9 ms·

Verizon backs Ubuntu smartphone

107 points by tanglesome 13y ago

Apocryphon 13y ago
The race for third place is heating up! It's very interesting to consider Ubuntu Touch vs. Firefox OS - what happens when two platforms backed by two champions of FOSS come into conflict? Not that conflict is inevitable, and it's explicitly against the public mission statement of Mozilla, at least, but these platforms will still be competing with each other for the few devs and consumers who reject both iOS and Android (and WinPho, and BBOS, and Tizen...)
- tombrossman 13y ago
  It is two 'champions of FOSS' but only one clear winner for us privacy-conscious users. Long-term Ubuntu user here looking forward to retiring my Android phone for a Firefox model. I just got a Nexus 4 for my wife and for the first time ever didn't replace my phone at the same time. If Firefox releases something a bit higher-end in the next 6-9 months I am very likely to switch.
  - portmanteaufu 13y ago
    I'm pretty torn about Firefox OS. On the one hand: * Mozilla's at the helm. My privacy is more likely to be respected. * Whipping up Firefox OS apps is stupid simple. On the other: * They don't seem to want to target higher-end handsets. * There's no NDK and as far as I'm aware there are no plans for one. While most of my Android apps could be rebuilt easily in Firefox OS, the programs with 3D graphics or C library dependencies seem to be out of luck. * As an extension to the above, I can't write Firefox OS apps with Rust, which is shaping up to be a great language.
    - padenot 13y ago
      There has been very interesting results with emscripten ports of apps (I only saw video games, actually), that were using libc and raw gl. It was running ok, but I can understand that the lack of NDK is problematic when pushing the device to the limit. I'm curious on how we will address that (being a native developer working on Gecko myself, I'd certainly interested to do some crazy ARM NEON stuff on FxOS).
    - kryptiskt 13y ago
      Thing is, there's nothing else that runs natively, it's just Gecko on SurfaceFlinger. FirefoxOS' UI is entirely implemented above that in HTML+JS. So there is no infrastructure that can be opened up to allow native apps, it would have to be written from scratch.
      - padenot 13y ago
        Nope, we hit below SurfaceFlinger. gralloc and direct gl, actually.
        kryptiskt 13y ago
        Ah, thanks, I thought SurfaceFlinger was kept from Android.
    - shmerl 13y ago
      For high end handsets, consider Jolla's Sailfish.
    - bad_user 13y ago
      > They don't seem to want to target higher-end handsets It's only the beginning and I think they are smart for doing this - iPhones are high-end and cheap Androids suck. The low-end market is still dominated by Symbian, or Bada, or Rex, or Asha, all of which suck. They have a real shot at gaining significant market-share with this strategy. iOS and Android have too much inertia to beat by playing the high-end game.
    - binarycrusader 13y ago
      No native development kit is a non-starter for me personally. Apple tried to go the same route with the original iPhone and there's a very good reason why it wasn't successful -- and it wasn't just the state of JavaScript technology at the time. If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can. Apple is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Google is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web. Different goals, different requirements.
        binarycrusader 13y ago
        The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK that I personally believe are not going to be resolvable in the next 2-3 years, even with asm.js and all the other great things Mozilla is doing to advance the web. I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. I personally find your for-profit argument specious at best.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place. > There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose. > I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. Sure, and that's why you might need a native SDK, not why Mozilla needs one.
  - padenot 13y ago
    (Mozilla developer speaking) I've tested FirefoxOS builds for more "high-end" devices (in quotes, because it is nothing like my Galaxy Nexus and your Nexus 4), namely the Geeksphone Peak and the Nexus S (a guy in my office is doing the port on his spare time, so I could play with it for a bit). In terms of scrolling/panning/zooming, say, in a list, in the browser or on the home screen, the phone is basically at 60fps the time, the only slowdown I found were some GC pauses from time to time when doing some weird stuff (opening/closing apps like crazy to stress test the thing, basically, could slow the phone down) or browsing heavy webpages (in terms of js and CSS). From dual core and up, the phone is really nice (I personally found the Geeksphone Keon to be too low in terms of specs, the experience was too far from my Android 4.2 device). Apps are coming (I would not have bet on a decent app map, but Nokia's solution is very decent, tbh, altough we certainly need more than a nice map app), hopefully we have something to announce later this year (I don't work on FirefoxOS specifically, I know as much as you do). I also know we also started working heavily on supporting hi-dpi devices [1]. [1]: The branch where the hi-dpi work is happening https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/tree/v1.1.0hd https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/tree/v1.1.0hd
  - superuser2 13y ago
    >for us privacy-conscious users You're phone's OS is almost entirely irrelevant with regard to privacy. The snooping that we know about (PRISM, AT&T selling private data, etc.) is happening at the carrier level.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- freehunter 13y ago
  Wouldn't Ubuntu Touch and FirefoxOS be competing in the race for 5th place? Windows Phone has third place locked up, and Blackberry is a very strong 4th place right behind them.
  - mtgx 13y ago
    I doubt WP8 has 3rd place locked up. It's 3rd place, but it's a lot closer to 4th,5th, etc, than it is to iOS and Android. Blackberry and "strong place" don't match.
    - nrivadeneira 13y ago
      What would be the nearest 5th place contenders to WP8 and Blackberry?
    - Pxtl 13y ago
      WP8 has Nokia's entire product line running it. Nokia ain't what they used to be, but the brand still has fans and they make a lot of phones.
  - Apocryphon 13y ago
    I think right now there aren't any strong 3rd place contenders. Windows Phone is the anemic upstart, BBOS is the swiftly declining dinosaur. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses both platforms have, neither have managed to project a truly compelling value proposition for consumers to seek out as an alternative.
ealexhudson 13y ago
They've announced a number of companies to join their CAG. What is missing so far is any firm commitment that anyone is going to release one of these devices; without stuff likely to ship I don't see much likelihood of app developers doing anything on this platform.
- zanny 13y ago
  It's all html5 and qml apps, so you are already writing those for other platforms. If Ubuntu Phone sees even mediocre success, app developers can spend a weekend porting their thing.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  Apple making an interesting contrast. Carriers that sell the iPhone have to make a sales commitment to Apple that about 10% of their subscribers per year buy an iPhone. The notable carriers that do not carry the iPhone balk at this: http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/17/the-iphone-moq/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/17/the-iphone-moq/ Making that minimum order quantity means the carrier has to actively promote and support sales of iPhones. As you state, I doubt the CAG includes any form of minimum order quantity, which means there aren't any incentives for the carriers to promote the phones. Canonical rather than the carriers will need to do demand generation. Samsung has a fairly high cost of sales (~25% compared to Apple at 10%). And nobody plays until you are spending a billion or more in advertising: http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/02/the-cost-of-selling-galaxies-updated/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/02/the-cost-of-selling-galaxie... Firefox phone at least has the advantage of hundreds of millions of Firefox users which allows a degree of familiarity and awareness. By comparison Ubuntu is a rounding error. Canonical have a massive hill to climb here. The CAG is at the base of the hill. I wonder what their strategy will be?
shmerl 13y ago
Would be good for T-Mobile to back Jolla ;)
worksaf 13y ago
The problem is that any Ubuntu phone that is released will likely be just as locked down and filled with bloatware as everything else with Verizon.
- samstave 13y ago
  And the NSA code injection :)
- daed 13y ago
  iPhone doesn't come with bloatware? Why couldn't Ubuntu pull that off as Apple has? Less bargaining leverage, I guess...
  - r00fus 13y ago
    Part of the problem of an "open" system is that the very flexibility/openness means your position is weak - there's very little you "can't" do. Especially if you do it for one carrier - you can't easily say no to the next one. Whereas with Apple, the carrier has no idea if the product is capable of their needs, and besides with the Apple brand it will sell millions regardless. "open/flexible" is a double-edged sword.
  - worksaf 13y ago
    Well the iPhone didn't come to Verizon for years because Apple would not let Verizon put its bloatware on the phone. Verizon only caved because Apple sales were so strong. iPhone only comes with Apple software, you have to manually download any Verizon apps. My parents both got Androids recently, and while you can "hide" the pre-installed bloatware you still can't delete it. It took me about 30 minutes to clean the phones of all the widgets and crapware. As the newcomer, a Ubuntu phone really wouldn't have any bargaining power and would be as bad or worse than Android.
- velodrome 13y ago
  Well, the key selling point for the carriers is that they can do whatever they want with the software without the Ubuntu branding. There is no one breathing down their neck telling them what to do. Naturally, the carriers will screw up thinking more crapware is better. What they really should do is understand less is also better. If Canonical were smart, they should also work with handset manufacturers on a clean version of their software without all the crap - the Nexus phone approach. When given the option, most people opt for the crap-free phone. I have a feeling that if Canonical does not push this option it could really tarnish their name - like how Microsoft is always associated with viruses and malware.
dave1010uk 13y ago
It seems a shame that the backing of a network operator is still required to successfully sell a hardware device in this day and age (especially in the US). It's like only being able to buy a Thinkpad if your broadband supplier will sell you one. I look forward to the day when most phones are not tied into contracts, but I think I may be waiting a long time.
- mdeslaur 13y ago
  It is, but nobody wants to pay $600 for a phone that could cost you $99 when subsidized by your network operator.
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  My carrier doesn't subsidize phones, rather they will simply finance your purchase of a phone that you pay back in monthly chunks along with your phone contract (so when your phone is paid off, your monthly bills drop). So even for people that don't want to pay a lump-sum for a phone, you can imagine that it would be possible to just split those two businesses into "carrier" and "phone purchase financer." However, presumably in that case the latter would have to charge higher finance fees than a carrier with integrated financing, because they'd be assuming the risk of financing without the extra profit that comes from the monthly phone contract. So since the integration of the two allows lower fees, and people lovvvvve lower fees, well... the integration of carriers and phone financing isn't very surprising...
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  Note that implicit in the deal is that the carrier provides support. You can take the phone to the store and ask questions, or call them. For faulty hardware they will replace it (warranty services). The carrier will typically also do insurance for those that want it. The consumer has an ongoing relationship with the carrier. It is hardly surprising phones mostly get bought that way. There is no such relationship with the phone manufacturers or retailers, with the Apple exception, and even they depend on carriers. (You can fairly accurately predict Apple sales by how many carriers carry the devices.) Note that being available on a carrier doesn't automatically lead to success (eg Blackberry and Nokia are available on about 3 times as many carriers as Apple is). However it is a prerequisite for getting a foot in the door.
u2328 13y ago
I'm bored by Ubuntu, much less the promise of a Ubuntu smartphone. I thought the appeal of Ubuntu was that it was a freedom-respecting but user-friendly alternative to Windows and Mac. Turn out, their Unity interface ships your desktop search results off to Amazon and tried to sell you something when searching for a program or a file on your system. So, for a Ubuntu phone, at least on the privacy/respect front, it's no better than Android. Android has better support, has a ton of third party support and the weight of Google behind it. Can anyone explain why should I switch to a Ubuntu phone?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    He's not embracing google because he thinks they don't also make money from advertising. He is "embracing" them because although they also use advertising, they at least have a superior product.
- pilgrim689 13y ago
  I think its killer feature is how it's an all-in-one OS. In you pocket, it's a smartphone; docked, it's a complete linux desktop environment.
  - u2328 13y ago
    I thought that was a feature for 'Ubuntu for Android' (a different product). I could be wrong, but I don't see that feature available under the 'Ubuntu Phone' list of features.
    - socceroos 13y ago
      It's right here on the Ubuntu Phone homepage: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/operators-and-oems http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/operators-and-oems
pajju 13y ago
I don't like the way there are going with Network operators. Depending on a network operator is adding bloatware and less control, more fragmentation and hardware innovation. Rather, How about they start a fund raising campaign or a Kickstarter - use a crowd-funding platform? I will love to pay them. Just to add: I'm mind blown after I switched to Ubuntu a year back. They already have numerous fans like me and Professional users, enterprises who trust them now, even the Server editions. I would love to see Ubuntu grow independently! Go Ubuntu go, raise money, grow fast.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  They really should. If a bunch of ex-Nokia employees can form Jolla, and not only create a device but create as much interest as they have for it, I don't see what's stopping Ubuntu. It's fairly easy these days to get a Chinese company to assemble any type of hardware for you, if you can commit do a decent sized order...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
quackerhacker 13y ago
I'm very happy about this. I've been hoping for Ubuntu's mobile OS to catch on, since it doubles as a desktop. Ubuntu's concept (an actual pocket PC), is where I see the next move in mobile computing actually going.
jebblue 13y ago
I'm encouraged but I watched the video here: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone http://www.ubuntu.com/phone We can't lock the phone? The phone decides how to search? Developers empowered by Java on Android would have to go back 1 or 2 decades to C or C++ to make apps? That's sounding pretty limiting.
- mdeslaur 13y ago
  Yes, you can lock the phone. The main programming environment is QML, not C or C++.
  - jebblue 13y ago
    The way I heard Mark state it, it sounded like you don't lock the phone and sounded specifically to me like you can't lock the phone. He mentioned C/C++ within milliseconds after mentioning QML. If QML is sufficient for achieving what Java can great, for those people who want to go back to Qt. I think Qt went out with Nokia. Why didn't they choose Gtk? Why not Java for the language? Why re-invent the wheel with their own thing like Google is trying to do with DART? Java and Gtk rock and should be at the center of Canonical's universe.
    - socceroos 13y ago
      To see Ubuntu's phone lock feature, please see this: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/07/pinlock-feature-demoed-on-ubuntu-touch http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/07/pinlock-feature-demoed-on...
nell 13y ago
This might be a bad thing for Ubuntu. Verizon will preload crapware onto the phone to death thereby negating whatever value proposition the OS has.
- rogerbinns 13y ago
  I doubt whether it is even a "thing" for Ubuntu. In Verizon's shoes I'd certainly claim this, if only to harass existing suppliers to get a better deal from them!
Mikeb85 13y ago
So there's going to be a bunch of carrier crapware, Amazon search results and ads, and no doubt the instability that Ubuntu is known for. No Java/Dalvik, just QML, HTML5 and QT. I'd rather go with Jolla for a hacker's phone, or just stick to Android. Ubuntu's been dropping the ball alot lately, and their phone project looks DOA...

107 points by tanglesome 13y ago

The race for third place is heating up! It's very interesting to consider Ubuntu Touch vs. Firefox OS - what happens when two platforms backed by two champions of FOSS come into conflict? Not that conflict is inevitable, and it's explicitly against the public mission statement of Mozilla, at least, but these platforms will still be competing with each other for the few devs and consumers who reject both iOS and Android (and WinPho, and BBOS, and Tizen...)

tombrossman 13y ago
It is two 'champions of FOSS' but only one clear winner for us privacy-conscious users. Long-term Ubuntu user here looking forward to retiring my Android phone for a Firefox model. I just got a Nexus 4 for my wife and for the first time ever didn't replace my phone at the same time. If Firefox releases something a bit higher-end in the next 6-9 months I am very likely to switch.
- portmanteaufu 13y ago
  I'm pretty torn about Firefox OS. On the one hand: * Mozilla's at the helm. My privacy is more likely to be respected. * Whipping up Firefox OS apps is stupid simple. On the other: * They don't seem to want to target higher-end handsets. * There's no NDK and as far as I'm aware there are no plans for one. While most of my Android apps could be rebuilt easily in Firefox OS, the programs with 3D graphics or C library dependencies seem to be out of luck. * As an extension to the above, I can't write Firefox OS apps with Rust, which is shaping up to be a great language.
  - padenot 13y ago
    There has been very interesting results with emscripten ports of apps (I only saw video games, actually), that were using libc and raw gl. It was running ok, but I can understand that the lack of NDK is problematic when pushing the device to the limit. I'm curious on how we will address that (being a native developer working on Gecko myself, I'd certainly interested to do some crazy ARM NEON stuff on FxOS).
  - kryptiskt 13y ago
    Thing is, there's nothing else that runs natively, it's just Gecko on SurfaceFlinger. FirefoxOS' UI is entirely implemented above that in HTML+JS. So there is no infrastructure that can be opened up to allow native apps, it would have to be written from scratch.
    - padenot 13y ago
      Nope, we hit below SurfaceFlinger. gralloc and direct gl, actually.
      - kryptiskt 13y ago
        Ah, thanks, I thought SurfaceFlinger was kept from Android.
  - shmerl 13y ago
    For high end handsets, consider Jolla's Sailfish.
  - bad_user 13y ago
    > They don't seem to want to target higher-end handsets It's only the beginning and I think they are smart for doing this - iPhones are high-end and cheap Androids suck. The low-end market is still dominated by Symbian, or Bada, or Rex, or Asha, all of which suck. They have a real shot at gaining significant market-share with this strategy. iOS and Android have too much inertia to beat by playing the high-end game.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    No native development kit is a non-starter for me personally. Apple tried to go the same route with the original iPhone and there's a very good reason why it wasn't successful -- and it wasn't just the state of JavaScript technology at the time. If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > If Apple can't do without a native SDK and Google can't, I don't know why Mozilla thinks it can. Apple is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Google is a for-profit corporation that makes money off its market for native apps. Mozilla is a non-profit organization whose mission to advance the open web. Different goals, different requirements.
      - binarycrusader 13y ago
        The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK that I personally believe are not going to be resolvable in the next 2-3 years, even with asm.js and all the other great things Mozilla is doing to advance the web. I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. I personally find your for-profit argument specious at best.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > The need for a native SDK is not going to magically go away just because Mozilla is a non-profit organisation. Well, no. Its not going to "go away", its not going to exist in the first place. > There are real, quantifiable, technical reasons for having a native SDK Sure, there are reasons for having one, they just happen to be reasons that are irrelevant to Mozilla's purpose. > I'm fine with Mozilla wanting to advance the web; but not at the cost of precluding the possibility of applications that need native SDKs. Sure, and that's why you might need a native SDK, not why Mozilla needs one.
- padenot 13y ago
  (Mozilla developer speaking) I've tested FirefoxOS builds for more "high-end" devices (in quotes, because it is nothing like my Galaxy Nexus and your Nexus 4), namely the Geeksphone Peak and the Nexus S (a guy in my office is doing the port on his spare time, so I could play with it for a bit). In terms of scrolling/panning/zooming, say, in a list, in the browser or on the home screen, the phone is basically at 60fps the time, the only slowdown I found were some GC pauses from time to time when doing some weird stuff (opening/closing apps like crazy to stress test the thing, basically, could slow the phone down) or browsing heavy webpages (in terms of js and CSS). From dual core and up, the phone is really nice (I personally found the Geeksphone Keon to be too low in terms of specs, the experience was too far from my Android 4.2 device). Apps are coming (I would not have bet on a decent app map, but Nokia's solution is very decent, tbh, altough we certainly need more than a nice map app), hopefully we have something to announce later this year (I don't work on FirefoxOS specifically, I know as much as you do). I also know we also started working heavily on supporting hi-dpi devices [1]. [1]: The branch where the hi-dpi work is happening https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/tree/v1.1.0hd https://github.com/mozilla-b2g/gaia/tree/v1.1.0hd
- superuser2 13y ago
  >for us privacy-conscious users You're phone's OS is almost entirely irrelevant with regard to privacy. The snooping that we know about (PRISM, AT&T selling private data, etc.) is happening at the carrier level.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
freehunter 13y ago
Wouldn't Ubuntu Touch and FirefoxOS be competing in the race for 5th place? Windows Phone has third place locked up, and Blackberry is a very strong 4th place right behind them.
- mtgx 13y ago
  I doubt WP8 has 3rd place locked up. It's 3rd place, but it's a lot closer to 4th,5th, etc, than it is to iOS and Android. Blackberry and "strong place" don't match.
  - nrivadeneira 13y ago
    What would be the nearest 5th place contenders to WP8 and Blackberry?
  - Pxtl 13y ago
    WP8 has Nokia's entire product line running it. Nokia ain't what they used to be, but the brand still has fans and they make a lot of phones.
- Apocryphon 13y ago
  I think right now there aren't any strong 3rd place contenders. Windows Phone is the anemic upstart, BBOS is the swiftly declining dinosaur. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses both platforms have, neither have managed to project a truly compelling value proposition for consumers to seek out as an alternative.

ealexhudson 13y ago

They've announced a number of companies to join their CAG. What is missing so far is any firm commitment that anyone is going to release one of these devices; without stuff likely to ship I don't see much likelihood of app developers doing anything on this platform.

zanny 13y ago
It's all html5 and qml apps, so you are already writing those for other platforms. If Ubuntu Phone sees even mediocre success, app developers can spend a weekend porting their thing.
rogerbinns 13y ago
Apple making an interesting contrast. Carriers that sell the iPhone have to make a sales commitment to Apple that about 10% of their subscribers per year buy an iPhone. The notable carriers that do not carry the iPhone balk at this: http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/17/the-iphone-moq/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/17/the-iphone-moq/ Making that minimum order quantity means the carrier has to actively promote and support sales of iPhones. As you state, I doubt the CAG includes any form of minimum order quantity, which means there aren't any incentives for the carriers to promote the phones. Canonical rather than the carriers will need to do demand generation. Samsung has a fairly high cost of sales (~25% compared to Apple at 10%). And nobody plays until you are spending a billion or more in advertising: http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/02/the-cost-of-selling-galaxies-updated/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/04/02/the-cost-of-selling-galaxie... Firefox phone at least has the advantage of hundreds of millions of Firefox users which allows a degree of familiarity and awareness. By comparison Ubuntu is a rounding error. Canonical have a massive hill to climb here. The CAG is at the base of the hill. I wonder what their strategy will be?

shmerl 13y ago

Would be good for T-Mobile to back Jolla ;)

worksaf 13y ago

The problem is that any Ubuntu phone that is released will likely be just as locked down and filled with bloatware as everything else with Verizon.

samstave 13y ago
And the NSA code injection :)
daed 13y ago
iPhone doesn't come with bloatware? Why couldn't Ubuntu pull that off as Apple has? Less bargaining leverage, I guess...
- r00fus 13y ago
  Part of the problem of an "open" system is that the very flexibility/openness means your position is weak - there's very little you "can't" do. Especially if you do it for one carrier - you can't easily say no to the next one. Whereas with Apple, the carrier has no idea if the product is capable of their needs, and besides with the Apple brand it will sell millions regardless. "open/flexible" is a double-edged sword.
- worksaf 13y ago
  Well the iPhone didn't come to Verizon for years because Apple would not let Verizon put its bloatware on the phone. Verizon only caved because Apple sales were so strong. iPhone only comes with Apple software, you have to manually download any Verizon apps. My parents both got Androids recently, and while you can "hide" the pre-installed bloatware you still can't delete it. It took me about 30 minutes to clean the phones of all the widgets and crapware. As the newcomer, a Ubuntu phone really wouldn't have any bargaining power and would be as bad or worse than Android.
velodrome 13y ago
Well, the key selling point for the carriers is that they can do whatever they want with the software without the Ubuntu branding. There is no one breathing down their neck telling them what to do. Naturally, the carriers will screw up thinking more crapware is better. What they really should do is understand less is also better. If Canonical were smart, they should also work with handset manufacturers on a clean version of their software without all the crap - the Nexus phone approach. When given the option, most people opt for the crap-free phone. I have a feeling that if Canonical does not push this option it could really tarnish their name - like how Microsoft is always associated with viruses and malware.

dave1010uk 13y ago

It seems a shame that the backing of a network operator is still required to successfully sell a hardware device in this day and age (especially in the US). It's like only being able to buy a Thinkpad if your broadband supplier will sell you one. I look forward to the day when most phones are not tied into contracts, but I think I may be waiting a long time.

mdeslaur 13y ago
It is, but nobody wants to pay $600 for a phone that could cost you $99 when subsidized by your network operator.
snogglethorpe 13y ago
My carrier doesn't subsidize phones, rather they will simply finance your purchase of a phone that you pay back in monthly chunks along with your phone contract (so when your phone is paid off, your monthly bills drop). So even for people that don't want to pay a lump-sum for a phone, you can imagine that it would be possible to just split those two businesses into "carrier" and "phone purchase financer." However, presumably in that case the latter would have to charge higher finance fees than a carrier with integrated financing, because they'd be assuming the risk of financing without the extra profit that comes from the monthly phone contract. So since the integration of the two allows lower fees, and people lovvvvve lower fees, well... the integration of carriers and phone financing isn't very surprising...
rogerbinns 13y ago
Note that implicit in the deal is that the carrier provides support. You can take the phone to the store and ask questions, or call them. For faulty hardware they will replace it (warranty services). The carrier will typically also do insurance for those that want it. The consumer has an ongoing relationship with the carrier. It is hardly surprising phones mostly get bought that way. There is no such relationship with the phone manufacturers or retailers, with the Apple exception, and even they depend on carriers. (You can fairly accurately predict Apple sales by how many carriers carry the devices.) Note that being available on a carrier doesn't automatically lead to success (eg Blackberry and Nokia are available on about 3 times as many carriers as Apple is). However it is a prerequisite for getting a foot in the door.

u2328 13y ago

I'm bored by Ubuntu, much less the promise of a Ubuntu smartphone. I thought the appeal of Ubuntu was that it was a freedom-respecting but user-friendly alternative to Windows and Mac. Turn out, their Unity interface ships your desktop search results off to Amazon and tried to sell you something when searching for a program or a file on your system. So, for a Ubuntu phone, at least on the privacy/respect front, it's no better than Android. Android has better support, has a ton of third party support and the weight of Google behind it. Can anyone explain why should I switch to a Ubuntu phone?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- jlgreco 13y ago
  He's not embracing google because he thinks they don't also make money from advertising. He is "embracing" them because although they also use advertising, they at least have a superior product.
pilgrim689 13y ago
I think its killer feature is how it's an all-in-one OS. In you pocket, it's a smartphone; docked, it's a complete linux desktop environment.
- u2328 13y ago
  I thought that was a feature for 'Ubuntu for Android' (a different product). I could be wrong, but I don't see that feature available under the 'Ubuntu Phone' list of features.
  - socceroos 13y ago
    It's right here on the Ubuntu Phone homepage: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/operators-and-oems http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/operators-and-oems

pajju 13y ago

I don't like the way there are going with Network operators. Depending on a network operator is adding bloatware and less control, more fragmentation and hardware innovation. Rather, How about they start a fund raising campaign or a Kickstarter - use a crowd-funding platform? I will love to pay them. Just to add: I'm mind blown after I switched to Ubuntu a year back. They already have numerous fans like me and Professional users, enterprises who trust them now, even the Server editions. I would love to see Ubuntu grow independently! Go Ubuntu go, raise money, grow fast.

Mikeb85 13y ago
They really should. If a bunch of ex-Nokia employees can form Jolla, and not only create a device but create as much interest as they have for it, I don't see what's stopping Ubuntu. It's fairly easy these days to get a Chinese company to assemble any type of hardware for you, if you can commit do a decent sized order...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

quackerhacker 13y ago

I'm very happy about this. I've been hoping for Ubuntu's mobile OS to catch on, since it doubles as a desktop. Ubuntu's concept (an actual pocket PC), is where I see the next move in mobile computing actually going.

jebblue 13y ago

I'm encouraged but I watched the video here: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone http://www.ubuntu.com/phone We can't lock the phone? The phone decides how to search? Developers empowered by Java on Android would have to go back 1 or 2 decades to C or C++ to make apps? That's sounding pretty limiting.

mdeslaur 13y ago
Yes, you can lock the phone. The main programming environment is QML, not C or C++.
- jebblue 13y ago
  The way I heard Mark state it, it sounded like you don't lock the phone and sounded specifically to me like you can't lock the phone. He mentioned C/C++ within milliseconds after mentioning QML. If QML is sufficient for achieving what Java can great, for those people who want to go back to Qt. I think Qt went out with Nokia. Why didn't they choose Gtk? Why not Java for the language? Why re-invent the wheel with their own thing like Google is trying to do with DART? Java and Gtk rock and should be at the center of Canonical's universe.
  - socceroos 13y ago
    To see Ubuntu's phone lock feature, please see this: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/07/pinlock-feature-demoed-on-ubuntu-touch http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/07/pinlock-feature-demoed-on...

nell 13y ago

This might be a bad thing for Ubuntu. Verizon will preload crapware onto the phone to death thereby negating whatever value proposition the OS has.

rogerbinns 13y ago
I doubt whether it is even a "thing" for Ubuntu. In Verizon's shoes I'd certainly claim this, if only to harass existing suppliers to get a better deal from them!

Mikeb85 13y ago

So there's going to be a bunch of carrier crapware, Amazon search results and ads, and no doubt the instability that Ubuntu is known for. No Java/Dalvik, just QML, HTML5 and QT. I'd rather go with Jolla for a hacker's phone, or just stick to Android. Ubuntu's been dropping the ball alot lately, and their phone project looks DOA...