ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Nathan Haines <nhaines@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/26/2016 03:21 AM, Mathijs Veen wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> > Canonical has *very* little to do with this.  Everything is up to OEMs
> > and carriers.  So you'll need to rely on Bq or Meizu for any kind of
> > definitive information.
>
> I know that that is the official response when pppl ask about a possible
> new device on the cards. And I appreciate that such an announcement
> would certainly be up to oems.
> But if a device is actualy *not* being worked on (anymore) by Canonical,
> Why shouldnt that be ok for Canonical to say so? Just like I would
> expect Canonical to be in a position to confirm it is NOT currently
> developing an Ubuntu edition of say a Lumia 640.

Because there's no way for them to know.  The ultimate fate--launch, 
suspension, reevaluation, cancellation, etc.--literally depends on the 
OEM.  In the cellular industry (as with all others), the contracts come 
with non-disclosure agreements.  The OEM's business department decides 
whether or not device development will begin, at what specs, at what 
launch target, and then when that is contractually locked down, they 
will determine the continuing status.  The OEM's marketing department 
will be in charge of any announcements, on what channels, and in what 
shape communications will form.

> i am of course refering to the vanishing Midori images. Also, at least
> some of the buzz of months past about the MX6 must have originated from
> Canonical sources ;)

No, there's no reason to think that.  Chinese vendors often leak 
information as a way of measuring interest.  If so, this was something 
that Meizu did.

> But we have seen no more news or hints for months
> now. So if the MX6 is -for some reason- no more, it would be cool -and
> really practical info for me and a lot of others- if that could be
> confirmed.

The MX6 never *was*.  In fact, this is exactly my point--you have made a 
decision based on a rumor without an announcement.  Now, that's up to 
you, but I would never recommend it.  It's a very foolish thing to do.

Now imagine that an OEM (or worse, Canonical, who has no say in whether 
a device launches or not) makes an announcement before things have been 
determined and budgeted.  How much more upset will you be if you make a 
decision based on that?

You're asking Canonical to undermine their partners in a most 
professional way.  You're upset that OEMs don't undermine themselves in 
a very professional way.  You're asking about an imaginary device that 
was never announced.  Maybe they ran some tests and decided that the 
phone's hardware wasn't compatible, or wasn't powerful enough, or wasn't 
profitable enough, or any number of reasons a company might not continue 
development on a model.  Maybe the MX25 is coming out next week and they 
shifted focus to that.  In any case, if work was done on midori, it 
wasn't announced and we can see that in general this is for good reason. 
 In fact, it's usually *illegal* to leak this information because of 
SEC and other stock regulations.

Business just doesn't work that way.  And OEMs don't necessarily tell 
Canonical anything at all, much less in a timely manner.  In the 
meantime, you're on this list asking developers who don't work for 
Canonical for inside information.

This is a pretty good rant, and it's not all directed at you.  I'm 
explaining this in detail because "Why doesn't Canonical derelict their 
contractual obligations by committing securities fraud, trading insider 
information, and betraying and undermining their commercial partners 
plans and market advantage so that I, personally, can be excited about a 
phone before it's certain that it will be released?" is a question that 
comes up a lot.  So I'm elaborating to give others something to think about.

The answer is because there's *zero* reason to do so, and a lot of very 
expensive legal reasons not to do so, even if anybody *would* work with 
Canonical again if they did.

I understand the excitement, and I've wanted to ask colleagues at 
Canonical as well when I have the privilege of seeing them in person.  I 
don't ask, because they don't know and it's an extremely unreasonable 
question.

--
Nathan Haines
Ubuntu - http://www.ubuntu.com/