unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>]

Den 08. nov. 2011 00:24, skrev Omar B.:
> You can get some ideas here (maemo):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuYaOxfoJ1g&feature=related
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhTtsZATwBQ
>
> The plans (ubuntu on phones):
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMDY
>
> The critics (some very good comments):
> http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/73688.html
>
>
> After you see and read those, we can get an idea of how to make ubuntu 
> on mobile and hybrids a success. If not we lose...
Really? I actually disagreed with most of that. But let's handle the 
mistakes lots of people are making. They think that Unity is a visual 
design. Unity is first and foremost a set of APIs. Then, there is a 
visual design implemented by two primary interfaces, and a few others. 
For instance, as I understand it, both LXDE and Xfce supports 
indicators. They don't look and feel identical to how they look and feel 
in Unity, of course. That's the point. You move the task of displaying 
these things away from the app and onto the shell. The same is true for 
all parts of Unity, be it the global menus, indicators, notifications, 
the launcher or lenses. They don't have to _look_ the same way. They 
have to have the same features. This is perfectly compatible with mobile 
phones. So, when people say that Unity will fail because you can't have 
the same interfaces on different devices, they've completely 
misunderstood the point, which is that if you know how to make an app 
for the desktop, then you also automatically know how to make an app for 
a tablet or for a phone. This is not true for any current operating 
system, unless you count HTML-apps, which is so user hostile, I don't 
even understand how anyone can consider it a viable option. As an 
example, on desktops, if you need help with the current application, 
then you press F1. The web doesn't even have _that_.
Then there is the omnipresent notion that "it is too late". Too late? 
Most people who are alive today, have no experience with computers at 
all. Of those who do, a great many do not have a strong preference. And 
loyalty is declining, which is obviously a very good thing for everyone. 
I've been using web browsers for about twenty years now. Does that mean 
Google Chrome cannot become a viable option to Internet Explorer and 
Firefox, who both joined at an early stage?
Reality seems to disagree with the people who speculates that it's too 
late. Another popular claim is that Ubuntu cannot succeed on the phone 
because Canonical won't get any exclusive partnerships with hardware 
manufacturers. But I don't agree with the assumption that hardware 
manufacturers will want these kinds of exclusive partnerships. Why on 
earth should they refuse to take my money because I prefer Android to 
Windows Phone, or Ubuntu to Android? Or what if I want to dual boot? I 
have a Nokia N8. I really love the phone, but the software is so 
horrible, I can hardly use it. If I could install Android on it, or 
Ubuntu -- even current Ubuntu with no modifications -- then I would. If 
Nokia doesn't want to sell me a phone unless use Symbian, then I've 
bought my last Nokia phone. It's that easy. Hardware manufacturers 
aren't stupid enough to reject even a few million customers.
It is certainly not too late. To learn from that thought, is to admit 
defeat without even raising the shield -- much less the sword. After 
all, most computer users haven't even been born yet. Computers is not a 
fad. Let me quote Churchill: «Now... this is not the end. It is not even 
the beginning ... of the end. Though, it is perhaps the end of the 
beginning.»
Wow, I didn't intend for this to become so verbose. :)

Jo-Erlend Schinstad