5 ms·

What's with all this negativity? It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise and most people are naysayers because of that, but if the ones that actually b

What's with all this negativity? It's the easiest thing in the world to criticise and most people are naysayers because of that, but if the ones that actually build stuff would listen to all of this criticism then nothing would get done. > it takes a lot of hard work, design talent, and money So freaking what? Besides fart apps, all other projects need hard work, design talent and money. That didn't stop projects from succeeded without design talent and/or money, with hard work as a substitute for both. Android sucked up until version 2.3. Did that stop it from being a success? And sure, Android had good timing too, but the current market for smartphones and tablets is only getting started and will be much larger than it currently is. I can also see phone manufacturers being afraid of Google's or Microsoft's grip on the platform ... Samsung for instance is pouring resources into Bada, just in case. Personally I think Firefox OS has a much better chance of succeeding as an alternative to Android, but at the very least I'm not ready to lambast Canonical for trying. The world needs more builders and less naysayers.

codex 14y ago
Let me put it another way: it pains me to see mediocre companies like Canonical chase the latest fad with "me too" products. If more people could recognize failure ahead of time, perhaps we would get more true innovation somewhere else, or at least real attempts at home run, big bet initiatives. The world is full of opportunities to make original contributions. Look at Elon Musk: he may fail, but at least he is a prime mover.
- Argorak 14y ago
  a) you seem to have a serious personal problem with Canonical. b) Ubuntu Phone is certainly not a me-too product. Its and interesting iteration of the concept, especially with the ability of running a fully-fledged desktop.
  - codex 14y ago
    Interestingly, for a time some Android handset manufacturers put out concept phones that could dock with laptop shells; when the phone was in the dock, you got a desktop version of Android, and your phone OS was still running in a window in that desktop. In fact, the mobile OS switched over to running in a virtual machine and the desktop OS took over the hardware. Interesting stuff but it went nowhere. Apple had a different take, patenting a method to place all of your desktop apps and settings on your phone (and possibly the OS itself) allowing you to use any Mac as if it were your own. Not productized yet, of course.
    - Argorak 14y ago
      Yep. You say the magic words: "not productized yet, of course." So Ubuntu phone is novel, except to all of us geeks and is an interesting way to break into the desktop market. Also, it doesn't use the "2 VM"-Concept: it is one operating system with 2 shells from the ground up, not tacked onto Android. Microsoft had awesome touch devices quite a while ago (I played around with a Surface table and really liked it, int its rough state), but didn't execute. And thats the important part of it. If Canonical executes that idea, they will be first in their niche.
      - codex 14y ago
        That is one interpretation. However, given Android and Apple's proven ability to execute, I suspect this feature was never productized because it's not mainstream enough to matter. They looked at it, and shelved it. Even BlackBerry didn't do it, and their new phone is chock full of cool stuff. Personally, I think even "non mainstream" is too generous; it's a Hail Mary feature. That said, if Canonical can subsist on a fraction of 1.74% Linux market share (as measured by browser usage), perhaps they can subsist on a fraction of that in the mobile phone market, too.
mercurial 14y ago
Personally I have a hard time believing either will gain significant market share (much as I would like them to). Even Microsoft, a much larger company with huge brand recognition and what people seem to think is a well-executed product (never tried a Windows phone myself) keeps failing. But best of luck to them. Having a dockable smartphone would be fantastic... if you could switch to xmonad on the desktop :)
- bad_user 14y ago
  On Microsoft, it's debatable if Windows Phone is a well executed product or not. I played with one and personally I hated it. First of all, with both Windows Phone and Windows 8 they went way too far with their minimalistic design. The interface gives you no clues on what things are clickable, or what actions you can do. Many times you end up doing things and have no idea what got you there in the first place. Going back to what you were doing is equally painful. Microsoft also tried to come up with design guidelines, but they aren't the kind of company to enforce such guidelines and even they are guilty of breaking those guidelines, so there's also a lack of established conventions. The interface, while pretty and shiny, simply sucks. Second, Windows Phone 7 (don't know about 8) lacked the ability to run native binaries, with some rare exceptions if you happened to be one of few privileged big companies. This is in addition to the lack of support for OpenGL, making ports of games a bitch to deal with. Did you know that many games that are available on both Android and iOS have the same codebase for both? It's no wonder that Microsoft's Marketplace is empty, because nobody wanted to deal with yet another proprietary platform using proprietary APIs. Speaking of WinPhone 7, it also sucked that many users didn't receive the upgrade to WinPhone 8. In regards to upgrades, at least Android has the excuse of fragmentation that you can put up with because of its popularity, but Microsoft has no excuse for that. Third, everybody fears a new Microsoft monopoly. Windows Phone is a proprietary OS, built by a big company which is known to use aggresive tactics to move to new markets, by averaging their already established monopoly on desktops. Android on the other hand, even if it is controlled by Google, can always be forked in case shit happens (hey, Amazon already did it). Android also allows users to install apps from third party sources. Windows Phone does not allow one to do that. My Samsung Galaxy came with their Samsung's marketplace on it (or whatever they call it) installed. Sure it sucks in comparison to Google Play, but it's there for their peace of mind (they also have their own OS btw, called Bada, which is more successful than Windows Phone, because Samsung knows how to sell). Microsoft is also known for dropping the ball after they achieve success ... projects like IExplorer and Windows Mobile stagnated for years before Microsoft finally felt the heat from competition. Only Nokia was stupid enough to invest heavily in Windows Phone and that's only because Microsoft is putting money in their pockets. I don't know how good Ubuntu will be for smartphones or how well Canonical will execute. But Ubuntu (and Firefox OS for that matter) will not have the same problems and we might be surprised.

codex 14y ago

Let me put it another way: it pains me to see mediocre companies like Canonical chase the latest fad with "me too" products. If more people could recognize failure ahead of time, perhaps we would get more true innovation somewhere else, or at least real attempts at home run, big bet initiatives. The world is full of opportunities to make original contributions. Look at Elon Musk: he may fail, but at least he is a prime mover.

Argorak 14y ago
a) you seem to have a serious personal problem with Canonical. b) Ubuntu Phone is certainly not a me-too product. Its and interesting iteration of the concept, especially with the ability of running a fully-fledged desktop.
- codex 14y ago
  Interestingly, for a time some Android handset manufacturers put out concept phones that could dock with laptop shells; when the phone was in the dock, you got a desktop version of Android, and your phone OS was still running in a window in that desktop. In fact, the mobile OS switched over to running in a virtual machine and the desktop OS took over the hardware. Interesting stuff but it went nowhere. Apple had a different take, patenting a method to place all of your desktop apps and settings on your phone (and possibly the OS itself) allowing you to use any Mac as if it were your own. Not productized yet, of course.
  - Argorak 14y ago
    Yep. You say the magic words: "not productized yet, of course." So Ubuntu phone is novel, except to all of us geeks and is an interesting way to break into the desktop market. Also, it doesn't use the "2 VM"-Concept: it is one operating system with 2 shells from the ground up, not tacked onto Android. Microsoft had awesome touch devices quite a while ago (I played around with a Surface table and really liked it, int its rough state), but didn't execute. And thats the important part of it. If Canonical executes that idea, they will be first in their niche.
    - codex 14y ago
      That is one interpretation. However, given Android and Apple's proven ability to execute, I suspect this feature was never productized because it's not mainstream enough to matter. They looked at it, and shelved it. Even BlackBerry didn't do it, and their new phone is chock full of cool stuff. Personally, I think even "non mainstream" is too generous; it's a Hail Mary feature. That said, if Canonical can subsist on a fraction of 1.74% Linux market share (as measured by browser usage), perhaps they can subsist on a fraction of that in the mobile phone market, too.

mercurial 14y ago

Personally I have a hard time believing either will gain significant market share (much as I would like them to). Even Microsoft, a much larger company with huge brand recognition and what people seem to think is a well-executed product (never tried a Windows phone myself) keeps failing. But best of luck to them. Having a dockable smartphone would be fantastic... if you could switch to xmonad on the desktop :)

bad_user 14y ago
On Microsoft, it's debatable if Windows Phone is a well executed product or not. I played with one and personally I hated it. First of all, with both Windows Phone and Windows 8 they went way too far with their minimalistic design. The interface gives you no clues on what things are clickable, or what actions you can do. Many times you end up doing things and have no idea what got you there in the first place. Going back to what you were doing is equally painful. Microsoft also tried to come up with design guidelines, but they aren't the kind of company to enforce such guidelines and even they are guilty of breaking those guidelines, so there's also a lack of established conventions. The interface, while pretty and shiny, simply sucks. Second, Windows Phone 7 (don't know about 8) lacked the ability to run native binaries, with some rare exceptions if you happened to be one of few privileged big companies. This is in addition to the lack of support for OpenGL, making ports of games a bitch to deal with. Did you know that many games that are available on both Android and iOS have the same codebase for both? It's no wonder that Microsoft's Marketplace is empty, because nobody wanted to deal with yet another proprietary platform using proprietary APIs. Speaking of WinPhone 7, it also sucked that many users didn't receive the upgrade to WinPhone 8. In regards to upgrades, at least Android has the excuse of fragmentation that you can put up with because of its popularity, but Microsoft has no excuse for that. Third, everybody fears a new Microsoft monopoly. Windows Phone is a proprietary OS, built by a big company which is known to use aggresive tactics to move to new markets, by averaging their already established monopoly on desktops. Android on the other hand, even if it is controlled by Google, can always be forked in case shit happens (hey, Amazon already did it). Android also allows users to install apps from third party sources. Windows Phone does not allow one to do that. My Samsung Galaxy came with their Samsung's marketplace on it (or whatever they call it) installed. Sure it sucks in comparison to Google Play, but it's there for their peace of mind (they also have their own OS btw, called Bada, which is more successful than Windows Phone, because Samsung knows how to sell). Microsoft is also known for dropping the ball after they achieve success ... projects like IExplorer and Windows Mobile stagnated for years before Microsoft finally felt the heat from competition. Only Nokia was stupid enough to invest heavily in Windows Phone and that's only because Microsoft is putting money in their pockets. I don't know how good Ubuntu will be for smartphones or how well Canonical will execute. But Ubuntu (and Firefox OS for that matter) will not have the same problems and we might be surprised.