5 ms·

I think he means that they were not able to sell the idea to device vendors sufficiently. The 'market' he refers to are the device vendors, not the end users.

by DCKing 10y ago

I think he means that they were not able to sell the idea to device vendors sufficiently. The 'market' he refers to are the device vendors, not the end users. If you make a mobile operating system but you don't make devices, you need to be able to convince device vendors to sell the product for you to end users. They didn't succeed in that.

notatoad 10y ago
>I think he means that they were not able to sell the idea to device vendors sufficiently. And the implication from that is that if vendors aren't looking to make a ubuntu phone, it's because their customers aren't asking for a ubuntu phone. Regardless of how many layers there are between Canonical and the end user, there weren't a lot of end-users asking for a Ubuntu phone.
zanny 10y ago
This is probably why they tried the Edge campaign 4 years ago. They weren't getting anywhere with vendors then, and weren't now, so they eventually had to give up. It should be a bit concerning how uncompetitive the market is that you really cannot even try to launch a mobile OS of your own as a product, since you are beholden to telecom operators and handset manufacturers on both ends, all of whom have government granted monopolies or protection in their own industries to prevent competition.
- scribu 10y ago
  I agree that it sucks there is so little competition in the mobile OS space, but I don't think government involvement is enough to explain this situation. Take Microsoft - it became a handset manufacturer and is still struggling to make Windows Phone a winner.
  - zanny 10y ago
    That is exactly why government involvement is such an issue. Microsoft could throw around insane sums of money with its mobile aspirations - and has - while at the same time most users of it say it was the best of the major offerings, they had no success. That was because Microsoft could have all the money in the world, but couldn't operate a cell network out of thin air that would promote their devices. They also had limited access to hardware - they had to outright buy Nokia to even get minor device manufacturer access, and even then few companies ever offered Windows Phone devices despite Microsoft throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at it. When Microsoft cannot make inroads - a company that outright buys entire business sectors to own competition - its disastrous.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Unfortunately, in this particular "market", Google has a complete, and uncontested monopoly. :/

by DCKing 10y ago

notatoad 10y ago

>I think he means that they were not able to sell the idea to device vendors sufficiently. And the implication from that is that if vendors aren't looking to make a ubuntu phone, it's because their customers aren't asking for a ubuntu phone. Regardless of how many layers there are between Canonical and the end user, there weren't a lot of end-users asking for a Ubuntu phone.

zanny 10y ago

This is probably why they tried the Edge campaign 4 years ago. They weren't getting anywhere with vendors then, and weren't now, so they eventually had to give up. It should be a bit concerning how uncompetitive the market is that you really cannot even try to launch a mobile OS of your own as a product, since you are beholden to telecom operators and handset manufacturers on both ends, all of whom have government granted monopolies or protection in their own industries to prevent competition.

scribu 10y ago
I agree that it sucks there is so little competition in the mobile OS space, but I don't think government involvement is enough to explain this situation. Take Microsoft - it became a handset manufacturer and is still struggling to make Windows Phone a winner.
- zanny 10y ago
  That is exactly why government involvement is such an issue. Microsoft could throw around insane sums of money with its mobile aspirations - and has - while at the same time most users of it say it was the best of the major offerings, they had no success. That was because Microsoft could have all the money in the world, but couldn't operate a cell network out of thin air that would promote their devices. They also had limited access to hardware - they had to outright buy Nokia to even get minor device manufacturer access, and even then few companies ever offered Windows Phone devices despite Microsoft throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at it. When Microsoft cannot make inroads - a company that outright buys entire business sectors to own competition - its disastrous.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Unfortunately, in this particular "market", Google has a complete, and uncontested monopoly. :/