8 ms·

The $32 million fundraising goal might seem overly ambitious, but it's actually more realistic than it appears at first glance, because at $600+ per unit the ca

by cs702 13y ago

The $32 million fundraising goal might seem overly ambitious, but it's actually more realistic than it appears at first glance, because at $600+ per unit the campaign needs only around 50,000 buyers worldwide to be successful -- or a bit over 2% of Ubuntu's enthusiastic user base, which was estimated to be greater than 20 million in 2011.[1] PS. I just ordered one, as I LOVE the idea of an unlocked phone designed and built from the ground up by Canonical specifically for Ubuntu users, with minimal interference from wireless carriers. -- Update: When I posted this comment, the total raised was under $50,000. Less than an hour later, it had risen to over half a million dollars. -- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)#Installed_base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_(operating_system)#Inst...

grey-area 13y ago
I've ordered one too, because I really like the sound of a Phone OS based on Ubuntu, not controlled by the likes of Google and Apple, and with a UI based on HTML. The proposed UI and demo apps look nice, I like the idea of losing the chrome as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7QbCqFY7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7QbCqFY7Y It's going up quite fast, from 167k to 198k as I finish writing this, but I'm not sure if they'll make their target, just because the phone and OS are such an unknown quantity. I hope they will - and if Pebble can raise $10 Million, then they do have a chance, even if it is a slim one.
- lewtds 13y ago
  The UI is not based on HTML, it's QML. It's a GUI declaration language similar to XAML from MS. The whole QML described UI is an accelerated OpenGL scene backed by Qt technology so the performance should be much higher than that of HTML5.
  - grey-area 13y ago
    When I last read about Ubuntu Phone, they were offering two choices for UI, QML, and HTML widgets, but perhaps QML is their preferred option? If so that's a shame but not a huge issue for me. All these XML markup languages for views (xib, XAML, QML) offer very little over html IMHO and end up tying you in to one set of tools provided by the vendor. I'd rather they just focussed on improving the OpenGL backed performance of webkit animations to bring it up to scratch instead.
    - sho_hn 13y ago
      QML isn't XML-based. It's synxtax is compatible with ECMAScript and it allows embedding ECMAScript expressions and code (but it's style is generally declarative with procedural code discouraged). And it has a lot to offer over HTML. It has a better layout model for one, sane integration of concepts like animated property transitions and behaviors, makes it far easier to put custom objects backed by native code into the scene, and many other advantages. A lot of these things aren't possible declaratively in HTML, and HTML isn't set up to be extensible enough as a language so you could make up for it yourself. Yes, you can jam everything into a HTML document somehow, but that doesn't mean it's always a pleasant way to go, or that HTML is the peak of UI technology.
      - mateuszf 13y ago
        Well, using Angular.js in a good way would actualy make possible to have the same flexibility without adding any code to the view layer. That said, it is possible but still not that easy to do. Native solution will probably be faster, more energy efficient and easier to use.
      - grey-area 13y ago
        QML isn't XML-based. Thanks for the correction, I was thinking of xib, XAML, Activities etc. haven't used QML, though I have used Qt, a while ago now. One thing I do think HTML got right is to separate content and code, so putting my UI markup into a js-like format which potentially mixes in code is even less appealing :) Yes, you can jam everything into a HTML document somehow, but that doesn't mean it's always a pleasant way to go, or that HTML is the peak of UI technology. While there's a lot wrong with HTML, and I agree there's much to be improved in its layout model, learning and keeping in our head a new layout model just to place some buttons and UI controls on a page every time we switch platforms is painful, and leads to fragmentation and lock-in where people choose a platform and stick with it, because they've had to invest so much time learning those platform specific tools. I think that's a shame and it's not a pain I look forward to when moving platforms. Depends on your focus I suppose - if you plan on using one platform exclusively or using Qt everywhere, it won't bother you. From my perspective doing work for clients on content-heavy apps, often with web integration, there's an awful lot of content already in html, it provides good control over text styling (typically far better than native equivalents), and it means content is portable between the web and apps, so for those pragmatic reasons I find HTML more appealing for presenting content, even for many UI controls. For example if I have an Android app, an iOS app, and an Ubuntu Phone app, I have 3 different platforms to manage, each with their idiosyncrasies, differing features, layout language, and blessed platform language, and then I have a load of content which I have to let users generate, manage and get into apps on each platform, using web tools to do so is significantly less painful. It's not a huge deal as you can obviously use webviews and frame html content with native controls for each platform, but I wish Ubuntu had taken a step towards the web instead with the phones rather than focussing on desktop technologies. I see why they'd want to tie it in with what they're doing on the desktop though. Sorry for the thread hijack!
  - rlpb 13y ago
    HTML5 is also supported. From http://developer.ubuntu.com/get-started/ http://developer.ubuntu.com/get-started/: "Native or HTML5, your choice We recognize HTML5 as a core Internet technology often used to develop cross-platform apps. As such, the Ubuntu toolkit offers the flexibility to support HTML5 too. It’s your choice to decide whether you want to go native with QML and the best Ubuntu integration or HTML5 and less integration via Unity webapps."
  - inthewind 13y ago
    ( >similar to XAML from MS...< Cough; XUL!)
- vog 13y ago
  > based on Ubuntu, not controlled by the likes of Google and Apple, and with a UI based on HTML If you don't insist on the "Ubuntu" part, FirefoxOS offers everything you want, and is available on various devices right now: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/
  - rlpb 13y ago
    How does this hardware compare to FirefoxOS' hardware offerings?
    - reedlaw 13y ago
      This hardware looks like it blows everything else out of the water. So far, Firefox OS hardware offerings have been on the low-end.
      - vog 13y ago
        This is a bit counter-intuitive, I think, because although Ubuntu's mission is "for the people", they target high-end smartphones instead of low-end smartphones. So in relatively poor countries those Ubuntu phone won't spread that much, while FirefoxOS seems to be spreading there quite fast.
        mtgx 13y ago
        That's a good point, and I'm sure Canonical will do that in the future, too, but then they'll only be able to tout Ubuntu Touch's features and apps, not of the "full Ubuntu". The full Ubuntu needs the kind of hardware the Edge will have to get decent performance when used in PC mode. If they made it low-end, they could only use Ubuntu Touch in there, and that suffers from the same problem as FF OS - no native apps, just web apps. After they build this "halo" device, they will be able to get some apps for Ubuntu Touch, and then build low-end phones. Ubuntu Edge is for people who want both a smartphone and a "PC", all in one (if you already have an extra monitor).
mrt0mat0 13y ago
i have to wonder how many ubuntu users are using ubuntu simply for the cost of owning it ($0). If that group is high, which i think it is, it may imply that a lot of those same users, might not want to put money into a project. Speculation.
- threedaymonk 13y ago
  Do you have any basis for thinking that? I ask because my perception is that the cost of OS is effectively zero for almost all computer users: Windows or Mac OS comes free* with the computer. * Free and bundled together at a sharply discounted cost (or the cost of R&D in Apple's case) to the manufacturer aren't exactly the same, but that's not apparent to the purchaser.
  - danudey 13y ago
    The cost of OS is zero when acquiring a new computer through a retail outlet, and zero only for Linux users when acquiring computers through donations, salvage, etc.
    - Dewie 13y ago
      Wouldn't a lot of people just acquire some pirated version of a Windows OS?
    - e12e 13y ago
      In my experience donated/salvaged/second hand PCs usually come with an OEM licence (also true for second hand macs). Perhaps that's different in the US? And while you theoretically pay for the Windows licence that come with a new machine a) most people aren't aware of that, and b) aren't aware that you can get that money back if don't use it.
      - scholia 13y ago
        (b) because usually you can't. Nor should you be able to...
jtome 13y ago
Keep on mind alot of this enthusiastic userbase is in the third world or too young to afford it.
slgeorge 13y ago
One of the things that's interesting about the phone industry is that in general there's no equivalent of the special tech-focused PC platforms. So Ubuntu Edge is a way to unlock both a new software platform (Ubuntu phone) but also to bring forward a set of hardware technologies that won't be in the mainstream for a while. It's a really high target caused by how expensive these platforms are to manufacture. But if we can get enough interest it will allow us to bring a great new phone to market! ps I work for Canonical so should be considered a bit biased ;-)
- weisser 13y ago
  Thanks for doing this campaign! It takes courage to post a goal like that. I'd much rather give you $600 than pay AT&T and others for the "privilege" of an unlocked phone. I'm happy to have gotten my pledge in and look forward to many exciting updates :)
  - workbench 13y ago
    You're not paying that much for the "privilege" of an unlocked phone, it's more when you pay any less than that you're sharing thew phone cost with AT&T and locking you into the network is their side of the bargain.
- voltagex_ 13y ago
  Do you think I'll be able to get one of these phones after the campaign is done? I can't do $630 right now (IndieGogo is debit-immediately, rather than Kickstarter's debit-when-successful).
  - scholia 13y ago
    Canonical is still working with networks and carriers to provide some mid-range as well as high-end smartphones. These will be mass produced and should be cheaper. The Indiegogo campaign is just a sideline, not the core strategy.
- asdfs 13y ago
  >but also to bring forward a set of hardware technologies that won't be in the mainstream for a while. Can you elaborate on this? I'm not seeing anything on the Indiegogo page that isn't more or less on track to be available in phones next year, except for perhaps the sapphire.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by cs702 13y ago

grey-area 13y ago

I've ordered one too, because I really like the sound of a Phone OS based on Ubuntu, not controlled by the likes of Google and Apple, and with a UI based on HTML. The proposed UI and demo apps look nice, I like the idea of losing the chrome as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7QbCqFY7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7QbCqFY7Y It's going up quite fast, from 167k to 198k as I finish writing this, but I'm not sure if they'll make their target, just because the phone and OS are such an unknown quantity. I hope they will - and if Pebble can raise $10 Million, then they do have a chance, even if it is a slim one.

lewtds 13y ago
The UI is not based on HTML, it's QML. It's a GUI declaration language similar to XAML from MS. The whole QML described UI is an accelerated OpenGL scene backed by Qt technology so the performance should be much higher than that of HTML5.
- grey-area 13y ago
  When I last read about Ubuntu Phone, they were offering two choices for UI, QML, and HTML widgets, but perhaps QML is their preferred option? If so that's a shame but not a huge issue for me. All these XML markup languages for views (xib, XAML, QML) offer very little over html IMHO and end up tying you in to one set of tools provided by the vendor. I'd rather they just focussed on improving the OpenGL backed performance of webkit animations to bring it up to scratch instead.
  - sho_hn 13y ago
    QML isn't XML-based. It's synxtax is compatible with ECMAScript and it allows embedding ECMAScript expressions and code (but it's style is generally declarative with procedural code discouraged). And it has a lot to offer over HTML. It has a better layout model for one, sane integration of concepts like animated property transitions and behaviors, makes it far easier to put custom objects backed by native code into the scene, and many other advantages. A lot of these things aren't possible declaratively in HTML, and HTML isn't set up to be extensible enough as a language so you could make up for it yourself. Yes, you can jam everything into a HTML document somehow, but that doesn't mean it's always a pleasant way to go, or that HTML is the peak of UI technology.
    - mateuszf 13y ago
      Well, using Angular.js in a good way would actualy make possible to have the same flexibility without adding any code to the view layer. That said, it is possible but still not that easy to do. Native solution will probably be faster, more energy efficient and easier to use.
    - grey-area 13y ago
      QML isn't XML-based. Thanks for the correction, I was thinking of xib, XAML, Activities etc. haven't used QML, though I have used Qt, a while ago now. One thing I do think HTML got right is to separate content and code, so putting my UI markup into a js-like format which potentially mixes in code is even less appealing :) Yes, you can jam everything into a HTML document somehow, but that doesn't mean it's always a pleasant way to go, or that HTML is the peak of UI technology. While there's a lot wrong with HTML, and I agree there's much to be improved in its layout model, learning and keeping in our head a new layout model just to place some buttons and UI controls on a page every time we switch platforms is painful, and leads to fragmentation and lock-in where people choose a platform and stick with it, because they've had to invest so much time learning those platform specific tools. I think that's a shame and it's not a pain I look forward to when moving platforms. Depends on your focus I suppose - if you plan on using one platform exclusively or using Qt everywhere, it won't bother you. From my perspective doing work for clients on content-heavy apps, often with web integration, there's an awful lot of content already in html, it provides good control over text styling (typically far better than native equivalents), and it means content is portable between the web and apps, so for those pragmatic reasons I find HTML more appealing for presenting content, even for many UI controls. For example if I have an Android app, an iOS app, and an Ubuntu Phone app, I have 3 different platforms to manage, each with their idiosyncrasies, differing features, layout language, and blessed platform language, and then I have a load of content which I have to let users generate, manage and get into apps on each platform, using web tools to do so is significantly less painful. It's not a huge deal as you can obviously use webviews and frame html content with native controls for each platform, but I wish Ubuntu had taken a step towards the web instead with the phones rather than focussing on desktop technologies. I see why they'd want to tie it in with what they're doing on the desktop though. Sorry for the thread hijack!
- rlpb 13y ago
  HTML5 is also supported. From http://developer.ubuntu.com/get-started/ http://developer.ubuntu.com/get-started/: "Native or HTML5, your choice We recognize HTML5 as a core Internet technology often used to develop cross-platform apps. As such, the Ubuntu toolkit offers the flexibility to support HTML5 too. It’s your choice to decide whether you want to go native with QML and the best Ubuntu integration or HTML5 and less integration via Unity webapps."
- inthewind 13y ago
  ( >similar to XAML from MS...< Cough; XUL!)
vog 13y ago
> based on Ubuntu, not controlled by the likes of Google and Apple, and with a UI based on HTML If you don't insist on the "Ubuntu" part, FirefoxOS offers everything you want, and is available on various devices right now: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/
- rlpb 13y ago
  How does this hardware compare to FirefoxOS' hardware offerings?
  - reedlaw 13y ago
    This hardware looks like it blows everything else out of the water. So far, Firefox OS hardware offerings have been on the low-end.
    - vog 13y ago
      This is a bit counter-intuitive, I think, because although Ubuntu's mission is "for the people", they target high-end smartphones instead of low-end smartphones. So in relatively poor countries those Ubuntu phone won't spread that much, while FirefoxOS seems to be spreading there quite fast.
      - mtgx 13y ago
        That's a good point, and I'm sure Canonical will do that in the future, too, but then they'll only be able to tout Ubuntu Touch's features and apps, not of the "full Ubuntu". The full Ubuntu needs the kind of hardware the Edge will have to get decent performance when used in PC mode. If they made it low-end, they could only use Ubuntu Touch in there, and that suffers from the same problem as FF OS - no native apps, just web apps. After they build this "halo" device, they will be able to get some apps for Ubuntu Touch, and then build low-end phones. Ubuntu Edge is for people who want both a smartphone and a "PC", all in one (if you already have an extra monitor).

mrt0mat0 13y ago

i have to wonder how many ubuntu users are using ubuntu simply for the cost of owning it ($0). If that group is high, which i think it is, it may imply that a lot of those same users, might not want to put money into a project. Speculation.

threedaymonk 13y ago
Do you have any basis for thinking that? I ask because my perception is that the cost of OS is effectively zero for almost all computer users: Windows or Mac OS comes free* with the computer. * Free and bundled together at a sharply discounted cost (or the cost of R&D in Apple's case) to the manufacturer aren't exactly the same, but that's not apparent to the purchaser.
- danudey 13y ago
  The cost of OS is zero when acquiring a new computer through a retail outlet, and zero only for Linux users when acquiring computers through donations, salvage, etc.
  - Dewie 13y ago
    Wouldn't a lot of people just acquire some pirated version of a Windows OS?
  - e12e 13y ago
    In my experience donated/salvaged/second hand PCs usually come with an OEM licence (also true for second hand macs). Perhaps that's different in the US? And while you theoretically pay for the Windows licence that come with a new machine a) most people aren't aware of that, and b) aren't aware that you can get that money back if don't use it.
    - scholia 13y ago
      (b) because usually you can't. Nor should you be able to...

jtome 13y ago

Keep on mind alot of this enthusiastic userbase is in the third world or too young to afford it.

slgeorge 13y ago

One of the things that's interesting about the phone industry is that in general there's no equivalent of the special tech-focused PC platforms. So Ubuntu Edge is a way to unlock both a new software platform (Ubuntu phone) but also to bring forward a set of hardware technologies that won't be in the mainstream for a while. It's a really high target caused by how expensive these platforms are to manufacture. But if we can get enough interest it will allow us to bring a great new phone to market! ps I work for Canonical so should be considered a bit biased ;-)

weisser 13y ago
Thanks for doing this campaign! It takes courage to post a goal like that. I'd much rather give you $600 than pay AT&T and others for the "privilege" of an unlocked phone. I'm happy to have gotten my pledge in and look forward to many exciting updates :)
- workbench 13y ago
  You're not paying that much for the "privilege" of an unlocked phone, it's more when you pay any less than that you're sharing thew phone cost with AT&T and locking you into the network is their side of the bargain.
voltagex_ 13y ago
Do you think I'll be able to get one of these phones after the campaign is done? I can't do $630 right now (IndieGogo is debit-immediately, rather than Kickstarter's debit-when-successful).
- scholia 13y ago
  Canonical is still working with networks and carriers to provide some mid-range as well as high-end smartphones. These will be mass produced and should be cheaper. The Indiegogo campaign is just a sideline, not the core strategy.
asdfs 13y ago
>but also to bring forward a set of hardware technologies that won't be in the mainstream for a while. Can you elaborate on this? I'm not seeing anything on the Indiegogo page that isn't more or less on track to be available in phones next year, except for perhaps the sapphire.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]