ubuntu-phone team mailing list archive

[Eric Holmi <empholmi@xxxxxxxxx>]

That logic holds true for users that are not USA based. For those of us who
are, we run into the following series of troubles. 1) All of the Meizu
phones are not FCC licensed and therefore can't be used in the USA. 2) The
Nexus 4 is too fragile for everyday use. I ran through 4 $125 screen
replacements in 5 months. 3) Using ports is questionable at best. The ones
from Ubports don't have bluetooth or convergence features (I think. Don't
quote me on that last one, as I haven't tested with my Nexus 5 yet). If I
attempt to make my own port, I am stuck with either expensive or low-end
hardware, and for those of us who do not have much mobile experience,
creating a port is challenging. The available guides are incomplete (for
example: apparmour) or trouble shooting is unrealistic for those without
experience.

For those of us in the USA, an official phone would be great if it were
international. I'm having a hard time learning to port devices and,
besides, I am more interested in the deployment of apps, scripts, and tools
from the mobile terminal. I'm attempting to start a career in penetration
testing (I'm still learning), and being able to deploy scripts from my
phone would be great. I realize somethings take being in rw mode, but I can
work around that.

The other issue with working with US OEMs is revenue. I know plenty of
people who love my phone, but would never use it due to the lack of common
apps. US OEMs know this and most likely won't make a Ubuntu Touch phone
until common apps are present (such as clash of clans, libreoffice, or
pokemon go). So those of us in the US are screwed in one way or another.

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Jens Grivolla <jens.grivolla@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> I think that at this point it's better to have readily available Android
> phones that you can flash UT on ("official" reference devices), than
> selling UT devices as a product. The latter creates false expectations,
> whereas the people who should be trying UT now won't mind buying the device
> with Android on it and reflashing it.
>
> As I've written before, I bought the UT versions of the bq M10 FHD because
> nobody at bq could tell me if I could flash UT on the Android version of
> the tablet (and because I wanted to show support for Ubuntu). However, this
> cost me at least 50€ more than if I had just bought the Android version in
> the store next door (actually 70€, but it included the bundled cover), for
> a device that is much less usable. Just making sure that the M10, as sold
> with Android, can be flashed to UT (i.e. no locked bootloader, etc.) and
> naming it as a supported reference device would, I think, be a much better
> option. I would still have bought it, and I would feel better about it. At
> least then it would have been clear that I am flashing an experimental
> build to try out a new OS (and provide feedback to developers). It would
> also have been much easier to buy the device, as the Android version had
> been readily available for many months already.
>
> While I'm at it, I would like to add that multiboot support would be very
> important to make adoption of UT easier. At this point, my M10 is running
> Android because I needed to actually use it like a normal person, and I
> can't easily switch back to UT to check out the latest improvements without
> sacrificing my Android tablet (which I use quite a lot). Which means that I
> won't be able to try UT again until neither I nor my family are going to
> need the tablet for at least a few weeks (I'm not going to flash back and
> forth every day, and have to set everything up again from scratch).
>
> In short: forget about selling Ubuntu Touch devices to consumers, and
> instead make sure that it can be easily tried on readily available Android
> devices (as dual-boot).
>
> Best,
> Jens
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Ivo Fernandes <ivoxavier.8@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> More phones will be available to buy when the platform is free of some
>> bugs and, of course, ready to all type of apps. The current devices where
>> made to help push foward the OS. I've a friend that brought a M10, and it's
>> not quite ready for convergence, the keyboard still lacks in features. No
>> one kwon's when the most critical bugs will be fixed, so... I think saying,
>> from bq side, "We've no plans" seems legit to me. Remember, the current
>> phones are "developers" phone, that's it. This was expected, just google it
>> mark shuttleworth saying. First round of very limited devices, then a
>> second one and finally a third one.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:22 AM, mark <j.m.holmes@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I admire what Fairphone are doing (although I'd personally like a bigger
>>> device), and I like that the community port is quite advanced: I'd go for
>>> that.
>>>
>>> As I've said many times elsewhere: it would be good if we could flash
>>> Ubuntu onto the device of our choosing - unfortunately, at least at the
>>> moment, that seems to be a difficult thing to do.
>>>
>>>
>>> m
>>>
>>> On 08/09/16 01:31, Bob Summerwill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that could be a sensible approach, and would mirror the community
>>> effort and partnership which brought Sailfish OS to Fairphone 2.
>>>
>>> That just started with some porters and then grew into something bigger,
>>> with active collaboration with Fairphone engineers. There was even
>>> discussion of that becoming an official option for FP2, so that customers
>>> could buy a device with SFOS per-installed. Maybe do a deal with Myriad so
>>> that AlienDalvik could be shipped, etc.
>>>
>>> https://forum.fairphone.com/t/will-sailfish-os-be-officially
>>> -supported-on-the-fp2/16839/9
>>>
>>> Looks like there is already a FP2 port in progress:
>>>
>>> https://devices.ubports.com/#/FP2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016, mark <j.m.holmes@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > If Meizu and bq have lost interest in the platform, and are really not
>>> planning to build new phones then, perhaps enthusiasts - of which there
>>> seem to be no shortage - should go down the Fairphone route, and
>>> crowd-source a small run of devices, designed for Ubuntu and produced by an
>>> OEM. I don't know what the run of the Meizu or bq phones amounted to, but
>>> surely say ~20,000 high-spec Ubuntu phones could be sold?
>>> >
>>> > m
>>> >
>>> > On 07/09/16 17:53, Mitchell Reese wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thursday, 8 September 2016 4:47:42 AM AEST, Bob Summerwill <
>>> bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Are OEMs not queuing up to ship devices running Touch?
>>> >
>>> > I suspect that the answer to that is "no".
>>> >
>>> > If, as seems likely, both BQ and Meizu have no immediate plans to ship
>>> > further Ubuntu Touch devices then that likely means that it is not
>>> > economically beneficial to them to do so.   That certainly isn't an
>>> > appealing market for other OEMs to join.    Canonical would likely be
>>> > pouring their money down the drain with such a device.
>>> >
>>> > Mozilla went through a very similar journey with Firefox OS, though
>>> with
>>> > way more devices and way more traction.   They ended up giving up on
>>> the
>>> > device side, and focusing on just community ports, and on application
>>> of
>>> > the OS to new (non-mobile) markets.
>>> >
>>> > Mobile is a tough, tough market to compete with.    Commodity Android
>>> > devices are very, very compelling to the mass market.    Mobile Linux
>>> is a
>>> > really niche.   See the troubles Jolla have experienced too.     Even
>>> > Samsung are struggling to make any kind of impact with Tizen - though
>>> that
>>> > likely has more to do with their own internal politics than any lack of
>>> > resourcing or ability to sell large volumes.
>>> >
>>> > My personal feeling is that mobile is now "mature", and uninteresting,
>>> like
>>> > the PC market.   Who really cares if you have an ASUS or an Acer or a
>>> HP or
>>> > whatever.    They have razor-thin markets and little
>>> differentiation.    I
>>> > think that is where mobile is getting to be, with Android as the
>>> Windows,
>>> > and iOS as the Mac.    So iOS is premium and profitable, "because
>>> Apple",
>>> > but Android is the de-facto standard, commodity and unprofitable.
>>> That
>>> > is a really unappealing place to try to build a third platform.
>>> >
>>> > Android has utterly skewed manufacturing too, to my understanding, so
>>> that
>>> > if you want to get a SoC now, you are going to get Android bootloaders
>>> and
>>> > drivers on it.   As blobs.   And you're just going to have to suck
>>> that up.
>>> >    Want X11 drivers?   No way.
>>> >
>>> > Tizen is the only mobile Linux which hasn't just made the pragmatic
>>> choice
>>> > of avoiding the issue by using Hybris.   For everybody else, Android
>>> has
>>> > become the de-facto HAL :-)
>>> >
>>> > So yeah... I have an MX5 Pro as my daily driver and love it.   MX4
>>> before
>>> > that.    But I don't have much hope of any future Ubuntu Touch mobile
>>> > devices.    I think we're likely walking dead, but just haven't stopped
>>> > walking yet.
>>> >
>>> > So maybe Jolla and Tizen are the "last men standing" in this space?
>>> For
>>> > mobile profile, at least.    Tablets are a different story.   Ditto
>>> IoT and
>>> > Ubuntu Snappy Core.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:49 AM, mark <j.m.holmes@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > The same thought had crossed my mind. Touch seems to be reaching the
>>> point
>>> > of maturity where something of the Edge's specs might come to
>>> fruition. It
>>> > would be a winner, imho.
>>> >
>>> > Are OEMs not queuing up to ship devices running Touch?
>>> >
>>> > m
>>> >
>>> > On 07/09/16 14:32, Art wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Question.......
>>> >
>>> > I read all the comments, and I am now curious.....
>>> >
>>> > What is to stop Canonical from releasing their own branded phones right
>>> > now?? Just because the current 'offering' isn't Canonical branded, Is
>>> there
>>> > anything that prevents them from selling a Canonical branded phone
>>> later
>>> > on??
>>> >
>>> > After all, now we know that a linux based phone actually works, what
>>> is to
>>> > stop Canonical (or even myself) from seeking out an independent phone
>>> OEM,
>>> > buying them in bulk and rebranding them, complete with the linux
>>> software
>>> > already installed?
>>> >
>>> > Great list all, I hope to see the linux phone succeed! It's about time
>>> we
>>> > take back control of our own phones and block all the 'features' that
>>> rob
>>> > us of our privacy!!
>>> >
>>> > Art
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 09/05/2016 10:49 AM, Krzysztof Tataradziński wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hi
>>> >
>>> > Did anyone from Canonical considered to 'simply' develop phone
>>> themselves
>>> > alone, order it in factory and sell with Canonical brand?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Hmmm. Disagree - thanfully. Otherwise, whats the point? Similar
>>> arguments when Microsoft was still a thing - why compete?
>>> >
>>> > The thing about Ubuntu is it's also a desktop system - and has the
>>> potential to be much more. Will be interesting to see where this goes, but
>>> I'm backing Canonical.
>>> > M
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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
>
>