design. It was meant so you could easily "enter and exit" a virtual world as you designed it. Today, it may not really be needed as much as resolutions and FOV increase in HMDs - instead, we're slowing seeing the concept of "recreate the monitor inside the HMD" kind of approach. But I still thought the concept was interesting, and I was kinda surprised that Oculus didn't do something similar, since Palmer Luckey hacked the VFX-1 to death on the 3DMTBS forums prior to the kickstarter.

mceachen• 7 years ago

VRML contained the technology to crash both Netscape Navigator and your entire X display, frequently under a minute.

cr0sh8• 7 years ago

I guess there's a limit on time you can edit your post...

Other comments I have read here indicate that this software is for "standalone" systems - and not, as I presumed, for "component" systems (I'm not sure what else to term them).

Which would make my concerns (mostly) irrelevant.

mncharity• 7 years ago

I think your design taste is sound. But there are some constraints.

The VR/AR vendor market has largely collapsed into a few big players with vertical-integration ecosystem-capture dreams, so high-investment opaque monoliths is what's available. Valve's OpenVR apis being the biggest multi-vendor exception. And they're immature, in a complex and still-evolving design space, making it harder to abstract commonality. And gaming VR imposes strict performance constraints, so some paths may have little slack with which to pay some abstraction costs. So having vendor-specific monoliths, joined only at the top, could be the right choice. Any failure to have their javascript-level joining be flexibly mixable... seems regrettably traditional for browser apis, and I don't know the cultural background for that.

I've mixed Vive lighthouse and custom optical tracking, Vive and WMR and now drone HMDs, on linux. I took a custom browser-as-compositor stack. (But there's also the Vrui VR Toolkit.)

bibyte• 7 years ago

Maybe this is a stupid question but how would you click on something like this ? With your eyes or your hands ?

Yoric• 7 years ago

I tested a very, very early demo of this, and it used to be hands. I imagine it's still the case.

sp332• 7 years ago

For Oculus Go and Google Daydream, you have a tiny controller with a couple of buttons like the one at the bottom of this page: https://www.oculus.com/go/accessories/ Instead of moving it physically "onto" a button in 3D space, you just "point" at the button using the controller, and then click.

Here's a demo of what it looks like inside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93bxZlU-kbA&t=272

wongarsu• 7 years ago

Clicking in VR is usually done with your controller. The controller shines a virtual laser pointer making it easy to aim and click.

Doing it with your eyes may be preferable long-term, but eye tracking isn't in consumer headsets yet.

chipperyman573• 7 years ago

"Easy" to aim and click may be a stretch... I have only ever tried the Vive's implementation before but it felt a lot like holding a laser pointer - basically impossible to get any precision because your hand vibrates so much in ways you don't realize.

andybak2• 7 years ago

Doing it with your eyes may be preferable long-term

On the contrary, gaze control was forced upon us when phone-based VR had no access to a controller. It's actually rather unnatural. We look at many things without wanting to activate them so you have to have a secondary cue for "clicking". Usually a timer: "stare at this for x seconds" which means every interaction is an exercise in patience.

Gesture control is probably the most natural if done well but when done badly it's fairly awful. I still can't master clicking on a v1 Hololens and I avoid using the thing without a clicker.

Simple unobtrusive controllers are going to be the best bet for a fair while I suspect.

gtbono• 7 years ago

Sad that the daydream version on a Moto Z in Google Play gives me a "Your device isn't compatible with this version" for me even though I can run Daydream and other daydream apps

sjs3822• 7 years ago

I get the same result with my Pixel 3 XL.

Fej• 7 years ago

It is meant only for standalone Daydream headsets. Why this is the case, I cannot fathom.

sjs3822• 7 years ago

Wow, I had no idea those even existed! Thanks for clarifying.

jimmaswell• 7 years ago

No support for desktop oculus? Really annoying.

yellowapple• 7 years ago

Even standalone headsets seem to be a crapshoot. It "runs" on my Lenovo Mirage, for example, but (last I checked) it's pretty crashy.

larsberg4• 7 years ago

Unfortunately, we don't currently support phone-based Daydream or Gear VR devices. There's both a bunch of extra work to support all of the phone in/out/notification lifecycle scenarios and we have a pretty small engineering team and the long tail of phone/chipset-specific bugs is pretty substantial. We might evaluate support for it or Cardboard in the future, but for right now we're mainly focused on standalone headsets.

That said, we're all in favor of people who want to sideload and play with it! https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/wiki/Sidelo...

ilaksh• 7 years ago

Will it work for Oculus Quest?

cjbprime• 7 years ago

Yes, just announced.

ronreiter• 7 years ago

Oh man, I miss VRML :)

cr0sh8• 7 years ago

In my collection of VR documents and software "artifacts" - I have a collection of QuickBasic 4.5 programs (source code) that this French team built (circa late 1990s IIRC) to generate various VRML models and "worlds" using code. I don't recall how abstracted it was, but I thought it unique enough to save it for my archive. I should really go through that collection and release it in some manner - I have tons of interesting stuff, much of which has disappeared from the web. Maybe an upload to archive.org would be in order...

Quekid55• 7 years ago

"Enter a New Dimension"... of what? I didn't advance beyond the opening screen. Is this going to educate me (mmm), seduce me (eww), stimulate me (eww/mmm?), or just going to advertise to me?

The problem with all of these virtual-X or augmented-X is that they don't provide enough value to me -- as a consumer -- they're just "grand ideas" without any real value.

I'm sure the gimmick effect has some value in and of itself, but c'mon.

lucb1e4• 7 years ago

I also didn't quite understand the landing page. Enter a new dimension can be applied to anything. Scrolling further we find some VR brands, but the title made that clear already. Then your eyes are drawn to the moving game covers. So are they making an app store? Scrolling further, we find "Designed from the Virtual Ground Up". Ha-ha I see what they did there. And then comes the footer.

Only now that I go back through it more slowly to write it up, I find this small text just before the end: "designed to tackle all of the new opportunities (and challenges) that come with browsing in VR". Oh it's a browser! Only after typing the comment about how I scrolled through the whole page and didn't find a meaningful statement, I noticed a line of text hidden between headlines and moving pictures that should have been the title.

sdan• 7 years ago

Yeah the page wasn't clear what it was until I saw the video on the Oculus page.

Thought they were releasing a headset or something.

amelius• 7 years ago

Enter a new Dimension ... or just be disappointed for the fact that you need a VR headset.

stan_rogers• 7 years ago

Well, no... you can also use a holographic projector if you have one.

Wowfunhappy• 7 years ago

Is there any particular reason they can't offer a damn .exe so I can try this out with my Index? I'm sure the copy on Viveport would work, but I don't want to install Viveport. :(

Edit: Their Github page has releases, but they're all APK's? https://github.com/MozillaReality/FirefoxReality/releases

Edit2: Oh, it's for "standalone" headsets. Never mind I guess...

sirsuki• 7 years ago

Any reason iOS is excluded? Last I checked they still have a good share of the mobile user bases out there.

dingo_bat• 7 years ago

There's no standalone VR headsets running ios.

etatoby3• 7 years ago

I'm not aware of any iOS-based VR headsets.

They are probably not targeting the el-cheapo cardboard variety.

jillesvangurp• 7 years ago

Firefox IOS uses the safari browser because Apple's walled garden is off limits for browsers that are not based on that. So, that makes shipping a VR browser without the Firefox internals impossible/impractical. In this case, it's not only a browser but a content store that is not iTunes, which complicates things further.

larsberg4• 7 years ago

Thanks! We don't currently have a build of Firefox Reality available for desktop devices, but that work is currently underway. We announced it as part of our deal with HTC and are excited to show it off soon: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/08/mozilla-announces-d...

PudgePacket• 7 years ago

It's not on viveport despite what they say, I've searched for it numerous times, very frustrating.

AcerbicZero• 7 years ago

Until Mozilla fixes Firefox and stops treating users like children, I will continue to use other browser options. What a slow sad death :(

jvehent• 7 years ago

Firefox Reality is a version of Firefox targeted at VR headsets. You can install it from the store of the Oculus Quest (the headset I own, I imagine others are supported). It's not meant to run on a regular workstation.

The interesting feature of this browser is navigating VR ready websites that provide an immersive experience (aka. webvr). You can also browse the regular web from your headsets, of course, but that's not particularly exciting.

nicholascamera• 7 years ago

It is very odd how vague their product description page is. Naming a product Firefox Reality seems like good marketing: what could be a better brand than all of Reality? However in reality, their site doesn’t say exactly what parent says: Firefox Reality is a browser built for (standalone) XR devices.

JadeNB• 7 years ago

It is very odd how vague their product description page is.

Surely the oddity is solved by postulating that it is a marketing strategy to build interest?

ACow_Adonis• 7 years ago

I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant VR, given that I've never heard of XR, and thus wouldn't really be an improvement in terms of vagueness...

larsberg4• 7 years ago

Thanks! We also find that a lot of our users really like watching 360 or even 2D videos, taking advantage of the ability to resize the screen to get their own personal theater.

Right now, we only have Firefox Reality available for standalone VR headsets, but we're bringing the experience to desktop VR and a variety of standalone AR headsets in the second half of this year.

neiman3• 7 years ago

My problem with the whole VR world, Firefox Reality included, is that it requires me to use stores, open accounts, and do all kind of stuff that seems to me unnecessary.

Do I get it wrong?

gfodor• 7 years ago

Firefox Reality includes support for WebVR, so you can use web based VR applications through the browser.

Part of the reason you might choose to install Firefox Reality on your VR headset is because it's important to you that developers of VR apps always have an option to use the web to share their apps, which will avoid forcing their users in the way you mention.

We've built a social VR application called Hubs (hubs.mozilla.com) to showcase the potential of web based VR applications.

neiman3• 7 years ago

Thanks for the answer.

dyarosla3• 7 years ago

A little off topic, but what a world we live in when a prominent browser maker is advertising a new browser with a webpage that doesn’t properly display its main tagline on small devices (iPhone SE) https://i.imgur.com/WkqsUEZ_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f...

If they can’t get it right, what does that say about the state of the web as a platform?

stevenhubertron• 7 years ago

If its like the analytics for the 45MM users I get on the sites I manage the SE traffic is less than 0.5%.

And to be clear, its not broken, the alignment is slightly off: https://imgur.com/a/GBLe5Jt I would totally let this pass QA for such a minority view.

dyarosla3• 7 years ago

1) I didn’t say broken, I said ‘doesn’t properly display‘.

2) How many other smaller phones exist on the market? It’s disingenuous to say it’s .5%.

This is not some complex item- it should simply not look like this. If the simple stuff is misaligned, what can you expect the rest of the page and more complex items to work like?

OkGoDoIt• 7 years ago

Even Apple doesn’t care about the iPhone SE anymore. I installed the iOS 13 beta on my iPhone SE and in several places the built in apps or parts of the operating system don’t properly fit on the screen. It’s a shame

SquareWheel2• 7 years ago

Most websites break around the 300px mark, even when responsive. According to Chrome's dev tools the iPhone SE has a 320px width. Alignment issues are going to be common on that device.

dyarosla3• 7 years ago

How many smartphones display at that kind of width? I’m guessing it’s not a negligible percentage.

quickthrower2• 7 years ago

Same issue on iPhone 6

partiallypro2• 7 years ago

I swear if I get a client that says their site isn't Oculus ready, I'm going to be upset.

tyingq3• 7 years ago

I'm curious if Firefox has considered a GSuite competitor. Their IOT/home-router offering looks great, and a similarly privacy-first GSuite might get a lot of cross sell.

bytematic• 7 years ago

That would be cool but a beast of a project and a hard sell to big business. Maybe start with email/calendar/etc. first

nfoz• 7 years ago

I think you've just come full-circle to Mozilla Thunderbird which has been around since 2003.

- https://www.thunderbird.net/

- https://www.thunderbird.net/calendar/

sanbor• 7 years ago

GSuite? Who uses that? Better to invest in VR. /sarcasm

yarrel• 7 years ago

I'm looking forward to Firefox supporting OpenXR, which will open it up to all the headsets supported on GNU/Linux by OpenHMD via Monado.

StevePoling• 7 years ago

Wind power really needs something to level demand—either a battery scheme such as Tesla is selling or pumped storage (where you pump water uphill when the wind is blowing and let it flow downhill when it isn’t) it’s

DangitBobby• 7 years ago

I think you commented on the wrong thing

als0• 7 years ago

A bit off topic - but does anyone remember VRML? Did it die out?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VRML

gattilorenz• 7 years ago

Absolutely. When I was a kid I did not have any internet access, and most of the software was from CDs from magazines. One of them had a VRML world+editor that I still remember fondly.

I should try to see if the CD is still readable...

dguaraglia• 7 years ago

You should check on cd.textfiles.com. They have the content of a bunch of those old CDs that would come with magazines. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit download content from textfiles.com and reminiscing of the pre-ubiquitous-internet world :)

bri3d• 7 years ago

Yes and yes, mostly. Some libraries (like three.js) still support loading "Classic VRML" as a scene format, but I don't think it's a popular target these days.

On a similar nostalgia train, does anyone else remember Cycore Cult3D? It was a sort-of-WebGL-ish browser plugin targeted at rendering 3D parts and product views in the browser.

djhaskin987• 7 years ago

Mozilla has really gone off the rails. They have deprioritized html 5 compliance and keep chasing spectres like VR and mobile. I really wish they'd just stick to making sure there's a solid, viable alternative to chrome, instead of getting distracted like this.

mikedilger• 7 years ago

I noticed a few months back that the Servo engine (upon which I was building a play/experimental browser) development had shifted significantly in the direction of Mixed Reality (it shifted more than a few months back, but I was not paying that close of attention). At that point I gave up on my browser project.

Some execs at Mozilla think MR is the wave of the future. I think it's mostly a party trick with a very niche market and will always only be a niche market, and wasting top talent on MR seriously detracts from a project that is a hundred-fold more important. But maybe that's just me.

tempay• 7 years ago

MR seriously detracts from a project that is a hundred-fold more important

I have mixed feeling about this. I’m inclined to agree with you however if it did take off it could mean the difference between Firefox dying and becoming the market leader.

IshKebab• 7 years ago

I don't think mobile is a mistake, as long as Chrome mobile doesn't have as blocking there's at least one very good reason to use Firefox, also the reader viewer is a life saver.

VR seems like a huge waste of resources though. Yes I think it will take off in the next 10 years, but are people really going to be using VR to browse the web? And can you really make good VR apps in JavaScript? I doubt it.

People still don't use WebGL/WASM for traditional 3D games which are less demanding.

Vinnl2• 7 years ago

VR seems like a huge waste of resources though. Yes I think it will take off in the next 10 years, but are people really going to be using VR to browse the web?

You could've asked something similar 12 years ago: sure, smartphones will probably take off, but are people really going to be using those small devices to browse the web?

Mozilla missed that boat; they can't afford to miss this one if it's going to take off. Weighing that against investing resources now, at a time when they're financially healthy, makes it a pretty sane direction in my view.

Vinnl2• 7 years ago

Do you have a source on that they've de-prioritised HTML 5 compliance?

wutbrodo2• 7 years ago

I don't know if mobile counts as a spectre in 2019. Unless you mean in the sense that gaining significant market share on mobile is a tall order in a way that it isn't on desktop?

pittsthebitts• 7 years ago

I have a hard time believing browsing the Internet will ever be in a form like this unless we find an easier way to input information than typing on a keyboard. It's just too much energy.

zmmmmm• 7 years ago

Seems a little bit weird to call this "Reality" - the word "Virtual" is not incidental the meaning of the phrase "Virtual Reality", taking it away completely reverses the meaning. It's almost like this is an April Fool's joke.

wutbrodo2• 7 years ago

Branding doesn't need to be literal, just evocative. The word reality is often mentioned in trippy or philosophical contexts, which is the connotation that the term "virtual reality" is trying to evoke. The brand strategy didn't work for you, but I don't think it's a particularly unreasonable one, and I think plenty of people will tap into the connotations they were going for.

mosselman• 7 years ago

How about making Firefox work on mac without having to put it in low-res mode?

Firefox Reality

Related Stories