Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone
http://www.zdnet.com/verizon-backs-ubuntu-smartphone-7000017954/
12 comments
I think its killer feature is how it's an all-in-one OS. In you pocket, it's a smartphone; docked, it's a complete linux desktop environment.
I thought that was a feature for 'Ubuntu for Android' (a different product). I could be wrong, but I don't see that feature available under the 'Ubuntu Phone' list of features.
It's right here on the Ubuntu Phone homepage: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/operators-and-oems
I'm sure we can look forward to a Linux Mint phone pretty soon ;)
On a more serious note... People who say, "Linux, therefore it can be hacked to your liking" really don't understand the public at large or aren't empathetic. I mean if you have the complete source (we're talking, no proprietary binaries as well), as Stallman would say, you can pay someone else to change the thing for you, but how many people would really invest the time and effort to that?
We would need an army of people like this : http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1047633/one-writes-...
... willing to invest time & energy and have a passion for doing things because they should be done so those who can't or, for various reasons, won't will still benefit.
I can count on one hand, the number of strangers I've met that come close.
On a more serious note... People who say, "Linux, therefore it can be hacked to your liking" really don't understand the public at large or aren't empathetic. I mean if you have the complete source (we're talking, no proprietary binaries as well), as Stallman would say, you can pay someone else to change the thing for you, but how many people would really invest the time and effort to that?
We would need an army of people like this : http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1047633/one-writes-...
... willing to invest time & energy and have a passion for doing things because they should be done so those who can't or, for various reasons, won't will still benefit.
I can count on one hand, the number of strangers I've met that come close.
> Differentiation for OEMs and operators.
We all know what that means.
We all know what that means.
[deleted](1)
It seems a shame that the backing of a network operator is still required to successfully sell a hardware device in this day and age (especially in the US). It's like only being able to buy a Thinkpad if your broadband supplier will sell you one. I look forward to the day when most phones are not tied into contracts, but I think I may be waiting a long time.
Note that implicit in the deal is that the carrier provides support. You can take the phone to the store and ask questions, or call them. For faulty hardware they will replace it (warranty services). The carrier will typically also do insurance for those that want it. The consumer has an ongoing relationship with the carrier. It is hardly surprising phones mostly get bought that way.
There is no such relationship with the phone manufacturers or retailers, with the Apple exception, and even they depend on carriers. (You can fairly accurately predict Apple sales by how many carriers carry the devices.)
Note that being available on a carrier doesn't automatically lead to success (eg Blackberry and Nokia are available on about 3 times as many carriers as Apple is). However it is a prerequisite for getting a foot in the door.
There is no such relationship with the phone manufacturers or retailers, with the Apple exception, and even they depend on carriers. (You can fairly accurately predict Apple sales by how many carriers carry the devices.)
Note that being available on a carrier doesn't automatically lead to success (eg Blackberry and Nokia are available on about 3 times as many carriers as Apple is). However it is a prerequisite for getting a foot in the door.
My carrier doesn't subsidize phones, rather they will simply finance your purchase of a phone that you pay back in monthly chunks along with your phone contract (so when your phone is paid off, your monthly bills drop).
So even for people that don't want to pay a lump-sum for a phone, you can imagine that it would be possible to just split those two businesses into "carrier" and "phone purchase financer."
However, presumably in that case the latter would have to charge higher finance fees than a carrier with integrated financing, because they'd be assuming the risk of financing without the extra profit that comes from the monthly phone contract.
So since the integration of the two allows lower fees, and people lovvvvve lower fees, well... the integration of carriers and phone financing isn't very surprising...
So even for people that don't want to pay a lump-sum for a phone, you can imagine that it would be possible to just split those two businesses into "carrier" and "phone purchase financer."
However, presumably in that case the latter would have to charge higher finance fees than a carrier with integrated financing, because they'd be assuming the risk of financing without the extra profit that comes from the monthly phone contract.
So since the integration of the two allows lower fees, and people lovvvvve lower fees, well... the integration of carriers and phone financing isn't very surprising...
It is, but nobody wants to pay $600 for a phone that could cost you $99 when subsidized by your network operator.
The problem is that any Ubuntu phone that is released will likely be just as locked down and filled with bloatware as everything else with Verizon.
Well, the key selling point for the carriers is that they can do whatever they want with the software without the Ubuntu branding. There is no one breathing down their neck telling them what to do. Naturally, the carriers will screw up thinking more crapware is better. What they really should do is understand less is also better.
If Canonical were smart, they should also work with handset manufacturers on a clean version of their software without all the crap - the Nexus phone approach. When given the option, most people opt for the crap-free phone. I have a feeling that if Canonical does not push this option it could really tarnish their name - like how Microsoft is always associated with viruses and malware.
If Canonical were smart, they should also work with handset manufacturers on a clean version of their software without all the crap - the Nexus phone approach. When given the option, most people opt for the crap-free phone. I have a feeling that if Canonical does not push this option it could really tarnish their name - like how Microsoft is always associated with viruses and malware.
iPhone doesn't come with bloatware? Why couldn't Ubuntu pull that off as Apple has? Less bargaining leverage, I guess...
Well the iPhone didn't come to Verizon for years because Apple would not let Verizon put its bloatware on the phone. Verizon only caved because Apple sales were so strong. iPhone only comes with Apple software, you have to manually download any Verizon apps.
My parents both got Androids recently, and while you can "hide" the pre-installed bloatware you still can't delete it. It took me about 30 minutes to clean the phones of all the widgets and crapware.
As the newcomer, a Ubuntu phone really wouldn't have any bargaining power and would be as bad or worse than Android.
My parents both got Androids recently, and while you can "hide" the pre-installed bloatware you still can't delete it. It took me about 30 minutes to clean the phones of all the widgets and crapware.
As the newcomer, a Ubuntu phone really wouldn't have any bargaining power and would be as bad or worse than Android.
Part of the problem of an "open" system is that the very flexibility/openness means your position is weak - there's very little you "can't" do.
Especially if you do it for one carrier - you can't easily say no to the next one.
Whereas with Apple, the carrier has no idea if the product is capable of their needs, and besides with the Apple brand it will sell millions regardless.
"open/flexible" is a double-edged sword.
Especially if you do it for one carrier - you can't easily say no to the next one.
Whereas with Apple, the carrier has no idea if the product is capable of their needs, and besides with the Apple brand it will sell millions regardless.
"open/flexible" is a double-edged sword.
And the NSA code injection :)
I don't like the way there are going with Network operators. Depending on a network operator is adding bloatware and less control, more fragmentation and hardware innovation.
Rather, How about they start a fund raising campaign or a Kickstarter - use a crowd-funding platform?
I will love to pay them.
Just to add: I'm mind blown after I switched to Ubuntu a year back. They already have numerous fans like me and Professional users, enterprises who trust them now, even the Server editions.
I would love to see Ubuntu grow independently! Go Ubuntu go, raise money, grow fast.
Rather, How about they start a fund raising campaign or a Kickstarter - use a crowd-funding platform?
I will love to pay them.
Just to add: I'm mind blown after I switched to Ubuntu a year back. They already have numerous fans like me and Professional users, enterprises who trust them now, even the Server editions.
I would love to see Ubuntu grow independently! Go Ubuntu go, raise money, grow fast.
They really should. If a bunch of ex-Nokia employees can form Jolla, and not only create a device but create as much interest as they have for it, I don't see what's stopping Ubuntu.
It's fairly easy these days to get a Chinese company to assemble any type of hardware for you, if you can commit do a decent sized order...
It's fairly easy these days to get a Chinese company to assemble any type of hardware for you, if you can commit do a decent sized order...
They've announced a number of companies to join their CAG. What is missing so far is any firm commitment that anyone is going to release one of these devices; without stuff likely to ship I don't see much likelihood of app developers doing anything on this platform.
Apple making an interesting contrast. Carriers that sell the iPhone have to make a sales commitment to Apple that about 10% of their subscribers per year buy an iPhone. The notable carriers that do not carry the iPhone balk at this: http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/17/the-iphone-moq/
Making that minimum order quantity means the carrier has to actively promote and support sales of iPhones.
As you state, I doubt the CAG includes any form of minimum order quantity, which means there aren't any incentives for the carriers to promote the phones. Canonical rather than the carriers will need to do demand generation. Samsung has a fairly high cost of sales (~25% compared to Apple at 10%). And nobody plays until you are spending a billion or more in advertising: http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/02/the-cost-of-selling-galaxie...
Firefox phone at least has the advantage of hundreds of millions of Firefox users which allows a degree of familiarity and awareness. By comparison Ubuntu is a rounding error.
Canonical have a massive hill to climb here. The CAG is at the base of the hill. I wonder what their strategy will be?
Making that minimum order quantity means the carrier has to actively promote and support sales of iPhones.
As you state, I doubt the CAG includes any form of minimum order quantity, which means there aren't any incentives for the carriers to promote the phones. Canonical rather than the carriers will need to do demand generation. Samsung has a fairly high cost of sales (~25% compared to Apple at 10%). And nobody plays until you are spending a billion or more in advertising: http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/02/the-cost-of-selling-galaxie...
Firefox phone at least has the advantage of hundreds of millions of Firefox users which allows a degree of familiarity and awareness. By comparison Ubuntu is a rounding error.
Canonical have a massive hill to climb here. The CAG is at the base of the hill. I wonder what their strategy will be?
It's all html5 and qml apps, so you are already writing those for other platforms. If Ubuntu Phone sees even mediocre success, app developers can spend a weekend porting their thing.
The race for third place is heating up! It's very interesting to consider Ubuntu Touch vs. Firefox OS - what happens when two platforms backed by two champions of FOSS come into conflict?
Not that conflict is inevitable, and it's explicitly against the public mission statement of Mozilla, at least, but these platforms will still be competing with each other for the few devs and consumers who reject both iOS and Android (and WinPho, and BBOS, and Tizen...)
Not that conflict is inevitable, and it's explicitly against the public mission statement of Mozilla, at least, but these platforms will still be competing with each other for the few devs and consumers who reject both iOS and Android (and WinPho, and BBOS, and Tizen...)
It is two 'champions of FOSS' but only one clear winner for us privacy-conscious users.
Long-term Ubuntu user here looking forward to retiring my Android phone for a Firefox model. I just got a Nexus 4 for my wife and for the first time ever didn't replace my phone at the same time.
If Firefox releases something a bit higher-end in the next 6-9 months I am very likely to switch.
Long-term Ubuntu user here looking forward to retiring my Android phone for a Firefox model. I just got a Nexus 4 for my wife and for the first time ever didn't replace my phone at the same time.
If Firefox releases something a bit higher-end in the next 6-9 months I am very likely to switch.
(Mozilla developer speaking)
I've tested FirefoxOS builds for more "high-end" devices (in quotes, because it is nothing like my Galaxy Nexus and your Nexus 4), namely the Geeksphone Peak and the Nexus S (a guy in my office is doing the port on his spare time, so I could play with it for a bit).
In terms of scrolling/panning/zooming, say, in a list, in the browser or on the home screen, the phone is basically at 60fps the time, the only slowdown I found were some GC pauses from time to time when doing some weird stuff (opening/closing apps like crazy to stress test the thing, basically, could slow the phone down) or browsing heavy webpages (in terms of js and CSS).
From dual core and up, the phone is really nice (I personally found the Geeksphone Keon to be too low in terms of specs, the experience was too far from my Android 4.2 device). Apps are coming (I would not have bet on a decent app map, but Nokia's solution is very decent, tbh, altough we certainly need more than a nice map app), hopefully we have something to announce later this year (I don't work on FirefoxOS specifically, I know as much as you do). I also know we also started working heavily on supporting hi-dpi devices [1].
[1]: The branch where the hi-dpi work is happening https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/tree/v1.1.0hd
I've tested FirefoxOS builds for more "high-end" devices (in quotes, because it is nothing like my Galaxy Nexus and your Nexus 4), namely the Geeksphone Peak and the Nexus S (a guy in my office is doing the port on his spare time, so I could play with it for a bit).
In terms of scrolling/panning/zooming, say, in a list, in the browser or on the home screen, the phone is basically at 60fps the time, the only slowdown I found were some GC pauses from time to time when doing some weird stuff (opening/closing apps like crazy to stress test the thing, basically, could slow the phone down) or browsing heavy webpages (in terms of js and CSS).
From dual core and up, the phone is really nice (I personally found the Geeksphone Keon to be too low in terms of specs, the experience was too far from my Android 4.2 device). Apps are coming (I would not have bet on a decent app map, but Nokia's solution is very decent, tbh, altough we certainly need more than a nice map app), hopefully we have something to announce later this year (I don't work on FirefoxOS specifically, I know as much as you do). I also know we also started working heavily on supporting hi-dpi devices [1].
[1]: The branch where the hi-dpi work is happening https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/tree/v1.1.0hd
I'm pretty torn about Firefox OS.
On the one hand:
* Mozilla's at the helm. My privacy is more likely to be respected. * Whipping up Firefox OS apps is stupid simple.
On the other:
* They don't seem to want to target higher-end handsets. * There's no NDK and as far as I'm aware there are no plans for one. While most of my Android apps could be rebuilt easily in Firefox OS, the programs with 3D graphics or C library dependencies seem to be out of luck. * As an extension to the above, I can't write Firefox OS apps with Rust, which is shaping up to be a great language.
On the one hand:
* Mozilla's at the helm. My privacy is more likely to be respected. * Whipping up Firefox OS apps is stupid simple.
On the other:
* They don't seem to want to target higher-end handsets. * There's no NDK and as far as I'm aware there are no plans for one. While most of my Android apps could be rebuilt easily in Firefox OS, the programs with 3D graphics or C library dependencies seem to be out of luck. * As an extension to the above, I can't write Firefox OS apps with Rust, which is shaping up to be a great language.
There has been very interesting results with emscripten ports of apps (I only saw video games, actually), that were using libc and raw gl. It was running ok, but I can understand that the lack of NDK is problematic when pushing the device to the limit. I'm curious on how we will address that (being a native developer working on Gecko myself, I'd certainly interested to do some crazy ARM NEON stuff on FxOS).
> They don't seem to want to target higher-end handsets
It's only the beginning and I think they are smart for doing this - iPhones are high-end and cheap Androids suck. The low-end market is still dominated by Symbian, or Bada, or Rex, or Asha, all of which suck.
They have a real shot at gaining significant market-share with this strategy. iOS and Android have too much inertia to beat by playing the high-end game.
It's only the beginning and I think they are smart for doing this - iPhones are high-end and cheap Androids suck. The low-end market is still dominated by Symbian, or Bada, or Rex, or Asha, all of which suck.
They have a real shot at gaining significant market-share with this strategy. iOS and Android have too much inertia to beat by playing the high-end game.
Thing is, there's nothing else that runs natively, it's just Gecko on SurfaceFlinger. FirefoxOS' UI is entirely implemented above that in HTML+JS. So there is no infrastructure that can be opened up to allow native apps, it would have to be written from scratch.
No native development kit is a non-starter for me personally.
Apple tried to go the same route with the original iPhone and there's a very good reason why it wasn't successful -- and it wasn't just the state of JavaScript technology at the time.
If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can.
Apple tried to go the same route with the original iPhone and there's a very good reason why it wasn't successful -- and it wasn't just the state of JavaScript technology at the time.
If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can.
> If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can.
Apple is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps.
Google is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps.
Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web.
Different goals, different requirements.
Apple is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps.
Google is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps.
Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web.
Different goals, different requirements.
The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK that I personally believe are not going to be resolvable in the next 2-3 years, even with asm.js and all the other great things Mozilla is doing to advance the web.
I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs.
I personally find your for-profit argument specious at best.
I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs.
I personally find your for-profit argument specious at best.
> The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation.
Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place.
> There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK
Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose.
> I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs.
Sure, and that's why you might need a native SDK, not why Mozilla needs one.
Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place.
> There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK
Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose.
> I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs.
Sure, and that's why you might need a native SDK, not why Mozilla needs one.
Firefox OS will advance very little if it flops because it has crappy apps because Mozilla refused to admit pragmatism.
I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.
I do not know if this will actually happen or if such pragmatism is actually required, but developers' needs are far from irrelevant.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
> Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web.
So why on earth are they making a phone? It's a piece of hardware, kind of weird/painful that I still have to go through javascript. The best fix for this is compiling to javascript, which is distinctly unappealing.
So why on earth are they making a phone? It's a piece of hardware, kind of weird/painful that I still have to go through javascript. The best fix for this is compiling to javascript, which is distinctly unappealing.
For high end handsets, consider Jolla's Sailfish.
>for us privacy-conscious users
You're phone's OS is almost entirely irrelevant with regard to privacy. The snooping that we know about (PRISM, AT&T selling private data, etc.) is happening at the carrier level.
You're phone's OS is almost entirely irrelevant with regard to privacy. The snooping that we know about (PRISM, AT&T selling private data, etc.) is happening at the carrier level.
[deleted]
Wouldn't Ubuntu Touch and FirefoxOS be competing in the race for 5th place? Windows Phone has third place locked up, and Blackberry is a very strong 4th place right behind them.
I doubt WP8 has 3rd place locked up. It's 3rd place, but it's a lot closer to 4th,5th, etc, than it is to iOS and Android. Blackberry and "strong place" don't match.
WP8 has Nokia's entire product line running it. Nokia ain't what they used to be, but the brand still has fans and they make a lot of phones.
What would be the nearest 5th place contenders to WP8 and Blackberry?
I think right now there aren't any strong 3rd place contenders. Windows Phone is the anemic upstart, BBOS is the swiftly declining dinosaur. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses both platforms have, neither have managed to project a truly compelling value proposition for consumers to seek out as an alternative.
I'm very happy about this. I've been hoping for Ubuntu's mobile OS to catch on, since it doubles as a desktop. Ubuntu's concept (an actual pocket PC), is where I see the next move in mobile computing actually going.
This might be a bad thing for Ubuntu. Verizon will preload crapware onto the phone to death thereby negating whatever value proposition the OS has.
I doubt whether it is even a "thing" for Ubuntu. In Verizon's shoes I'd certainly claim this, if only to harass existing suppliers to get a better deal from them!
[deleted]
Would be good for T-Mobile to back Jolla ;)
So there's going to be a bunch of carrier crapware, Amazon search results and ads, and no doubt the instability that Ubuntu is known for. No Java/Dalvik, just QML, HTML5 and QT.
I'd rather go with Jolla for a hacker's phone, or just stick to Android. Ubuntu's been dropping the ball alot lately, and their phone project looks DOA...
I'd rather go with Jolla for a hacker's phone, or just stick to Android. Ubuntu's been dropping the ball alot lately, and their phone project looks DOA...
I'm encouraged but I watched the video here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/phone
We can't lock the phone? The phone decides how to search? Developers empowered by Java on Android would have to go back 1 or 2 decades to C or C++ to make apps?
That's sounding pretty limiting.
http://www.ubuntu.com/phone
We can't lock the phone? The phone decides how to search? Developers empowered by Java on Android would have to go back 1 or 2 decades to C or C++ to make apps?
That's sounding pretty limiting.
Yes, you can lock the phone.
The main programming environment is QML, not C or C++.
The way I heard Mark state it, it sounded like you don't lock the phone and sounded specifically to me like you can't lock the phone. He mentioned C/C++ within milliseconds after mentioning QML. If QML is sufficient for achieving what Java can great, for those people who want to go back to Qt. I think Qt went out with Nokia. Why didn't they choose Gtk? Why not Java for the language? Why re-invent the wheel with their own thing like Google is trying to do with DART? Java and Gtk rock and should be at the center of Canonical's universe.
To see Ubuntu's phone lock feature, please see this: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/07/pinlock-feature-demoed-on...
So, for a Ubuntu phone, at least on the privacy/respect front, it's no better than Android. Android has better support, has a ton of third party support and the weight of Google behind it. Can anyone explain why should I switch to a Ubuntu phone?