Ubuntu Edge price dropped to $695(indiegogo.com)
indiegogo.com
Ubuntu Edge price dropped to $695
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu-edge?c=activity&key=value
30 comments
Half of your questions are answered in the indiegogo fundraiser page.
I see some excuses on the fundraiser page, e.g., "it's a journal", but that's about it. They don't say anything about what CPU (because they want the fastest), they don't say anything about the thermal engineering, and they don't say anything about the battery life (they say they want to use some bleeding edge battery technology, but they don't say anything at all about what this means vis-a-vis battery life.)
They need to make $20/sec from now on in order to reach their funding goal.
I would only fund this on the last day if I knew it was going to make it.. $695 is a very steep price, especially for a college student. I would love to back the device, but to have that much booze money disappear would be a shame.
This meta-phone is still too expensive.
They marketed and priced it for high-end consumers...and then ask these same customers do something that none of them ever want to do...wait. Wait a long time for delivery.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Drop the price or up the delivery date. Better if they did both.
I'd also have more faith if I could have seen a functional prototype not just a couple of Nexus4's running alpha software. I'm not paying 800 bucks for the free software...I'm paying for hardware which is still on the drawing board.
They marketed and priced it for high-end consumers...and then ask these same customers do something that none of them ever want to do...wait. Wait a long time for delivery.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Drop the price or up the delivery date. Better if they did both.
I'd also have more faith if I could have seen a functional prototype not just a couple of Nexus4's running alpha software. I'm not paying 800 bucks for the free software...I'm paying for hardware which is still on the drawing board.
Of course, if you want a cool phone in 2013 that's built mostly on open-source software, there's Jolla.
Wayland + systemd + pulseaudio + QT... they're working with the Linux community instead of against it.
Wayland + systemd + pulseaudio + QT... they're working with the Linux community instead of against it.
Not to mention it's beautiful. They are starting with a billion euros of R&D that Nokia essentially threw out.
Does anyone have any idea about whether we'll be able to write and execute Go (golang.org) code on the Ubuntu Edge?
I assume I'll be able to both write and execute Go code under Ubuntu desktop mode. What about Ubuntu mobile OS?
Will the device support WebGL? What about OpenGL|ES and regular OpenGL?
Does switching between Ubuntu desktop mode and Ubuntu mobile OS involve a reboot with separate systems, or it is one environment with 2 different interfaces? Thank you!
I assume I'll be able to both write and execute Go code under Ubuntu desktop mode. What about Ubuntu mobile OS?
Will the device support WebGL? What about OpenGL|ES and regular OpenGL?
Does switching between Ubuntu desktop mode and Ubuntu mobile OS involve a reboot with separate systems, or it is one environment with 2 different interfaces? Thank you!
And what happen if the goal is not reached? My money gone?
Mmh, 14 days remaining and only 27% funded, it doesn't bode well. I wonder if they'll be able to build momentum this late in the campaign.
Maybe this kind of expensive, high volume devices shows the limits of crowdfunding? Have there been similar projects crowdfunded already (similar price/target)?
Maybe this kind of expensive, high volume devices shows the limits of crowdfunding? Have there been similar projects crowdfunded already (similar price/target)?
I saw that as well, its not very realistic to expect them suddenly make up the difference. Perhaps having people dedicated to spamming popular tech and related sites might get them a bump.
Specs today promised for 2014 don't mean much to me, its a seven hundred dollar bet against what other smart phone makers are doing. Considering the speed at which that segment moves its not a bet I am willing to make.
Specs today promised for 2014 don't mean much to me, its a seven hundred dollar bet against what other smart phone makers are doing. Considering the speed at which that segment moves its not a bet I am willing to make.
I backed this campaign, and I don't really care much about the specs. It will be good enough, and the promise of a more open mobile platform is enough to convince me of paying the premium and making the bet.
I also believe in their vision of converging different device classes in the software space, although I'm not sure they'll be the ones succeeding in it.
I also believe in their vision of converging different device classes in the software space, although I'm not sure they'll be the ones succeeding in it.
>promise of a more open mobile platform
In light of JBQ's quitting AOSP[1], how open is open enough? Will we be happy if we get "free check" license to use the binary blobs? Will we be happy if we can see the code but not be able to copy it? Do we require them to publish drivers and their source code in a permissive license? Many people will think it is a "shades of gray" issue. I kind of want more convenience than rms promises but on the surface it seems silly to think we can have the freedom and openness from Canonical where a bigger (financially) Google has so miserably failed. Perhaps our interests are more aligned with Canonical than with Google? Thoughts?
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6174514
In light of JBQ's quitting AOSP[1], how open is open enough? Will we be happy if we get "free check" license to use the binary blobs? Will we be happy if we can see the code but not be able to copy it? Do we require them to publish drivers and their source code in a permissive license? Many people will think it is a "shades of gray" issue. I kind of want more convenience than rms promises but on the surface it seems silly to think we can have the freedom and openness from Canonical where a bigger (financially) Google has so miserably failed. Perhaps our interests are more aligned with Canonical than with Google? Thoughts?
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6174514
I've spent some time thinking about this, and for me (and a lot of other people I've talked with) the line in the sand is "enough for us to be able to build newer or versions of the userland and kernel." This does not require that we're able to modify every bit of code.
For instance, the Raspberry Pi has a binary blob of firmware that contains a lot of the code for using with the graphics hardware. While we can't modify or recompile this part, the (minimalistic) interface to this firmware is an open source kernel module. This allows you to build newer or modified kernels, and build other distributions for the RPi and still have access to the graphics acceleration. I consider this "open enough."
While Android is fairly open, there is a large part of it still that is closed source. This includes the front-ends of Google's own services (I consider back ends out of scope), binary drivers (graphics), binary firmware (radio) and binary libraries (OpenGL implementations, closely linked to graphics drivers).
The goal of Canonical's project is also to make the drivers and OpenGL part open source, but I've not seen anything about the radio bits.
For instance, the Raspberry Pi has a binary blob of firmware that contains a lot of the code for using with the graphics hardware. While we can't modify or recompile this part, the (minimalistic) interface to this firmware is an open source kernel module. This allows you to build newer or modified kernels, and build other distributions for the RPi and still have access to the graphics acceleration. I consider this "open enough."
While Android is fairly open, there is a large part of it still that is closed source. This includes the front-ends of Google's own services (I consider back ends out of scope), binary drivers (graphics), binary firmware (radio) and binary libraries (OpenGL implementations, closely linked to graphics drivers).
The goal of Canonical's project is also to make the drivers and OpenGL part open source, but I've not seen anything about the radio bits.
This is why this is not considered "buying a new cool phone" but "supporting a new cool idea". However, I personally find the 700$ too much to put into that idea, even if the phone itself is worth something around this.
If you want to just "support a new cool idea" and don't pay that much then you can pledge the lower ones ($20, $30, $50)
The campaign started on Jul 22, we're on Aug 8 and they have until now 8.5 million raised funds.
That's pretty impressive in my opinion and meeting the deadline is hard, but it can still happen.
That's pretty impressive in my opinion and meeting the deadline is hard, but it can still happen.
[deleted]
No, it can't. Most of that money was raised in the first five days when the hype stared. The contribution rate actually slowed down and nothing short of a miracle will change that.
http://s.4pda.to/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ubuntu-edge.png
http://s.4pda.to/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ubuntu-edge.png
It looks like that miracle they are expecting is for more corporate sponsors to come in and snatch up large batches.
But I agree, it's looking highly unlikely that they'll meet the goal unless the timeframe is extended.
But I agree, it's looking highly unlikely that they'll meet the goal unless the timeframe is extended.
That's very misleading, the contribution rate was always dependent on price, not on early hype. Look how quickly the increase fell off when the price went up, and then took off again when the price was dropped, in the first couple of days:
http://ubuntu-edge.info/#total
http://ubuntu-edge.info/#total
Hey, I would love to be proven wrong on this. I love the concept.
I just don't see it happening. They won't even hit the half.
I just don't see it happening. They won't even hit the half.
[deleted]
If they manage (somehow) to hit their 30m goal it will have raised 9.4% of the entire 2012 total pledges on Kickstarter and the entire year pledged amount for Technology projects. So it may blow anything that Kickstarter has had out of the water. All these numbers are for Kickstarter because I couldn't find a convenient list of numbers for Indiegogo.
source: http://www.kickstarter.com/year/2012#category
ps: There's a lack of a good verb tense for something that could happen but it is unlikely, there's no good pessimistic subjunctive future.
source: http://www.kickstarter.com/year/2012#category
ps: There's a lack of a good verb tense for something that could happen but it is unlikely, there's no good pessimistic subjunctive future.
> ps: There's a lack of a good verb tense for something that could happen but it is unlikely, there's no good pessimistic subjunctive future.
"Were it to happen ...." ?
"Were it to happen ...." ?
That's decent, it fits a little awkwardly in to the middle of sentences though. Just something I kept noticing when I was typing that. out.
It's a downward spiral. A lot of people would not invest because they know that the target amount won't be reached. I think the collection rate will slow down further.
"Maybe this kind of expensive, high volume devices shows the limits of crowdfunding?"
Maybe having a billionaire with his hand out holding a tin cup shows that people aren't such big suckers as Shuttleworth anticipated?
Maybe having a billionaire with his hand out holding a tin cup shows that people aren't such big suckers as Shuttleworth anticipated?
Most funded project on Indiegogo seems to be Scanadu Scout with $1,664,176 while Kickstarter has some watch called the Pebble with $10,266,845 and OUYA got around the same amount of pledges which the Ubuntu Edge has so far.
Looking at those projects doesn't really seem encouraging for the Edge:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/scanadu-scout-the-first-me...
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper...
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-...
- They all add significant rewards (i.e., not shirts) at lower tiers (you got an ouya for $100, pebble for $110 and scanadu for $270).
- They add much lower targets (the ouya had the highest at $950 000)
- Even the pebble, most successful of the three, "only" raised $10 millions.
The Edge wants more than three times that for something that's arguably less innovative (yet another smartphone) and wants us to bet no less than $700 on it (the lower tiers are basically charity).
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/scanadu-scout-the-first-me...
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper...
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-...
- They all add significant rewards (i.e., not shirts) at lower tiers (you got an ouya for $100, pebble for $110 and scanadu for $270).
- They add much lower targets (the ouya had the highest at $950 000)
- Even the pebble, most successful of the three, "only" raised $10 millions.
The Edge wants more than three times that for something that's arguably less innovative (yet another smartphone) and wants us to bet no less than $700 on it (the lower tiers are basically charity).
Despite what they say about getting lower price deals on components, it looks very preplanned "strategy".
Either way the next couple of days will be make or break, if this last price change doesn't get any significant contribution in short time, I don't think they can reach the target anymore.
Either way the next couple of days will be make or break, if this last price change doesn't get any significant contribution in short time, I don't think they can reach the target anymore.
> Despite what they say about getting lower price deals on components, it looks very preplanned "strategy".
I was there. I've overlooked the spreadsheets with component parts, and people having phone calls and debating about how to possibly lower the cost even more. I can also say that getting to $695 wasn't straightforward at all. We all love a bit of conspiracy, but please allow a bit of credit to the people trying to pull it off.
I was there. I've overlooked the spreadsheets with component parts, and people having phone calls and debating about how to possibly lower the cost even more. I can also say that getting to $695 wasn't straightforward at all. We all love a bit of conspiracy, but please allow a bit of credit to the people trying to pull it off.
Don't get me wrong. I support Ubuntu Edge 100%, and I am sorry that it sounded like I am fueling conspiracy. Reading marketing-speak by other companies has made me generally cynical about such announcements that seemed to me very conveniently timed.
I am glad to be wrong.
I am glad to be wrong.
If it is planned it's a very cynical way of meeting a target by effectively lowering mid-campaign.
Having thousands donate at $800 and the refunding the difference down to $695 means that the "target" is met but the actual net amount is lowered by that amount that needs to be refunded.
It doesn't actually help them meet the lowered target either, it simply lowers the target while getting them no closer to the target by lowering their effective amount raised at the same time.
That's why I don't think it was planned. It feels to me less planned and more reacting to not meeting their target but reacting in a not so clever way.
The thing is, if they can't keep steady during the fund-raising part I don't trust them to deliver on the hard part of building the hardware.
Either way I also don't believe this is in any way really connected to lower component price deals, this is marketing but in my opinion it's not clever marketing.
Having thousands donate at $800 and the refunding the difference down to $695 means that the "target" is met but the actual net amount is lowered by that amount that needs to be refunded.
It doesn't actually help them meet the lowered target either, it simply lowers the target while getting them no closer to the target by lowering their effective amount raised at the same time.
That's why I don't think it was planned. It feels to me less planned and more reacting to not meeting their target but reacting in a not so clever way.
The thing is, if they can't keep steady during the fund-raising part I don't trust them to deliver on the hard part of building the hardware.
Either way I also don't believe this is in any way really connected to lower component price deals, this is marketing but in my opinion it's not clever marketing.
I think you're right. If they'd truly wanted to build the best speced phone possible they would've used the savings to build an even better phone.
I can imagine this scenario going on: They got a bit scared to loose the project altogether. Brainstormed ways to inject some buzz into the fundraiser. A pricedrop was one of the possibilities (it also lowers the barrier to pledge). Conveniently it was also somewhat true because early indications from suppliers. They lowered their expectations from "We want to build the best fucking phone possible" to "We want to build the best phone with great hardware"
Nothing wrong with that but dropping the price is still marketing ;)
I can imagine this scenario going on: They got a bit scared to loose the project altogether. Brainstormed ways to inject some buzz into the fundraiser. A pricedrop was one of the possibilities (it also lowers the barrier to pledge). Conveniently it was also somewhat true because early indications from suppliers. They lowered their expectations from "We want to build the best fucking phone possible" to "We want to build the best phone with great hardware"
Nothing wrong with that but dropping the price is still marketing ;)
Shuttleworth already has the money to pay for the phones from this pocket. Even the best possible phones.
What he needs is to prove there's a market. They are still short of this goal by a large margin. The price drop helps toward this goal.
What he needs is to prove there's a market. They are still short of this goal by a large margin. The price drop helps toward this goal.
> Either way I also don't believe this is in any way really connected to lower component price deals
You don't have to believe it, but it is true.
You don't have to believe it, but it is true.
Given that they used indiegogo, do they keep the funds in case the target is not hit?
From the website:
"What if you fail to reach the funding target?
We appreciate every bit of support we receive during the 30 days, and every backer will be welcomed into the Ubuntu community. If we don’t reach our target then we will focus only on commercially available handsets and there will not be an Ubuntu Edge. All contributions will be fully refunded."
"What if you fail to reach the funding target?
We appreciate every bit of support we receive during the 30 days, and every backer will be welcomed into the Ubuntu community. If we don’t reach our target then we will focus only on commercially available handsets and there will not be an Ubuntu Edge. All contributions will be fully refunded."
Doesn't that mean they'll actually make a significant loss due to Paypal fees?
They chose a fixed campaign so they don't get to keep the funds. All or nothing.
From the webpage: This campaign will only receive funds if at least $32,000,000 is raised by its deadline. Funding duration: July 22, 2013 - August 21, 2013 (11:59pm PT)
No -- it looks like they set it up as Fixed Funding (as opposed to Flexible Funding) and won't get the money unless they reach the goal.
What's the advantage of going with Fixed Funding as opposed to Flexible? Wouldn't receiving the $8 million (or whatever it ends up at) be better than nothing?
There are significant fixed costs in building a smart phone, for example in design, certifications and tooling. Building something like 50K of them is already on the low end.
It would be a disaster for them if they got into a position were they had costs of $1500 per phone and had to choose between bailing out or eat the losses.
It would be a disaster for them if they got into a position were they had costs of $1500 per phone and had to choose between bailing out or eat the losses.
Arguably the whole attraction of these things is that there's a model where you pledge an amount and only have to pay up if there's enough money to get it off the ground.
No one wants to be the guy who stuck $700 down for something that will never exist because they were the only ones to pledge.
If it weren't for the fixed model, they would struggle to get even a fraction of the money they've raised so far.
No one wants to be the guy who stuck $700 down for something that will never exist because they were the only ones to pledge.
If it weren't for the fixed model, they would struggle to get even a fraction of the money they've raised so far.
I keep wondering whether they still have something up their sleeve, but judging by them dropping the price, its not the case. This is the pinnacle of Mark Shuttleworth's "convergence" dream, I wonder whether he will carry the rest of this campaign if it looks like it will not get funded in the end? Also if it does fail, it is going to look mighty bad for Canonical.
> Also if it does fail, it is going to look mighty bad for Canonical.
I also thought about this, but I'm not sure that's the case. At the very least, they managed to collect close to $10 million in a a two week period, without much of an advertising budget and only some vague on-paper specs and a few renders.
I think that gives them some leverage when negotiating with manufacturers to show that there is at least some demand for high-priced smartphones running their software stack.
I also thought about this, but I'm not sure that's the case. At the very least, they managed to collect close to $10 million in a a two week period, without much of an advertising budget and only some vague on-paper specs and a few renders.
I think that gives them some leverage when negotiating with manufacturers to show that there is at least some demand for high-priced smartphones running their software stack.
point taken.
Why is it going to look mighty bad for Canonical if it fails? For one, this was a self-claimed experiment. And two, these phones are priced the same as a decent laptop. If anything it proves people aren't willing to shell out $800 for a phone 9 months from now. However, I think it also shows that people do in fact want an Ubuntu phone.
If I had the money, I'd be ordering one now. A high-spec android phone that can also dock into a full desktop ubuntu machine? I'd love to be able to have a development setup in my pocket whereever I go.
As much as I like this project (or pipe dream, depending on your point of view), I think $695 is a much more realistic price for this device. I sincerely hope they succeed.
The whole thing was ill-advised. Even if they reached $32M it would be the equivalent of a pre-order for a few tens of thousands of phones. That's not enough to launch a viable handset business.
They should have gone to an ODM or lower-tier OEM and piggybacked on an the unit volume for some other customer. They could have launched with 20k units pre-sold.. They also could have had a far shorter lead time, so the risk in pledging would be much lower.
If they think they can change the world with hardware, they've got that wrong. The interesting thing about an Ubuntu phone is Ubuntu.
They should have gone to an ODM or lower-tier OEM and piggybacked on an the unit volume for some other customer. They could have launched with 20k units pre-sold.. They also could have had a far shorter lead time, so the risk in pledging would be much lower.
If they think they can change the world with hardware, they've got that wrong. The interesting thing about an Ubuntu phone is Ubuntu.
> Even if they reached $32M it would be the equivalent of a pre-order for a few tens of thousands of phones. That's not enough to launch a viable handset business.
I don't think they are looking to launch a viable handset business.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shut...
"But we'll stick to the concept-car side of things leaving mainstream production to our partners in the industry who do it very well." - Mark Shuttleworth
I don't think they are looking to launch a viable handset business.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1j166z/hi_im_mark_shut...
"But we'll stick to the concept-car side of things leaving mainstream production to our partners in the industry who do it very well." - Mark Shuttleworth
Concept cars are awful things. Non working dials , pie in the sky features , crappy engines hidden under plastic promises, most of the time they are vapourware. Not the best thing to comparing your product to
Or is it?
Or is it?
That doesn't make Edge any more rational. Who makes designs their own "flagship" phone and makes a run of, say 100k units?
I think the approach they are taking is that of sports cars.. You design a concept device, do a limited run with early adopters and premium buyers, and then the advances and concept-validations that happen trickle down to the mass-market devices and everybody wins..
Spot on. They should have found an existing model with good but not out of the ordinary specs (something like a 5" HD display, 2Gb RAM, etc.), appealing design, reasonably cheap (as in Nexus 4 cheap), and promised quick delivery. There's plenty of Chinese OEM or second-tier brands able to produce such phones here and now, and having owned a few most of them are good, sound devices hardware wise.
Then started working like mad on getting out a nice, user friendly, hackable OS to early adopters.
It's all in the OS, especially since nobody knows how the specs of the planned phone will compare to next year's models.
Then started working like mad on getting out a nice, user friendly, hackable OS to early adopters.
It's all in the OS, especially since nobody knows how the specs of the planned phone will compare to next year's models.
Remember when Walmart started selling Linux PCs 6-7 years ago? They were the cheapest, lowest-end models you could buy. So people had the association between Linux and low-end/underpowered for quite a long time.
On the other hand, remember what phones were like before the iPhone? Creating something that blew away the current market worked well there.
On the other hand, remember what phones were like before the iPhone? Creating something that blew away the current market worked well there.
Hey commenters:
1. Backing this project is using your dollars to "vote" for this device to exist. It's not as unimaginative as "buying a phone", it's about helping to establish a new mobile device os as a real alternative.
2. This type of fundraising rarely follows a linear growth curve, so there's nothing to infer about the ultimate success of the project by projecting that way.
I have not backed the project, and I'm not sure if I will, but I really appreciate that others are trying to make this happen.
1. Backing this project is using your dollars to "vote" for this device to exist. It's not as unimaginative as "buying a phone", it's about helping to establish a new mobile device os as a real alternative.
2. This type of fundraising rarely follows a linear growth curve, so there's nothing to infer about the ultimate success of the project by projecting that way.
I have not backed the project, and I'm not sure if I will, but I really appreciate that others are trying to make this happen.
But are you sure it's a good alternative?
It runs a slow and ugly UI, comes with built-in Amazon ads and privacy concerns, and will drain battery rapidly when using as a desktop, so you won't be able to make a call when your car breaks down on the way home.
If this is the future, count me out.
It runs a slow and ugly UI, comes with built-in Amazon ads and privacy concerns, and will drain battery rapidly when using as a desktop, so you won't be able to make a call when your car breaks down on the way home.
If this is the future, count me out.
Still much faster than Android/Java apps.
Typically when being run as a desktop, it would be plugged in. Maybe not always, but I don't see people expecting to regularly use a desktop computer off of battery power.
The built-in Amazon ads are enough for me to not use it, however.
The built-in Amazon ads are enough for me to not use it, however.
Shouldn't it be charging when you are using it as a desktop?
This is what's keeping me from buying into it, I just cannot in good conscience support Canonical's approach to Ubuntu. They're authoritarian and secretive in their feature development, and that runs directly contrary to any notion of hacker ethics or FLOSS philosophy.
I used to subscribe to the linux sub-reddit but left because of all the Canonical apologists, "But they're nowhere near as bad as Microsoft/Apple/Google" and "They've got to make money somehow, what's wrong with anonymous search statistics being sent to Amazon?" etc etc.
I used to subscribe to the linux sub-reddit but left because of all the Canonical apologists, "But they're nowhere near as bad as Microsoft/Apple/Google" and "They've got to make money somehow, what's wrong with anonymous search statistics being sent to Amazon?" etc etc.
And here all this time I thought that releasing your source code under the GPL qualified as "FLOSS philosophy".
Seriously, working on something for a while until you get it into a state where you're happy releasing it to the world isn't an attack on Freedom. Especially when you GPL it once you do release it.
Seriously, working on something for a while until you get it into a state where you're happy releasing it to the world isn't an attack on Freedom. Especially when you GPL it once you do release it.
How can you say it is slow? It isn't out yet.
When it will come out it will basically be a high-end Android device that can be used as an Ubuntu desktop (all current HDMI adapters require power, so it won't drain the battery when you are using it as a desktop).
Perhaps this is a concern to you, but it won't be much harder to keep charged then it is to keep a current smartphone charged while using it. And if you really are concerned, buy an external charger / car adapter.
The Unity interface has been notoriously buggy and slow. Canonical write core parts of their OS in Python. All my experience with their software indicates it will be slow.
I don't think the people working there are incompetent, more likely overstretched to breaking point.
I don't think the people working there are incompetent, more likely overstretched to breaking point.
Yes, Python is slow.
They are not using Python for the phone version, but something coming from QT that runs at native speed.
They are not using Python for the phone version, but something coming from QT that runs at native speed.
It's fast and stable. Canonical write core parts of their OS in C. All my experience with their software indicates it will be fast.
Even some of their ubuntu one storage engineers know graphics programming well enough to win game programming competitions. They're good, and have copious free time to make this perfect.
Even some of their ubuntu one storage engineers know graphics programming well enough to win game programming competitions. They're good, and have copious free time to make this perfect.
Have you even tried it?
Unity on desktop is very, very good.
Unity on the phone (running on my nexus 4) is blazingly fast. I mean, stupidly fast. Android and iOS feel super laggy compared to it. Particularly Android.
Just seems like you are trolling.
Unity on desktop is very, very good.
Unity on the phone (running on my nexus 4) is blazingly fast. I mean, stupidly fast. Android and iOS feel super laggy compared to it. Particularly Android.
Just seems like you are trolling.
What a pathetically misinformed comment. Core parts of their OS in Python? That automatically means it will be slow?
Same here. I am writing this on an Ubuntu machine. But I am using it strictly for writing and a bit of web surfing. I would never use it on my phone. It seems to try to emulate a user friendly touch and feel but it fails at doing this (at least for me). Since removing the program listing menus I am forced to use the search option much more ( hello amazon!), the working spaces are completely unusable because they not separated entities and interfere with another, etc. As the only programs I am running are more or less Firefox, Libre & Acrobat I am to lazy to install a different distribution, but otherwise I would be long gone.
One of the great parts about it being Ubuntu is that you can simply remove the Amazon stuff: http://askubuntu.com/questions/192269/how-can-i-remove-amazo...
I'm running Ubuntu right now and love it. I do wish that it didn't come with Amazon by default, but as a free OS, I accept that there's going to be some of that sort of thing happening.
Regarding battery, I was under the impression that it would charge when being used as a desktop. Is this not correct?
I'm running Ubuntu right now and love it. I do wish that it didn't come with Amazon by default, but as a free OS, I accept that there's going to be some of that sort of thing happening.
Regarding battery, I was under the impression that it would charge when being used as a desktop. Is this not correct?
> but as a free OS, I accept that there's going to be some of that sort of thing happening
The vast majority of Linux distributions are free and include none of this sort of things, with some of them (e.g. Debian) having been in continuous existence for about 20 years. Whatever your opinion about this move by Ubuntu, you can't say that it's something that has to happen with free OSes and that you have to accept.
The vast majority of Linux distributions are free and include none of this sort of things, with some of them (e.g. Debian) having been in continuous existence for about 20 years. Whatever your opinion about this move by Ubuntu, you can't say that it's something that has to happen with free OSes and that you have to accept.
The vast majority of Linux distros have also also never had a lot of casual desktop users outside of developers and server admins. Expanding consumer mindshare costs money, and it that has been Ubuntu's main priority since day one. Debian on the other hand has long prioritized stability/reliability as a good workhorse OS. Neither are bad goals, but it's disingenuous to imply that they are the same and should thus take the same paths to accomplishing them.
"but as a free OS..."
There's a missing apostrophe there. It's "free" in that it doesn't come with a price-tag. It's being paid for, just in other ways. It might seem nit-picky, but to me, at least, it's an important distinction. Facebook is "free" also, but you're paying for it by looking at ads. Google search/email is "free", but you pay for it with ads.
I personally hate the idea that something is "free" but you pay for it with your time/eyeballs. In some regards (like this) I am old-school. I like the simple model of I pay $X for Y product, done.
There's a missing apostrophe there. It's "free" in that it doesn't come with a price-tag. It's being paid for, just in other ways. It might seem nit-picky, but to me, at least, it's an important distinction. Facebook is "free" also, but you're paying for it by looking at ads. Google search/email is "free", but you pay for it with ads.
I personally hate the idea that something is "free" but you pay for it with your time/eyeballs. In some regards (like this) I am old-school. I like the simple model of I pay $X for Y product, done.
I don't think that's an old-school mentality. Even in 'old-school' times, I don't think anyone would have picked up a free newspaper and said "this isn't free!" if it had ads in it.
I don't really agree with the mentality of "ad-supported is not free". It's one thing if you're giving up your data (as in the case of Facebook), it's another if it's limited to glancing at an ad (in the case of a blog or newspaper). I don't know the details of where Ubuntu would fall, but if you define merely "looking at something" as payment, you should be asking for refunds from any man or woman you've ever "paid".
I don't really agree with the mentality of "ad-supported is not free". It's one thing if you're giving up your data (as in the case of Facebook), it's another if it's limited to glancing at an ad (in the case of a blog or newspaper). I don't know the details of where Ubuntu would fall, but if you define merely "looking at something" as payment, you should be asking for refunds from any man or woman you've ever "paid".
"but as a free OS" - from customer's viewpoint it's not anymore free than iOS on Apple devices. You pay for a product and it comes with an OS - you are not getting an invoice for both. And therefore - why would a customer treat them differently?
This is a great point and I agree with you in the case of the Edge. Is it confirmed that the shopping/Amazon lens would be enabled by default on the Edge? I think this is a reasonable situation to argue for a disabled default.
It is rather hard to imagine a situation in which one would have an external monitor that is plugged in and no way to plug in the Edge as well
Yet, people are ready to start a holy war against Oracle for shipping free Java with an Ask Toolbar.
That's not good enough. Defaults are extremely important in software, because that's the experience novice users will be stuck with permanently.
It's not even implemented in an intuitive or user-friendly way. When you search your computer, you don't expect Amazon search results to randomly appear.
Compare the Ubuntu dash search to Spotlight on OSX, it looks very amateurish. Instead of improving it, their developers have to waste their time fudging Amazon search results in.
It's not even implemented in an intuitive or user-friendly way. When you search your computer, you don't expect Amazon search results to randomly appear.
Compare the Ubuntu dash search to Spotlight on OSX, it looks very amateurish. Instead of improving it, their developers have to waste their time fudging Amazon search results in.
You don't expect it because it doesn't occur with other OS's, but it's common functionality with web search. I'd prefer that it was off by default, but if the only price I pay for what I find to be an excellent free OS is that I have to toggle ads off, then I'm OK with that. Your opinions about the UI are subjective, of course; I find Ubuntu's search UI to be better than OSX's Spotlight. I also don't find sluggishness to be an issue at all, in fact I experience just the opposite.
Please don't defend the Amazon shopping lens. It is indefensibly awful. Ubuntu should drop it, and it is the primary thing that makes people distrust Canonical now. Go ahead and promote all the other benefits of Ubuntu all you like, they are real.
I hold the opposite opinion: if Amazon shopping lens supports Ubuntu providing their awesome operating system, it's very well they have it. Also I don't see a distrust point at all, hey it's a click away to disable, some commands away to uninstall.
Why so particular with Ubuntu, do you e.g. distrust (and stop using) Google for displaying ads? What about Windows/OSX which are orders of magnitude less trust-able than an open source OS. If you don't like a more mainstream consumer Linux then why not install Arch or Debian or Bodhi and refrain from badmouthing?
Why so particular with Ubuntu, do you e.g. distrust (and stop using) Google for displaying ads? What about Windows/OSX which are orders of magnitude less trust-able than an open source OS. If you don't like a more mainstream consumer Linux then why not install Arch or Debian or Bodhi and refrain from badmouthing?
Wow you seem to already own this phone. That's amazing!
It's running a Ubuntu variant. I used Ubuntu for many years (and previously recommended it to others). I even helped with repo's at one point.
Canonicals downfall has been long and well-documented. Try to keep up.
Canonicals downfall has been long and well-documented. Try to keep up.
I believe Nexus 4 is one of the supported devices for the Ubuntu phone variant, and will have a similar OS as the Edge.
This phone is a first generation. In line with jt2190 notion, you are not buying the phone as much as you are creating the market. Once that market exists, it can be iterated on and improved.
Nice. 2 hr old account, 2 hr old comment. A troll comment? Yeah, I think we know what's up.
As long as it's good enough, it could help pave the way for future phones that are better.
Well if you end up not liking it you can install Android on it and still have a great phone.
It will come with Android pre-installed already, in a dual-boot configuration.
The current Ubuntu Phone image does not have any Amazon integration at all.
When in desktop mode, you will be plugged into A/C power.
When in desktop mode, you will be plugged into A/C power.
Your first point is hitting the nail on the head, and it's exactly why I backed this project on day 1.
To other commenters: if you see this as "buying a phone that doesn't exist yet and won't for at least another year", then this project is probably not meant for you anyway.
To other commenters: if you see this as "buying a phone that doesn't exist yet and won't for at least another year", then this project is probably not meant for you anyway.
Am I the only one that sees this as some kind of lean startup applied to industry?
I mean. With nothing but a few renders, they have reached more than 8 millions in backup.
This is a HUGE point in terms of marketing, and more than a lot of free advertisment.
All of that for free.
I backed the project at $600. Here are some thoughts:
1. It's getting wishy-washy. I don't know any campaigns that have changed around rewards this much (both pricing and what you get) and for many people that may be a turn off. Why would someone get the phone at $695 when it could go down more? Obviously the said the price won't go down but they had said that previously when they were above $700.
2. $695 immediately withdrawn from your PayPal account prior to tha campaign succeeding is a hard pill to swallow for many even if you are refunded 100% if (when?) the goal is not reached.
3. May 2014 is a pretty long time from now and I bet the wait will end up being longer (I waited almost 1.25 years for my Leap Motion and they had significant VC backing). Too many people may not be able to think this far ahead.
Why did I back the project? Well, I liked the idea of making a custom hardware device and thought crowdfunding the creation was interesting. I've never actually used Ubuntu (or Android for that matter) but the scale of the goal and the precedent it could set for people doing very capital-intensive projects with crowdfunding was what motivated me to back it.
1. It's getting wishy-washy. I don't know any campaigns that have changed around rewards this much (both pricing and what you get) and for many people that may be a turn off. Why would someone get the phone at $695 when it could go down more? Obviously the said the price won't go down but they had said that previously when they were above $700.
2. $695 immediately withdrawn from your PayPal account prior to tha campaign succeeding is a hard pill to swallow for many even if you are refunded 100% if (when?) the goal is not reached.
3. May 2014 is a pretty long time from now and I bet the wait will end up being longer (I waited almost 1.25 years for my Leap Motion and they had significant VC backing). Too many people may not be able to think this far ahead.
Why did I back the project? Well, I liked the idea of making a custom hardware device and thought crowdfunding the creation was interesting. I've never actually used Ubuntu (or Android for that matter) but the scale of the goal and the precedent it could set for people doing very capital-intensive projects with crowdfunding was what motivated me to back it.
> Why would someone get the phone at $695 when it could go down more?
Because everybody that paid more is being refunded. See the notes on each of the events. It won't go down anymore, but even if that happened, you'd not be screwed for supporting the campaign earlier.
> the scale of the goal and the precedent it could set for people doing very capital-intensive projects with crowdfunding was what motivated me to back it.
I'd also support it just on that basis alone, but I'm also looking forward to have a well supported and familiar Linux distribution on a phone.
Because everybody that paid more is being refunded. See the notes on each of the events. It won't go down anymore, but even if that happened, you'd not be screwed for supporting the campaign earlier.
> the scale of the goal and the precedent it could set for people doing very capital-intensive projects with crowdfunding was what motivated me to back it.
I'd also support it just on that basis alone, but I'm also looking forward to have a well supported and familiar Linux distribution on a phone.
Giving money back seems like a terrible idea from a fundraising perspective (though personally I'd be irked if I had paid over $700 and they didn't refund me). Either way, it's not a great position to be in.
edit: please don't let me be misunderstood.
edit: please don't let me be misunderstood.
That's how crowdfunding campaigns work, and without enough support to reach the $32M, there's simply no way to manufacture the phones that got funded at such a low price.
You misunderstand. I mean giving money back to people that paid more than $695 is a terrible idea from a fundraising perspective. It does makes sense however since the backlash could be severe.
> It does makes sense however since the backlash could be severe.
So then it does make sense from a fundraising perspective.
So then it does make sense from a fundraising perspective.
I agree strongly about #1. I can totally see where they were coming from (and frankly they are truly in uncharted waters with this funding campaign -- nobody has really ever attempted a crowd funding initiative quite like this one), but you're absolutely right. $600-800 is a lot of money for most people, and the constant fluctuation and uncertainty about pricing and the fundraising effort is definitely hurting their cause, I believe.
What they should have done, perhaps, was go to Bloomberg et al before going public with this. Starting out with $500k in the pot and strong corporate backing locking the price (or at least making the tiers predictable) would have gone a long way.
What they should have done, perhaps, was go to Bloomberg et al before going public with this. Starting out with $500k in the pot and strong corporate backing locking the price (or at least making the tiers predictable) would have gone a long way.
You should have read the submission. They say that the price is now fixed until the end of the campaign and anyone who paid more than $695 will get a refund of the difference. So, if anything, this alleviates any uncertainties about the price and no one should feel hurt.
Please note that the support both from Bloomberg and the industry (in terms of the price drop) are based on hindsight of how supporters and the press have been covering the case.
It's also hard to predict what having an initial perk of $500 would have meant to the campaign. The very strong reaction in the first day is also a result of supporters observing that there was a gap of $230 for the next price level. It's not easy to really tell what an entirely different price structure would have meant.
It's also hard to predict what having an initial perk of $500 would have meant to the campaign. The very strong reaction in the first day is also a result of supporters observing that there was a gap of $230 for the next price level. It's not easy to really tell what an entirely different price structure would have meant.
Quite true. Were it not for that I would have been in the "wait and see" group as well, and I suspect I'm not alone. Those "wait and see"ers wouldn't have jumped in and the whole campaign wouldn't have had such a newsworthy boost right of the gate.
Either way, very interesting to watch it unfold.
Either way, very interesting to watch it unfold.
> $600-800 is a lot of money for most people, and the constant fluctuation and uncertainty about pricing and the fundraising effort is definitely hurting their cause, I believe.
On the other hand, they've always refunded any extra money that people have paid. Ultimately, if the price subsequently goes up, you have a good deal, if the price subsequently goes down, you get the extra money back. The re-adjustment does no harm to the consumer.
On the other hand, they've always refunded any extra money that people have paid. Ultimately, if the price subsequently goes up, you have a good deal, if the price subsequently goes down, you get the extra money back. The re-adjustment does no harm to the consumer.
In regards to #1, it's abnormal because Kickstarter doesn't allow you to change or remove rewards once they are created, you can only add new ones. I've run into some campaigns that did some pretty creative things with their reward tiers on Kickstarter to be able to get around this issue.
True, I've never seen a campaign change rewards so much and so often but people have been very creative with rewards tiers - usually to their benefit.
I'd be surprised if even half of the people that pledged early on are able to keep up with all of the changes and updates.
I'd be surprised if even half of the people that pledged early on are able to keep up with all of the changes and updates.
Considering that IGG could be making 1M+$, they will do anything asked!
Now I think they should allow to extend the campaign to 60 days in a week and a half... :)
> It's getting wishy-washy.
I find it a little disturbing they're claiming it will work on Verizon (my current carrier for the past 10 years) and Sprint for a few reasons:
1) It's unlikely Verizon will have VoLTE on day 1 that the phone comes out. Even if so, one has to hope they become more liberal with what they allow on their network. Since it does not have any CDMA radio, that could also be a problem as LTE is not universal yet on their network as well.
2) Sprint does not let users actually know they have sim cards. My friend's Sprint Galaxy Nexus has the sim card embedded directly in the device and cannot be seen/removed. If that continues to be true with newer Sprint Phones, it seems like it would be hard to get a sim card compatible with Sprint's network.
3) #2 Assumes that Sprint has VoLTE, let alone much of an LTE network. As far as I know, it's still in testing at best and not ready for mainstream use.
I can just predict a lot of angry Verizon and Sprint users come early next year when they try to pop in the sim card to their device or call their carrier and find out they cannot use the phone on their desired network. Canonical really should be more up front with their claims of the networks that it will (realistically) work on.
I find it a little disturbing they're claiming it will work on Verizon (my current carrier for the past 10 years) and Sprint for a few reasons:
1) It's unlikely Verizon will have VoLTE on day 1 that the phone comes out. Even if so, one has to hope they become more liberal with what they allow on their network. Since it does not have any CDMA radio, that could also be a problem as LTE is not universal yet on their network as well.
2) Sprint does not let users actually know they have sim cards. My friend's Sprint Galaxy Nexus has the sim card embedded directly in the device and cannot be seen/removed. If that continues to be true with newer Sprint Phones, it seems like it would be hard to get a sim card compatible with Sprint's network.
3) #2 Assumes that Sprint has VoLTE, let alone much of an LTE network. As far as I know, it's still in testing at best and not ready for mainstream use.
I can just predict a lot of angry Verizon and Sprint users come early next year when they try to pop in the sim card to their device or call their carrier and find out they cannot use the phone on their desired network. Canonical really should be more up front with their claims of the networks that it will (realistically) work on.
Every time I read stuff about mobile careers in the US, I instantly think how awesome we have it in Europe.
We have 3 major mobile careers in my country (Vodafone, Orange and Cosmote), and my unlocked Android can work on all of them, whether we are talking about GSM, Edge, 3G, LTE, doesn't matter. And oh, you should see the pre-pay offers that we get.
We have 3 major mobile careers in my country (Vodafone, Orange and Cosmote), and my unlocked Android can work on all of them, whether we are talking about GSM, Edge, 3G, LTE, doesn't matter. And oh, you should see the pre-pay offers that we get.
We can thank the European Commission for that. They made GSM 900/1800 a mandatory standard early on.
Technological standards are only half the battle. The rest a mix of regulatory differences and the history of how the market happened to unfold. No European carrier was ever faced with attempting to build (and thus finance) a network for a continent-sized country.
Yes they did. All the big carriers had to build out their networks right across the continent of Europe comprising of lots of different countries each (back in early days) with their own regulatory frameworks.
How the US - just a single country (its size doesn't matter) - managed to end up with multiple competing standards continues to make my mind boggle, whilst Europe we managed to lock things down to a common set of standards right across the continent.
How the US - just a single country (its size doesn't matter) - managed to end up with multiple competing standards continues to make my mind boggle, whilst Europe we managed to lock things down to a common set of standards right across the continent.
> How the US - just a single country (its size doesn't matter) - managed to end up with multiple competing standards continues to make my mind boggle.
I'm guessing it had to do with Qualcomm being a US company and having the advantage for obtaining contracts and influence from politicians and other bureaucrats at the time CDMA and GSM were being standardized and developed. CDMA originated with Qualcomm and GSM was mostly developed by companies outside of the US (I think starting in Finland).
I'm guessing it had to do with Qualcomm being a US company and having the advantage for obtaining contracts and influence from politicians and other bureaucrats at the time CDMA and GSM were being standardized and developed. CDMA originated with Qualcomm and GSM was mostly developed by companies outside of the US (I think starting in Finland).
The only early network that was across "lots of different countries" was the NMT system and that was in the Scandinavian countries, which have always been their own special sort of group of countries.
I don't recall a company in Berlin building out networks in Greece, but that's the equivalent of what McCaw Cellular was doing in the late 80s/early 90s
I don't recall a company in Berlin building out networks in Greece, but that's the equivalent of what McCaw Cellular was doing in the late 80s/early 90s
Don't forget that anyone who payed higher at any given point will be refunded the difference to the next lowest price. :)
2) paypal will back you 100% on this. http://i.imgur.com/3jMEP1W.gif
They sure are getting a lot of attention by having time sensitive prices and changing prices. To some degree eyeballs equals cash. What they need is a lot of orders, though, to make the funding goal and get any money at all. They really need to drop that price down to be competitive with Google's Nexus 4, Nexus 7, etc.. I know OEMs that dropped device projects at the Edge's price point when those came out and it was smart.
A 64GB model at $595 from the start probably would have gone a long way toward boosting the numbers. And a $32 million funding goal is really pushing the envelop regardless. I would love to have one but $700 upfront? For a phone? That's pushing the envelop too.
I like the idea, and the hardware seems good, and I could afford it, but the real turn-off for me is that it's just a one-time thing. If I am going to commit myself to another mobile platform (although I use Xubuntu on the PC), I want it to have some future. If the thing breaks after 3 years, what I am going to do? I will have to change the platform again when I buy a new device.
I actually question what the Canonical is doing when it comes to this. I bought Asus EEE with preinstalled Ubuntu 12.04 recently, and it's great. However, you cannot upgrade to 12.10 because the proprietary video driver for X is missing. So what they're thinking? If they want people to switch to Ubuntu (and I would love that, that's why I bought this netbook), then they have to commit to it as a long term goal.
It seems that everybody is so impatient nowadays that if success doesn't happen in one year, they kill the project.
I actually question what the Canonical is doing when it comes to this. I bought Asus EEE with preinstalled Ubuntu 12.04 recently, and it's great. However, you cannot upgrade to 12.10 because the proprietary video driver for X is missing. So what they're thinking? If they want people to switch to Ubuntu (and I would love that, that's why I bought this netbook), then they have to commit to it as a long term goal.
It seems that everybody is so impatient nowadays that if success doesn't happen in one year, they kill the project.
At this point I have convinced myself that the goal won't be reached. But I know for certain every phone company is back to the drawing board, because we are looking right at the future.
I want to know one thing about this phone that the page did not mention.
Can I `gcc-arm -o MyApp main.c` on my PC and run MyApp on any Ubuntu Edge phone, without having to unlock them or enable them for dev or any other nonsense? Or is development restricted to QML and HTML5?
Can I `gcc-arm -o MyApp main.c` on my PC and run MyApp on any Ubuntu Edge phone, without having to unlock them or enable them for dev or any other nonsense? Or is development restricted to QML and HTML5?
Behind the interface you have a normal Linux distribution, with packaging, apt-get, and all, so yes you can.
Will such a program be a first-class citizen though?
In other words, will the user have a harder time using it than using a QML/HTML5 app? I could see that be if only QML/HTML5 integrate well with the phone interface.
In other words, will the user have a harder time using it than using a QML/HTML5 app? I could see that be if only QML/HTML5 integrate well with the phone interface.
If you mean first-class as in look like an app like came with the phone, then there's no way around using a toolkit that has a familiar theme and behavior. The story is no different than a Linux desktop.
you can use C++ for most things in your app and QML for UI only. or you can use C++ for everything. You're not required to use QML and HTML5 for your app, but in most cases (though not all) doing the UI in QML will be a good choice
(side issue it is not clear if it will be ARM, it might be Intel)
Can anyone explain why there is no open hardware phone at this point? During a recent trip to Shenzhen, it was clear that all the components are readily available.
I have had one person suggest that it was the cost of FCC approval that was the holdup and not the technology. Any company that could afford the approval process would not want to open their design. I am not technically versed enough to know if this is correct, however.
Does anyone else have a clear perspective on the issue?
I have had one person suggest that it was the cost of FCC approval that was the holdup and not the technology. Any company that could afford the approval process would not want to open their design. I am not technically versed enough to know if this is correct, however.
Does anyone else have a clear perspective on the issue?
Can you give more information on the FCC approval process? What requires approval exactly? If people designed open-source hardware plans, then made the hardware, then shipped it, at what point is FCC approval necessary?
I don't believe FCC approval alone is the big bottleneck. You need to test its radio emissions in defined conditions, and that requires some expensive test gear (base station simulator ~= $100k), but realistically you need one of those anyway to debug the device you're developing.
A more serious problem is trying to get all the relevant firmware and radio software stack without tripping over IP that is (a) patented and (b) will only be licensed to you under NDA. Qualcomm are particularly bad at this. So you need to choose a suitable SoC with favourable IP licensing.
Writing your own "baseband" is a substantial piece of work; some people have embarked on it at http://bb.osmocom.org/trac/
Canonical's approach is sound here and their costs are realistic. Getting it done for free by people working in their spare time is very unlikely to happen.
A more serious problem is trying to get all the relevant firmware and radio software stack without tripping over IP that is (a) patented and (b) will only be licensed to you under NDA. Qualcomm are particularly bad at this. So you need to choose a suitable SoC with favourable IP licensing.
Writing your own "baseband" is a substantial piece of work; some people have embarked on it at http://bb.osmocom.org/trac/
Canonical's approach is sound here and their costs are realistic. Getting it done for free by people working in their spare time is very unlikely to happen.
The components may be available, but that doesn't mean they are actually open. Low end phone makers just get their software from the SOC OEM, and they just want to ship a phone, not provide a platform for developers, so they don't need liberal licensing conditions.
I bought an OpenMoko a number of years ago. It was a brave effort but a hard mountain to climb.
The one thing that's bothering me about this is their choice to use sapphire crystal for the screen. Sapphire is definitely more scratch-resistant than the Gorilla Glass used by iPhones and high end Andriod phones, but my understanding is that sapphire is much easier to shatter by applying pressure. That seems to me a more important factor than scratch-resistance.
(Disclaimer: I'm no materials engineer and the above info was sourced from google searching, so take that for what it's worth)
(Disclaimer: I'm no materials engineer and the above info was sourced from google searching, so take that for what it's worth)
I don't know about that. It does seem like a pretty exciting material, but I agree a 2014 release date of a "full sapphire phone" might be a little too early. I'm also not sure if it's the best material we can use in the future for smartphones. I do hope we'll stop using plastic, and aluminum is not perfect either, and has some major flaws. Glass is terrible, too.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512411/your-next-smartp...
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512411/your-next-smartp...
Vertu have been using sapphire for phone displays for quite some time now (at least since 2011).
Of course those are low volume, luxury handsets and if one shatters they probably just replace it, but I don't think 2014 is "too early" for a more widespread sapphire display by any means.
Of course those are low volume, luxury handsets and if one shatters they probably just replace it, but I don't think 2014 is "too early" for a more widespread sapphire display by any means.
The only way I can see this succeeding now is by getting some carriers or OEM's or something to back the project, and put the rest of the money into the project.
I maintain that this could've succeeded if it was priced at $600 from the beginning, and work their way from that regarding the specs. That's exactly what Ford did, too. He started with a price in mind, and then forced the engineers to come up with a product that fits that price.
Canonical repeated Motorola's Xoom mistake, by starting with the specs, and then selling for whatever price it all added up to.
I maintain that this could've succeeded if it was priced at $600 from the beginning, and work their way from that regarding the specs. That's exactly what Ford did, too. He started with a price in mind, and then forced the engineers to come up with a product that fits that price.
Canonical repeated Motorola's Xoom mistake, by starting with the specs, and then selling for whatever price it all added up to.
I predict that this will lead to a spike in backers from all of the people who wanted to back it but thought $800 was too expensive, but it will quickly level off. Why?
Dan Ariely did some studies[1] showing that people are much more likely to pick something when there is a strictly worse option available. $830 vs. $600 for the exact same thing is just easier for our irrational minds to compare than $695 for a phone next year vs. phones today. I think this was a major motivator for people to "buy" in the early stages of the project, especially since it was a time limited option.
I personally backed at the $600 level, and while I have a lot of reasons for why it was a good idea, I suspect that I was influenced my own irrational behavior and I am just good at justifying my decisions.
[1] http://realityswipe.wordpress.com/tag/dan-ariely/
P.S. If you haven't read any of Dan Ariely's stuff before, he does some fascinating studies showing how irrational humans are.
Dan Ariely did some studies[1] showing that people are much more likely to pick something when there is a strictly worse option available. $830 vs. $600 for the exact same thing is just easier for our irrational minds to compare than $695 for a phone next year vs. phones today. I think this was a major motivator for people to "buy" in the early stages of the project, especially since it was a time limited option.
I personally backed at the $600 level, and while I have a lot of reasons for why it was a good idea, I suspect that I was influenced my own irrational behavior and I am just good at justifying my decisions.
[1] http://realityswipe.wordpress.com/tag/dan-ariely/
P.S. If you haven't read any of Dan Ariely's stuff before, he does some fascinating studies showing how irrational humans are.
Still a bit steep for a phone that doesn't exist, yet.
If they reach their funding goal, but then miss their delivery date, or the device has a pathetic battery life, or the device overheats in your hand and shuts down the moment you try to use the "fastest CPU", what then? Or if the CPU /GPU ends up being so slow (to prevent thermal meltdown) that you can't run interesting desktop-class applications, as opposed to using an OS and applications optimized for embedded/mobile hardware, as opposed to laptop class hardware, what then?
Call me unconvinced.