> Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism.

Sure, but it will advance nothing that is in Mozilla's purpose if it has native apps rather than apps built with web technologies. Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps? I think so, even though it won't do everything some people would like, and even though we're some ways off from the point that it is likely to be a strong competitor to the major players in that field.

The arguments that Firefox OS can't survive seem very similar to the ones that ChromeOS couldn't.

I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose".

To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a native alternative to the HTML5/JS or whatever non-native APIs they're providing.

Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter, but non-native stuff is a long ways from the battery life and performance metrics that native apps can provide.

The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job.

> I would call ensuring the survival of the platform they want to market as "advancing ... Mozilla's purpose".

Mozilla's purpose is to advance the open web. Firefox OS is a means to that end, promoting a platform with that name independent of its actual nature is not an end to itself.

> To ensure the survival of that platform, they're going to need a pragmatic alternative to the HTML5/JS APIs.

The entire premise of Firefox OS, and the only reason that offering it is consistent with Mozilla's organizational purpose, is that Mozilla believes that this is false.

> Perhaps they'll be successful on low-end hardware where applications and games don't matter,

That would be, IMO, a very big success in advancing Mozilla's mission, though probably less than they hope Firefox OS can provide.

> This "all web" viewpoint you seem to be sold on is not sufficiently pragmatic.

I'm not "sold" on it; I suspect that Firefox OS may well be premature. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that a conventional mobile OS of the type you suggest Firefox should be, with native development along with web technologies, is completely useless for the purpose for which Mozilla exists.

> The right tool for the right job. And non-native SDKs are not yet the right tool for every job.

So? Firefox OS doesn't have to be suitable for every job for it to survive, or for it to advance Mozilla's purposes.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

So I'll just leave with this comment:

A platform needs content to survive, and customers are clearly demanding content that currently requires native SDKs on other platforms. Therefore, I believe that Mozilla to have a platform that is commercially interesting must be pragmatic and accept that for the good of the platform, they will need some sort of native SDK. Even if that native SDK is severely limited in scope.

With that said, I will readily admit that Mozilla has made amazing progress. But I also strongly believe that is not yet sufficient to eliminate the need for native SDKs.

> Can a phone OS survive with just web technologies and not native apps?

Why would you cripple yourself like this, though? Modern web technologies are far from ideal for doing websites, why would I extend the pain to offline apps?