ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Mathijs Veen <mathijsv33n@xxxxxxxxx>]

hi Nathan

Who said I was upset :) ? I didn't. In fact I think I am very relaxed about
it. Just trying to get the maximum info that I can before deciding on a new
device for myself.

I need a new phone after having run down 2 n4's, and a  bq e45. I would
really love it to be another Ubuntu phone but i'd hate to have shelled out
a 100 euros for a sec hand N4 or Oneplus one or whatever and discovering
that a month later a new supported phone hits the market. Dont blame me too
much for asking ;)

Thanks for your response non the less

cheers

Mathijs

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Nathan Haines <nhaines@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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/
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> Post to     : ubuntu-phone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>