ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Zisu Andrei <matzipan@xxxxxxxxx>]

We need to reach a conclusion.

We have few possible solutions:

   - unifying the applications under one roof and avoiding the trademark
   alltogether => things are unified(tm), but there could be a problem with
   user experience as the user might not be accustomed to them being like this
   (BlinkFeed sorta)
   - unifying the application under one roof but keeping the f/t/yb
   branding => things are still unified(tm), but might better meet user's
   expectations, presents problems with trademark licensing and release
   licensing (also, the vendors might choose to license it under the condition
   to add some closed features for advertising and stuff

My opinion also is that I disgusted from the beginning the use of "Twitter"
> and "Facebook" in the names of the core apps. I understand the focus on
> these services caused by superior user reach. But I am sad about the lack
> of choice of services in the design of the core apps. My estimation is that
> putting choice into the (now called) ubuntu-twitter-app for Status.net
> services is a low hanging fruit.


The reason why it's Facebook and Twitter right now, and no other options is
not because Ubuntu might choose to limit the users, but simply, integrating
other services like status.net or identi.ca would be impractical in such a
short time when comparing their popularity.

ubuntu-twitter-app is what I want to talk about.
> That the app name is against the terms of Twitter we accept as a fact.


There is no licensing problem with the webapps, as they are merely a link
to the respective website.

Zisu Andrei


On 19 March 2013 13:49, Octavian Damiean <mainerror@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 03/19/2013 12:38 PM, Alan Miller wrote:
>
>> Ubuntu will probably be most accepted in places like China where none of
>> these core services apps are used (allowed)  anyway.
>> Facebook is not the biggest social network in the world, QQ in china is
>> almost twice as big.
>>
>
> This might be true. I can't comment on that.
>
>
>  Cant we use XML or mobile html or something suitable ? I am avoiding
>> saying HTML5 like what firefox OS proposes to solve these issues.
>>
>
> Not sure why you avoid saying HTML5. Ubuntu Touch will have HTML5 apps as
> well. HTML5 is not a FirefoxOS bound term.
>
> Also, I don't quite understand what you meant there. What would you want
> to do with XML?
>
>
>  I think just adding "apps" just means it all ends up like an android
>> phone and misses the point of the workflow of the phone concept.
>>
>> All the "apps" would be in there, just presented in a different way.
>>
>
> There's no point missed. That's just personal preference. Some argue that
> a Swiss army knife is great others argue that a scalpel is better.
>
> In the end it all boils down to meeting user expectations and
> discoverability.
>
>
> --
> Octavian Damiean
>
> Launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~**mainerror<https://launchpad.net/~mainerror>
> Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/u/**418183<http://stackoverflow.com/u/418183>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-**phone<https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone>
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.**net<ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-**phone<https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp<https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
>