-
@c0n57an71n I'm Australian actually.
-
@mrlen ..and I still think my thread is perfectly relevant and worth discussing. If you don't feel like it is, that's your prerogative -- but who died and made you overlord of the Internet? Definitely a Liberal.
-
@mrlen awe come on dude this is no place for your petty manichean obsessions. Go post this stuff elsewhere. This is no place for politics whatsoever. Please believe we're doing this to hold back the truth and go complain about it elsewhere.
-
@emphrath My original post had nothing at all to do with politics. My responses did, because bossy boots came along trying to tell me what I can and can't say on the Internet.
However, I vow not to mention anything other than Ubuntu Touch on this forum. I have been assimilated now. I am Borg like you guys. I have no personality.
I apologise for having a personality -- and for wondering why a perfectly useful Linux OS has been suppressed.
I know, I'm sick. I need help.
Please forgive me.
-
@mrlen said in Powers that be holding alternatives back | Conspiracy?:
I reckon Canonical stopped Ubuntu Touch because they plain out got told not to continue.
I think that's the reason a lot of companies are not supporting Linux phones.
Kind of like how the oil industry held electric cars back fro 100 years.
That's why it's going to take private funding and grass roots initiatives to get Ubuntu Touch working better.There is no need for an conspiracy theory.
Markets tend to a small number of dominant players for good reasons and once that happens there are barriers to entry. You can see this is pharmaceuticals, cars, power, etc.
In the case of phones, there needs to be tie-in with regulators, cell service providers, phone manufacturers and app developers.
Canonical have stated that they couldn't make the project viable. There's plenty of evidence that they tried to set up the necessary tie-ins. But, even in markets where there was a clear desire to avoid the dominant supplier, the costs of entry were clearly too high for the expected return.
All of these tie-ins naturally concentrate on the players that make up most of their business to the detriment of unproven newcomers. That's not a conspiracy, that's emergent behaviour and there are lots of examples in economics and elsewhere. The only things that could change this are financial, legal or political incentives.
-
@alan_g Then the obvious question is: How can Canonical not be able to make it viable, when a few people with passion and no budget can pick up where they left off and create such an awesome Linux OS? I'm not buying it.
-
@mrlen I didn't say they couldn't make it work. For a company "viable" means something they could make money from.
UBports is a non-profit, and (I strongly suspect) does not pay its employees what they could get elsewhere. That is not viable for a commercial organization.
-
@alan_g Look at all the people they're hiring? And that's not taking into account all the staff they currently have:
https://canonical.com/#careers
They can't throw a couple of programmers over here to look after what they started?
-
@mrlen They're "partnered" with the largest fortune 500 companies on planet earth.
-
$358,000,000 worth of assets..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_(company)
..and they can't throw a programmer over here to figure out how to make sure GPS works better and get a video chat app running?
Not buying it at all.
They got told by one or more of their "partners" to stop creating a tool that can't be monetised.
I'm convinced.
Kind of like how Tesla invented free electricity but Edison (when he wasn't electrocuting elephants) wanted to charge. Tesla died in a hotel room, lonely and broke.
-
@mrlen Canonical isn't really big compared to the giants they have more products and projects that they think more sustainable. Also, you are talking to a Canonical employee, lead of mir actually and he's been helping with UT. It's not official though but I'm pretty sure Canonical doesn't discourage them to do it.
-
@kugiigi Ah, the apologists have come out. Now we have a REAL conspiracy on our hands...
-
..the plot thickens.
-
-
@c0n57an71n sure. I was about to suggest locking the thread.
-
@c0n57an71n Why don't you change your name to C0n7r0lFr33k ?
-
It's ok. Lock the thread. My job is done here.
Gotchya's...
-
@mrlen I'm gonna assume one last time you really want to have a discussion here. Canonical's business model has always been weird / hybrid - that is, relying on a trademark and selling server solutions all the while trying to cater to its open-source community. Back then, they didn't have the ressources they have now, for one good reason: the failure of unity and the reverting to gnome desktop is a result of their choice to focus on the server side of affairs, because it was money-worthy.
-
@alan_g i had no idea you came from Canonical. Huge thanks for involving in the project. Tell me if my post above is wrong. Anyway, @mrlen if you want absolute proof that there is nothing preventing an linux solution from happening, free of google and ios, check into SailfishOS. It works perfectly. On four/five officially supported devices, no more. That's the maximum a company with expperience (ex-Nokia) and ties in the busines was able to achieve. That should put things into perspective.
-
@emphrath Not just him, and Alan Pope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XcoWKoubjE and Mark Shuttelworth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDHL3youjIY still show a love for Ubuntu Touch. But business is business. You can't put food on the table when no money's coming in and loosing millions..
