ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Mathijs Veen <mathijsv33n@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thnks Giovano but not to worry! I took no offence to Nathan whatsover. I
know him to be very helpfull and knowlegable generally in the Ubuntu fora.
And I have learnt not to be too thin skinned in discussions in open source
:D
Actually, I would say that Ubuntu is on the whole still one of the most
civilized and on-topic foss community projects that I frequent.
All good!

cheers

Mathijs


On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Giovano Iannotti <iannotti@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Hi, guys,
>
> Sorry to interrupt.
> I don't know if you know each other.
> If not, I found Nathan very rude. I am a Ubuntu user who bought both bq
> 4.5 and m10, because I like Linux and have been using Ubuntu since ever.
> That's my way to help Ubuntu and Linux communities and fight against the
> big corporations.
> I think Mathijs had an innocent question and a very understandable
> concern. He already bought 3 mobiles to use Ubuntu touch. I didn't see him
> as someone trying to undermine anything, or trying to induce Cannonical's
> employees to give him privileged information, betray the company. I would
> like to know it myself. Eventually, my wife will switch to Ubuntu touch
> also.
> What kind of answer is this: "t's usually *illegal* to leak this
> information because of SEC and other stock regulations."? Well, I may be
> very stupid, but I never thought that trying to know if some company will
> launch a product, as a final consumer, could be a crime. Besides, I don't
> know and don't wanna know what is SEC and what are the stock regulations. I
> don't care. I care about an OS that is free and is offering alternatives to
> real people's lives in a very destructive capitalist system. I care about
> collectivism, friendship, being respectful. Otherwise, I would use an
> Apple, Microsoft of Google product.
> I felt outraged with the tone of the answer. I am not sure why to try to
> make Mathijs look as a selfish, irresponsible person. The same answer could
> be given in a more polite way.
>
> On the other hand, if you know each other, I apologize.
>
>
> Wish you all the best and thanks for developing Ubuntu. It is an excellent
> OS and I have faith that Ubuntu touch will become an excellent system too.
> Don't give up!
>
>
> Giovano
>
>
>
> 2016-08-26 21:14 GMT+10:00 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
>