Define minimum system requirements

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

Firefox for Android
General
RESOLVED FIXED
6 years ago
2 years ago

People

(Reporter: Irina Sandu, Assigned: elan)

Tracking

({relnote})

unspecified
ARM
Android
relnote
Points:
---
Dependency tree / graph

Firefox Tracking Flags

(firefox14 unaffected, firefox15 unaffected, firefox16 unaffected, blocking-fennec1.0 +)

Details

(Whiteboard: [no-code][sumo], URL)

Attachments

(4 attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

6 years ago
When we launch the native-UI version we need to be able to specify what range of devices our browser works on. This is a release criteria. At the minimum, we need to have:

- OS version
- CPU
- RAM
- resolution
(Reporter)

Updated

6 years ago
blocking-fennec1.0: --- → ?
- Installation storage requirements

Updated

6 years ago
Assignee: nobody → elancaster
blocking-fennec1.0: ? → beta+
(Assignee)

Comment 2

6 years ago
Recommend making this a p1; remove blocking flag, pls.
Let's start with the existing requirements and bump the OS Version to 2.2
(Reporter)

Comment 4

6 years ago
I provided Aaron with the range of low-end devices for the ARMv7 market. QA is going to run tests on them and they will come back with a recommendation on where the spot is below which Firefox performs slower than is optimal (based on the release criteria).
(Assignee)

Comment 5

6 years ago
This bug is about what we allow in the marketplace today and what we will allow when we go beta. So, as of today, are min sys requirements start at 2.2 vs. 2.0. This has been signed off by product. ARMv6 will not be added in this beta.
(Assignee)

Comment 6

6 years ago
This bug is about what we allow in the marketplace today and what we will allow when we go beta. So, as of today, are min sys requirements start at 2.2 vs. 2.0. This has been signed off by product. ARMv6 will not be added in this beta.
Mobile QA is currently prioritizing and scouring for devices to assist in defining out minimum requirements, we're tracking on this sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhE7m4JB2j6tdF9CTXlPaGJEemVERmk3cURoS2IyVVE#gid=2
"Save as PDF"

E/GeckoConsole( 1578): [JavaScript Error: "NS_ERROR_FILE_ACCESS_DENIED: Component returned failure code: 0x80520015 (NS_ERROR_FILE_ACCESS_DENIED) [nsIFile.createUnique]" {file: "chrome://browser/content/browser.js" line: 689}]
Wrong bug ignore comment #8
Hey Irina,

Based on testing with available devices we're making a recommendation of 

* Minimum CPU Frequency: ~1 GHz
* Minimum RAM: ~512MB
* Storage Requirements: (As of 04/23, a clean profile sits at ~16MB on internal storage).
* Resolution: 480 (w) x 800 (h)

We originally targeted ~800 MHz based on one device which ran acceptably ran Nightly; the G2 but we dont have enough other devices to make a solid decision based on that. Also the amount of ARMv7 devices at 800MHz is very low.

Updated

6 years ago
Blocks: 738358

Updated

6 years ago
Whiteboard: [not code]
After discussing and further testing Fennec Native, QA will re-recommend support for 800mhz phones with 512Mb Ram.  Testing has been heavily done with the G2 and HTC Desire Z.

Also, we have tested effectively against the droid pro, which has a resolution of 480x320.   Therefore, system requirements we'd recommend would be:

* Minimum CPU Frequency: ~800Mhz GHz
* Minimum RAM: ~512MB
* Storage Requirements: (As of 04/23, a clean profile sits at ~16MB on internal storage).
* Resolution: 480 (w) x 320 (h)

We leave the final decision making to engineering and engagement to consider.
(Reporter)

Comment 12

6 years ago
Thank you, Tony.

Market context:

The requirements in comment 11 give us 89% of the ARMv7 market, the ones in comment 10 give us 84%.


Next thing to figure out:

1. Do the performance release criteria apply to the phones in the minimum requirements range? If not, how big of a buffer would stop shipping or would trigger an increase of minimum system requirements? 

Ideally, we would have a very similar experience between the high-end phones and the low-end ones. When in doubt, we prioritize quality (good experience) over quantity (more market coverage)
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Blocks: 747534
Received the MOtorola Charm today.  Runs Android 2.1, and there's no OTA android updates to 2.2.   marking this phone unsupported.

Still waiting for the Samsung Continuum and Motorola Flipout later this week.

Updated

6 years ago
Keywords: relnote
Whiteboard: [not code] → [not code][sumo]
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Assignee: elancaster → mluna
Kevin, any of those devices arrive in MV yet?
(Assignee)

Comment 15

6 years ago
this should actually go to jaclyn...
Assignee: mluna → jfu

Comment 16

6 years ago
Sorry - not sure what the request for me is. To get the Samsung Continuum and Motorola Flipout?
Flipout arrived it is 2.1 by default. Investigating forcing a 2.2 update.
(In reply to Jaclyn Fu from comment #16)
> Sorry - not sure what the request for me is. To get the Samsung Continuum
> and Motorola Flipout?

nothing actionable for jaclyn here.   QA is finishing up this request by testing against Continuum, Flipout, and Charm.   

So far, no luck on Flipout and Charm.
(Assignee)

Comment 19

6 years ago
Yeah, I am confused. Assigning to kevin; reassign as needed. Thank you.
Assignee: jfu → kbrosnan
Whiteboard: [not code][sumo] → [no code][sumo]
Whiteboard: [no code][sumo] → [no-code][sumo]

Comment 20

6 years ago
Hi,

Scoobidiver has updated the SUMO documentation to reflect the new system requirements here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/will-firefox-work-my-mobile-device#os=android&browser=m14
(In reply to Michelle Luna from comment #20)
> Hi,
> 
> Scoobidiver has updated the SUMO documentation to reflect the new system
> requirements here:
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/will-firefox-work-my-mobile-
> device#os=android&browser=m14

We certainly have much more devices to add to the supported list.   How can we get this list updated?  Also, its not clear to me, but is phones=native and tablets=xul?   Because its not clearly defined, and can cause a misunderstanding based on your device.
re noming as we seem to have forgotten about this one (beta+ is soooo 3 weeks ago). After talking to kevin, this might be more of a release blocker if there is anything that remains on this one
blocking-fennec1.0: beta+ → ?
blocking-fennec1.0: ? → +

Comment 23

6 years ago
The ref. URL shows mobile devices tested with XUL, not with Native. Comment 10 or comment 11 are not taken into account.

(In reply to Tony Chung [:tchung] from comment #21)
> We certainly have much more devices to add to the supported list. 
The update of the SUMO article was based on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?authkey=CPiPp9IK&key=0AhE7m4JB2j6tdEJFZ3NoZkRoRTM3TTRpQll3UjZLYnc&authkey=CPiPp9IK#gid=3 on May 9. It should be updated again now that there are more devices tested with FennecAndroid.

> How can we get this list updated?
SUMO is a Wiki. You need to register, https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/users/register, and then edit the article, https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/will-firefox-work-my-mobile-device/edit

> Also, its not clear to me, but is phones=native
> and tablets=xul?   Because its not clearly defined, and can cause a
> misunderstanding based on your device.
Tablets is for devices, not for the browser.
(Reporter)

Comment 24

6 years ago
I think we are good for this bug. Unless someone disagrees, I will mark is as FIXED. Discussions on consistency on the website can continue on other bug.
blocking-fennec1.0: + → ?
Should be +'ed and this bug marked resolved fixed if so
This is still a blocker. When it's fixed, we should mark it as FIXED. However, I thought we were waiting on some testing on the lower end of our requirements before finalizing this decision.

Tony, has that testing happened?
blocking-fennec1.0: ? → +
Last we knew it was in product/marketing's hands to try phones below the current beta requirements. Most of this discussion has happened in email. Erin said that she would get hardware to Product/Marketing to make sure that our suggestions matched their expectations.

Comment 28

6 years ago
I borrowed someone's Droid Pro and it was a comparable experience
Droid pro while it looks like a poor device is not one. The small screen is actually a benefit as it takes a lot less work to draw updates to the screen. The Samsung Galaxy S (original), HTC Desire (original) or Motorola  Droid (original) would be better low end devices.

I will be in SF on Tuesday and maybe Wednesday and can bring up an HTC Desire I think Naoki has a Galaxy S.
Let me know if there's anything more needed from my end, otherwise I say let's wrap this bug up this week.
(Assignee)

Comment 31

6 years ago
In regards to the comments above: 
HTC Desire: Candidate for listing as unsupported/blocking refer to Bug 757920
Droid: Original Specs are below bar: 600Mhz cpu upgradable to 2.2, 256MB RAM 
Galaxy S: Status pending

Test coverage being tracked: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AhE7m4JB2j6tdEJFZ3NoZkRoRTM3TTRpQll3UjZLYnc&authkey=CPiPp9IK&hl=en&authkey=CPiPp9IK#gid=3

Assigning to me to drive this task to completion.
Depends on: 757920
(Assignee)

Updated

6 years ago
Assignee: kbrosnan → elancaster
(Reporter)

Comment 32

6 years ago
Both the Desire and the Galaxy S are popular devices in market, so preferably we would have them supported for the launch, or if not, a plan to achieve this in a timely manner.
Circling around here. It's not 100% clear to me the bar we've set for testing. From comment 11, QA made a recommendation for the min system requirements. It also seems subsequent activity has been to test devices that are lower spec-ed, namely HTC desire, Droid and Galaxy S - is that correct? What are the QA recommended specs based on devices tested to date (using the same format as in comment 11)?
The survey in the URL (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/14.0beta/system-requirements/) is old. Is it still useful?
Created attachment 631484 [details]
Device Testing - Screenshot 1

Just adding some additional testing here via AppThwack on their available devices.

The following devices have start-up issues on 800Mhz:

* HTC Status 
* Kyocera Milano


The following devices have start-up issues on 600Mhz

* HTC Wildfire S
* LG Optimus S
* Samsung Replenish
Created attachment 631485 [details]
Device Testing - Screenshot 2
Created attachment 631486 [details]
Device Testing - Screenshot 3
Created attachment 631487 [details]
Device Testing - Screenshot 4
If it wasn't clear, I think I would push for 1Ghz minimum.
(In reply to Aaron Train [:aaronmt] from comment #35)
> Created attachment 631484 [details]
> Device Testing - Screenshot 1
> 
> Just adding some additional testing here via AppThwack on their available
> devices.
> 
> The following devices have start-up issues on 800Mhz:
> 
> * HTC Status 
> * Kyocera Milano
Both are ARMv6 according to PDADB
* http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=2954&c=htc_status
** http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=cpu&id=a7227t&c=qualcomm_msm7227t
* http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=3121&c=kyocera_milano_kyocera_oblique
** http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=cpu&id=a7627t&c=qualcomm_msm7627t
 

> 
> The following devices have start-up issues on 600Mhz
> 
> * HTC Wildfire S
ARMv6
> * LG Optimus S
ARMv6
> * Samsung Replenish
ARMv6
(In reply to Aaron Train [:aaronmt] from comment #39)
> If it wasn't clear, I think I would push for 1Ghz minimum.

I disagree all the phones you listed won't install Firefox from the market.
Perhaps, not installs from Google Play but not really recommended since the tested builds were able to startup but not proceed further due to ANR (possibly due to low resource availability). They were not blocked by a INSTALL_FAILED_CPU_ABI_INCOMPATIBLE gate.
(In reply to Aaron Train [:aaronmt] from comment #42)
> Perhaps, not installs from Google Play but not really recommended since the
> tested builds were able to startup but not proceed further due to ANR
> (possibly due to low resource availability). They were not blocked by a
> INSTALL_FAILED_CPU_ABI_INCOMPATIBLE gate.

Can you install beta from the market on these phones?
re comment #42, also INSTALL_FAILED_INVALID_APK

(In reply to Brad Lassey [:blassey] from comment #43)
> Can you install beta from the market on these phones?

No access to offered devices on AppThwack. I'm just reporting what I see in a run; perhaps this should be taken with a grain of salt in comparison with physical device testing? I'll email you the login to look at the logs.

re comment #40, Kevin, I'm confused because how else would the build start-up? It is my understanding that you can't get past install with ARMv6.
if a device is configured correctly it shouldn't install, but there is no guarantee
which is why I asked about the market, it does its own filtering
(In reply to Kevin Brosnan [:kbrosnan] from comment #41)
> (In reply to Aaron Train [:aaronmt] from comment #39)
> > If it wasn't clear, I think I would push for 1Ghz minimum.
> 
> I disagree all the phones you listed won't install Firefox from the market.

FWIW, i qualified the Motorola Defy just now.  The specs are 800Mhz, Android 2.2.2, 512Mb Ram, PowerVR SGX530.  

http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_defy-3514.php

The device passes a thorough smoketest against Fx14 Beta6, including sync and flash.  I didnt push the performance too hard with a large profile, but i did scroll long pages- and saw expectantly blurry text on panning.  But stability stuck and the beta was quite usable. 

Updated our device spreadsheet with this device as a pass.
(In reply to Brad Lassey [:blassey] from comment #46)
> which is why I asked about the market, it does its own filtering

Checked over DA, and yes it the market is filtering right.

* Wildfire S can't find Firefox Beta
* Optimus S can't find Firefox Beta
* Replenish can't find Firefox Beta
(In reply to Marco Castelluccio from comment #34)
> The survey in the URL
> (http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mobile/14.0beta/system-requirements/) is old.
> Is it still useful?

It's a survey I ran for XUL. I have plans to update it soon; but for now It's not really useful.
(Assignee)

Comment 50

6 years ago
To wrap on this bug ~ 

The following recommended requirements: 

* Minimum CPU Frequency: ~800Mhz GHz
* Minimum RAM: ~512MB
* Storage Requirements: (As of 04/23, a clean profile sits at ~16MB on internal storage).
* Resolution: 480 (w) x 320 (h)

===
- Have been vetted and approved by product
- Have been adequately tested across a variety of devices to QA's satisfaction
- Google Play's filtering mechanism has also been proven to work accordingly
- QA consensus is that we are good to ship with the recommendations and level of testing
*New information about existing/upcoming/new to market devices will continue to stream in and we will evaluate on a case-by-case basis
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 6 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
We may want to set expectations for daily usage in a profile somewhere in the 30-40 MB range.
Spoke to Jaclyn, she mentioned that these changes are being tracked for update across public pages.

Comment 53

6 years ago
I'm tracking /platforms page only
status-firefox14: --- → unaffected
status-firefox15: --- → unaffected
status-firefox16: --- → unaffected

Comment 54

6 years ago
(In reply to Tony Chung [:tchung] from comment #21)
> (In reply to Michelle Luna from comment #20)
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Scoobidiver has updated the SUMO documentation to reflect the new system
> > requirements here:
> > https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/will-firefox-work-my-mobile-
> > device#os=android&browser=m14
> 
> We certainly have much more devices to add to the supported list.   How can
> we get this list updated?  Also, its not clear to me, but is phones=native
> and tablets=xul?   Because its not clearly defined, and can cause a
> misunderstanding based on your device.

I updated the SUMO article with supported devices today and mbrubeck reviewed it. Let me know if you need additional changes or if anything seems unclear I'll get it fixed.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.