3 ms·

This hardware looks like it blows everything else out of the water. So far, Firefox OS hardware offerings have been on the low-end.

by reedlaw 13y ago

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).
  - vog 13y ago
    > suffers from the same problem as FF OS - no native apps, just web apps In my opinion, this is one of the main features of FirefoxOS: Every app has to build on open (web) standards. No vendor lock-in, no trying to impose proprietary native APIs on the app developers. The market would be a lot more efficient of all smartphone OS were forced to push their great features by improving and extending open standards instead of locking all interesting stuff into their proprietary so-called "native" [1] APIs. [1] For instance, is WebGL any less "native" than other 3D APIs just because it is accessible from the JavaScript VM instead of say, some Java VM?
    - rlpb 13y ago
      > No vendor lock-in, no trying to impose proprietary native APIs on the app developers. I don't think that it's fair to characterize an OS built on Free Software as "vendor lock-in", or as the Ubuntu Touch API and implementation (which is Free Software) as a "proprietary native API". I love the Linux Free Software ecosystem. There are multiple vendors (eg. Debian, Red Hat, Suse) and they all support multiple "proprietary native APIs" that happen to all be the same. My Qt application written on Ubuntu will run on Suse, as will my GTK one, as will my wxWidgets one. IMHO the breadth and quality available in distribution repositories far surpasses what is available in (say) Android's app store, or available in HTML5 "apps" today. Sure - there is plenty of bad software there, too. But there's good Free Software available for practically every task. Not so for the current phone app ecosystems. Ubuntu may be the first to bring this ecosystem to the smartphone, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the only vendor for this ecosystem in the long run. Ubuntu is bringing the Free Software ecosystem to the smartphone, and it's all under licensing that protects the FSF's four freedoms [edit: I suppose it's not all GPL, but what new code is being written is. That's as close as we can reasonably get, I think]. That's good enough for me. No proprietary APIs or lock-ins here. Even HTML5 apps don't compare, since they are typically not Affero GPL licenced. Although binary-only proprietary apps will be permitted, AIUI, they are permitted in every other ecosystem as well. But I'll be cheering on the Free Software apps, and Ubuntu's smartphone seems to be the best way for them to become the norm (there are some great Free Software apps available on Android, but they are not the norm).
- seferphier 13y ago
  innovations trickle down to "the people". innovations requires a lot of sunk cost. elon musk's vision is electric cars for everyone but decided to make the high end car first. Now he is slowing moving to mass market.
ihaveajob 13y ago
I'm salivating over the hardware specs, but you have to consider that 1 year from now they won't seem as spectacular.
- gbraad 13y ago
  From the page I can conclude the hardware is non-existent (although possible). For now it is purely a wishlist of what they 'want' to offer. Hardware is actually also a large part of the development time of a phone and software, like drivers need to be optimized for the experience. Even if they have used development boards or reference designs for the current bring-up, it would still need hardware verification and a lengthy quality assurance process. Especially related to a phone device, this means certification. I wish them a lot of luck... but it would not amaze me if it results in a vaporware project.

This hardware looks like it blows everything else out of the water. So far, Firefox OS hardware offerings have been on the low-end.

by 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).
- vog 13y ago
  > suffers from the same problem as FF OS - no native apps, just web apps In my opinion, this is one of the main features of FirefoxOS: Every app has to build on open (web) standards. No vendor lock-in, no trying to impose proprietary native APIs on the app developers. The market would be a lot more efficient of all smartphone OS were forced to push their great features by improving and extending open standards instead of locking all interesting stuff into their proprietary so-called "native" [1] APIs. [1] For instance, is WebGL any less "native" than other 3D APIs just because it is accessible from the JavaScript VM instead of say, some Java VM?
  - rlpb 13y ago
    > No vendor lock-in, no trying to impose proprietary native APIs on the app developers. I don't think that it's fair to characterize an OS built on Free Software as "vendor lock-in", or as the Ubuntu Touch API and implementation (which is Free Software) as a "proprietary native API". I love the Linux Free Software ecosystem. There are multiple vendors (eg. Debian, Red Hat, Suse) and they all support multiple "proprietary native APIs" that happen to all be the same. My Qt application written on Ubuntu will run on Suse, as will my GTK one, as will my wxWidgets one. IMHO the breadth and quality available in distribution repositories far surpasses what is available in (say) Android's app store, or available in HTML5 "apps" today. Sure - there is plenty of bad software there, too. But there's good Free Software available for practically every task. Not so for the current phone app ecosystems. Ubuntu may be the first to bring this ecosystem to the smartphone, but it doesn't necessarily have to be the only vendor for this ecosystem in the long run. Ubuntu is bringing the Free Software ecosystem to the smartphone, and it's all under licensing that protects the FSF's four freedoms [edit: I suppose it's not all GPL, but what new code is being written is. That's as close as we can reasonably get, I think]. That's good enough for me. No proprietary APIs or lock-ins here. Even HTML5 apps don't compare, since they are typically not Affero GPL licenced. Although binary-only proprietary apps will be permitted, AIUI, they are permitted in every other ecosystem as well. But I'll be cheering on the Free Software apps, and Ubuntu's smartphone seems to be the best way for them to become the norm (there are some great Free Software apps available on Android, but they are not the norm).
seferphier 13y ago
innovations trickle down to "the people". innovations requires a lot of sunk cost. elon musk's vision is electric cars for everyone but decided to make the high end car first. Now he is slowing moving to mass market.

ihaveajob 13y ago

I'm salivating over the hardware specs, but you have to consider that 1 year from now they won't seem as spectacular.

gbraad 13y ago
From the page I can conclude the hardware is non-existent (although possible). For now it is purely a wishlist of what they 'want' to offer. Hardware is actually also a large part of the development time of a phone and software, like drivers need to be optimized for the experience. Even if they have used development boards or reference designs for the current bring-up, it would still need hardware verification and a lengthy quality assurance process. Especially related to a phone device, this means certification. I wish them a lot of luck... but it would not amaze me if it results in a vaporware project.