News - Mozilla refuses to develop Firefox for Apple iPhone and iPad

[cptwhite_uk]

With the same (1) plugin installed and loading the BBC news site. Chrome = 65Mb, FF = 111Mb

Switching pages, the double memory footprint seems to continue...

[TheAnimus]

So this is in no way due to FireFox OS project I'm sure!

[Agent]

This title is misleading. Mozilla want as much of the mobile space as they can get. They'd run their software on iPad / iPhone in a heartbeat. The problem is that they would need to rewrite several core parts of Firefox....at which point it's not really Firefox. It would just be yet another Webkit browser with a different UI.

You might as well say "TeslaCoil refuses to develop NovaLauncher for Apple iPhone and iPad", because...well...Apple don't allow alternative shells to run.

[WritersBlock]

Paid bigger bribes?

[zap117]

I'm not saying Firefox isn't less responsive than Chrome, as, certainly in starting up, it most certainly is.

Hm, interesting, because Chrome takes like 5 times longer than FF to start up for me. But yes, Chrome does use a ton more ram than FF, especially with a lot of tabs open. It starts up a whole new process for every tab that you open, which might make it more stable or something, but obviously uses more ram.

[Agent]

RAM is there to be used though. We build these crazy rigs which have stagering amounts of powers....and then worry when our browser uses a bit of RAM

Neither FF or Chrome are over the top with RAM in my experience. The numbers might look scary sometimes, but you need to consider what a modern browser has to do. Streaming HD video with several scripts running in the background is going to use resources.