Will it arrive ...
... when the robins are nesting?
Smartphones based on the long-awaited Tizen operating system will finally be unveiled in the next couple of months, according to new reports. Unnamed sources at some of the companies involved in the project told Japan’s Mainichi Shimbun that there’d be an “announcement” on a release date for a Samsung phone based on the OS …
... when the robins are nesting?
Does anybody actually care?
Yes, I care. I'm really looking forward to jumping ship from Android to either Sailfish, Ubuntu or Tizen.
"I'm really looking forward to jumping ship from Android to either Sailfish, Ubuntu or Tizen."
Same here. Although what I'm hoping (probably unrealistically) for is a choice of paying cash for Sailfish or Tizen and keeping my privacy, having Android for "free" and paying with my privacy, and a further choice of whatever Ubuntu and Firefox can come up with that makes their business model work.
The hegemony of Android came about because the competing mobile OS were all proprietary systems that were either simply closed to competitors, weak in capability, or costly. That suited Google who wanted users information more than they wanted the users money. But it also meant very limited choice.
If Sailfish is going to be worth its developers' while, how much will that cost me in hard cash up front?
You've hit the nail on the head. I want to pay cash and keep privacy. I'm sure plenty of others do to.
"If Sailfish is going to be worth its developers' while, how much will that cost me in hard cash up front?"
That appears to include a free handset. I meant in indicative terms what's the cost to the end user of the Sailfish software?
You may be right, but your link merely says Sailfish will be "installable", doesn't say how the developers will be paid. If they are handing it out free, how do they feed their families?
The same way Linux devs feed their families. Or Mozilla devs. Corporate (or state) sponsorship. When you think of it, many - if not most - of the greats in our history were able to do their work largely because of patronage. Leonardo, Einstein, Torvalds...even our whole start-up model is based on it.
Patronage is how great works are born. Corporatism is how mediocre works with built in obsolescence are born. States are how hyper-expensive public works are born. There are exceptions, but overall, if you want something done in excellence, ensure that patronage exists to get that done.
There is no incentive in capitalism to create excellence. There never has been. If you want the "new thing" that is changing that, look to kickstarter. Crowdfunding is means of democratising patronage. Instead of one (or a small number) of patrons injecting a lot of cash, you get a large number of patrons injecting a small amount of cash.
An interesting idea, but I think you confuse things by comparing great artists over a milennia with the fairly average piles of code associated with Linux or Mozilla.
The nearest to patronage that I see in the world of software is Ubuntu, and that's not famous for being either a great work or its excellence is it? Wikipedia is another example you might call on, and there you've got a better case - for all the flaws and all the insults, Wikipedia is fairly reliable, and contains vastly more knowledge than any previous encylopaedic tome. But in that case, the content is mostly user generated, so the ultimate value of Wikipedia is not derived from the source code, and the genius of Wikipedia is the concept not the code.
Coming back to Sailfish, if they give it away for free, who is paying for its development, and who will pay for support and development? And more importantly if it is patronage, why are they paying? Being able to show your tame artists latest work off as a result of your largesse is one thing. But which oligarch is going to fund Sailfish, and then wave it about at society dinner parties as their lifetime achievment?
Relatively few people are willing to reflash their phone with a new OS but the few that are help generate word of mouth recommendations and buzz on teh interwebs.
The rest of the copies will be sold with the phone in the usual way.
@ Ledswinger patrons who think that Sailfish is something that will ultimately take off and make everyone a lot of money. Jolla - the main group behind the OS - just got 20M+ in VC funding a while ago. That's the modern patronage system at work. Many other developers for to Sailfish are paid for by various companies who feel they'll benefit from the OS (or the core technologies developed as part of it) and together, all the developers form the Sailfish community.
Just like Linux. Just like Mozilla. Just like Apache.
As for your "fairly average piles of code" comment, I think it's pretty clear that
A) You don't understand what people like Torvalds actually do in relation to the projects they run and
B) You're actually rather biased against these efforts.
Mozilla and the Linux kernel team are both responsible for some of the most complex - and miserably difficult - code mankind has ever written. The genius lies in tying so many moving parts together and keeping them working. The modern browser alone is more complex than entire operating systems were in the early 90s, and the Linux kernel is quite the feat of engineering; especially for something that isn't run by a dedicated team of the world's top highest-paid specialists...yet seems to compete with the best that the world's highest-paid specialists can create.
You seem unable to understand how open source works, and how so many projects continue to make money. Project after project, distribution after distribution continues to tick along. The Weyland/Weston team - formerly X.org, formerly X11 - have been doing their thing for 30 years. Red Hat begat both RHEL and Fedora, each of which spawn several derivative distros, and they don't seem to be going anywhere.
Mozilla has sugar daddies, as does Apache, the Linux Foundation, and so forth. Even the equivalent of "open source" musicians make money in today's world: look at John Coulton.
You seem to view code as nothing more than a means to a commercial end and thus seem unable to understand why anyone would pay for anything they could otherwise just get for free and run off with. You completely miss the point, and in doing so fail to understand the model upon which open source thrives.
Open source is far closer to art than commerce. Code as artistic endeavour is the mindset you need if you're to understand how funding occurs in this world. It's miserable. It's a lot of chasing sponsors and a lot of trying to build up a community of people who like your work and convincing them to pay you so you can keep making more. Often, you need a patron...sometimes in the form of a single rich donor, sometimes in the form of a corporation, sometimes in the form of organized community efforts.
I would pay good money for Sailfish. Once a phone is on the streets and in my hands, I will. I'll cut a cheque to Jolla and make sure that the relevant open source foundation for Sailfish is added to my company's yearly list of donation targets.
If I don't support the projects that make the stuff I like then those projects won't be there. I'm even trying to get enough money together to support a full time body to work on open source projects. First Weston/Weyland and FreeRDP Server integration/development, then ReactOS. That's "patronge"...or at least the modern form of it.
It's also how a lot fo open source devs gets paid.
" patrons who think that Sailfish is something that will ultimately take off and make everyone a lot of money. Jolla - the main group behind the OS - just got 20M+ in VC funding a while ago. That's the modern patronage system at work. "
No, you're wrong. You just said "VC", and that's capitalism, not patronage. Patronage is where the benefits to the funder are considerably more ephmeral. You probably know as well as I do that VC's are hard nosed bunch of bastards, hoping to subsidise a few losers in return for each big winner.
"As for your "fairly average piles of code" comment, I think it's pretty clear that A) You don't understand what people like Torvalds actually do in relation to the projects they run and"
You could be right, on the other hand you don't know what my background is. My guess is you are more wrong than right on that, but the simple ad hominem is not becoming of you, IMHO.
"B) You're actually rather biased against these efforts."
Utter. utter rubbish. Re-read my comments, please. I was looking forward to both choice in phone OSes, and choice in the underlying economic models, because what I may want isn't what may suit everybody. I happily use a variety of open source and "unpaid" software, and I appreciate the developers who contribute freely to projects like Mozilla (but that sadly still isn't a work of genius, any more than Chrome or IE are), and I appreciate up to a point what Google do for me in return for aspects of my privacy (although they seem to be working to undermine the pact I thought I had with them).
I'm afraid that at that point I stopped reading due to your mis-representation of my remarks, and the personal nature of your criticism. You're generally welcome to be both abusive and argumentative with me, and I'll happily read and respond, but in this particular case I think you're out of sorts.
@Ledswinger Venture capitalism is the Patronage of captialism. I know several VCs and they are as much (or more) about ego and vanity than they are about "making money." In fact, in my conversations with them they seem to view funding projects as a simple act of maths. In one variant or another I've had litterally dozens of VCs say the following to me:
"Roughly one in ten will make it big. two in ten will make you back your investment. You just have to see it through and accept there will more losers than winners. Pick projects and people you like, technologies that interest you; ultimately, you'll want to get involved. Maybe you'll mentor. Maybe you'll help with contacts. Maybe it will be to bring in other funders, but being a venture capitalist is more about supporting projects you enjoy than making money. The money will get made; concentrate on the product."
"You could be right, on the other hand you don't know what my background is. My guess is you are more wrong than right on that, but the simple ad hominem is not becoming of you, IMHO."
Saying to you "Ledswinger, I think you're biased against open source and that your personal bias is clouding your judgment as regards your ability to understand how open source coders make money" is not an ad hom. It's saying "nevertheless, it exists" and pointing out that your belief or understanding is unnecessary. It is not the universe's job to reveal itself to you, but your job to understand the universe.
Regardless of your comprehension or approval, open source devs still feed their families the world over.
Use of open source software does not indicate you aren't deeply biased against the ideological and economic policies that underlie open source. A ruthless capitalist who sneers at any concept remotely approaching collectivism or putting the needs of others before themselves would jump at the chance to get something for free, or to use the existence of a free offering as leverage against a non-free vendor.
That said, I do firmly believe that your comments have demonstrated a personal bias against the economic and ideological underpinnings of open source such that you are not allowing yourself to understand the funding models that exist for sailfish and that work for many other projects.
Put simply, I believe you don't like those models you cast about for an alternate explanation - any alternate explanation - that feels more comfortable and familiar.
Imagine a scenario in which someone could invest $5M into Project A, expecting an ROI of 80%. Alternately he could invest into project B, expecting an ROI of 50%.
If he were just a purely hard-nosed capitalist then he would chose Project A. If, however, he were an ideologically - or vanity - motivated capitalist then he might well chose Project B because project B did something he felt was worth doing. That's patronage, even if it comes with a profit motive hanging off of it.
Lots of people - even people with money - do things for reasons that aren't black and white. They may seek to gain personally in some way, but choose to achieve thier capitalistic ends by helping others along the way. As far as I'm concerned, that's a form of patronage...or as close as capitalism gets, anyways.
Whether you accept it or not, these projects still get funded. Developers still feed their families.
So that'll be three OSes which run Android apps as well as Android.
Google might actually have to listen to criticism and fix bugs (their bug tracker doesn't seem to do anything useful) as well as sort out privacy issues.
that's my vote for Sailfish. Every single Android app given its own jail.
Furthermore, the guy who wrote the "android permission app" and was getting some flack for charging, is a bit unfair.
Google should have made it so EVERY app install gets 2 user choices. 1) Give real data 2) give random/simulated data.
I'm sure someone else has probably implemented such a scheme, but it seems at the very least when dealing with mobile devices that have personal information on them, non system apps (i.e. everything not required to run the device) should have "need to know" only. By default.
Windows Phone? Wasn't that one in third place by now?
Twice zero is still zero. Third place doesn't matter if your market share is "Microsoft employees + press you are trying to impress + cultists." Eventually you reach saturation of a not very large number of folks.
You also forgot to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_OS
In the recent past when I commented on pending arrival of most probable Tizen Linux smartphone and tablet technology from Samsung/Intel venture, as well as FirefoxOS products, there was very strong negative feedback from the servile Microsoft Windows fans in support of their company's mobile efforts to stay relevant and not become unimportant, or only gain a miniscule market share. This reaction may have been fair to some degree, since there was little credible public information on these new mobile ventures, at least enough for the automatic Redmond naysayers to accept as real.
Now that the information flow on Tizen products is forthcoming, with 2014 product ship time frames and noted for having additional backing of behemoths of NTT docomo, Huawei and Fujitsu - who between them (combined) have probably more than three times the financial funding power and considerable market presence than all of Microsoft, it makes sense that Microsoft and it hordes of minion fans would be justly concerned about surviving relevancy in this new mobile technology age.
All media accounts of this type and on this topic can expect boatloads of vitriolic gibberish comment from the Windows crowd, but hopefully that will implode quickly.