> [citation needed]

It's been developed for more than 4 years and still nobody wants it: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ultrac...

Now they're going to compete at the high-end, which means they have to find OEMs that will bet their flagship models on it. Good luck with that.

There are three elements to OS choice: standardization, marketing and openness. Looking at the desktop market, you can see how Microsoft dominated standardization, Apple managed to dominate marketing, and Linux used its unrivaled openness to sneak in between the two.

In the mobile world, Android already occupies two of those slots, basically pre-empting any linux-like effort from ever gaining significant traction. That means the only ways you can break in the mobile OS market (assuming you're not producing breakthrough tech creating its own market) are 1) flooding the market with such a massive amount of units that standardization stops being a factor, or 2) flooding the airwaves with such a massive amount of excellent advertising that your devices become more desirable than Apple ones. Good luck with that.

(Note how price is not a factor. Mobile devices are inherently aspirational, as Nokia found out.)

The hard truth is that the land grab is over: if your mobile OS has not made it yet, chances are that it never will -- at least as long as devices stay in this particular form factor and nobody comes up with groundbreaking tech.

Mozilla should concentrate on standards, including a kick-ass Android browser; everything else is a waste of time.

You're right that this doesn't follow devoid of context, but luckily we're talking about a specific entity and a specific situation. The assumption that motivates this assumption is the idea that Mozilla has finite resources, not just in the literal sense, but in the sense of having to make significant trade-offs in what to focus on. This seems like a fairly reasonable assumption to make given that they're often so far behind on things that are fairly widely considered positive, like one-process-per-tab.

You may disagree with that assumption, but at least address it instead of being wearisome and linking to a Wikipedia logical fallacy page.