Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

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)#Inst...

View on HN

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Qt just released 5.1, which has prelimiary ios and Android support. By the end of the year, you will be able to write a Qt application, and use a QML ui. You can even use one single UI across all devices, where the UI dynamically adds or substracts elements depending on screen size. IE, responsive design for applications.

It is pretty close to write once, run anywhere. The only downside is if your app is the first qt app installed on an ios / android device, it forces a download of the shared libraries which are quite large. You also have to build the applications against individual platforms, since you are using C++, and the finished binary is a native application that uses the qt libraries to launch the qml engine and v8 for the javascript parts.

One experiment I am anxious to see come to fruition in the qt space is the KDE project to get qml apps running in the browser : https://projects.kde.org/projects/playground/www/qmlweb. Since QML is inherently javascript, a web app could only use javascript / qml to create a restrcited sandbox (or nacl / other browser equivalent for the c++ parts) and the entirety of qtquick is designed around high latency elements, so it can support network transport.

> The only downside is if your app is the first qt app installed on an ios / android device, it forces a download of the shared libraries which are quite large.

How does this get around sandboxing on iOS? My fuzzy understanding is that components would need to be downloaded for each app independently. And is there a reason those shared libraries can't be bundled?

No idea, never tried it. A cursory browsing of qt documentation suggests it can't, and it also can't use qtquick2, which is where qml becomes really useful (which is also when it starts using v8).

That's incorrect. QML has used v8 since its initial appearance in Qt4. In fact, it will move away from v8 in Qt 5.2 is the current plan.

http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/03/05/qt-for-ios-preview/

According to the qt blog, only qtquick2 depends on v8.

You're right, sorry - replacing JavaScriptCore with v8 indeed only happened for Qt 5. However, v8 is indeed on the way out again, as mentioned: http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/04/15/evolution-of-the-qm...

On iOS at least dynamic libraries are not allowed outside those Apple provides, so I'm not sure how that would work. I imagine they'll have to compile in the Qt runtime on iOS at least. I'll be interested to see their efforts in this space, but Qt everywhere is not particularly attractive to me, nor is working in C++ or javascript with qml.

I do wish these platforms were a little more agnostic to the technology used in their API, and had simple C bindings anyone could write glue code for to use their favourite language. Learning yet another markup language and using C++ in order to create apps doesn't really appeal. Whatever the platform insists on as glue is what we'll have to use though, as usual. Personally I'm going to look into the webapp support in Ubuntu Phone to see if it supports local web apps, and hope that I can use that glue to get at any device state that I need to access.

As to qml in the browser, I'd really rather have web apps on the desktop than start writing websites in qml, I'd be very surprised if that catches on.

I recently made a toy project with QML. It was my first Qt experience and I think I'll be using QML for just about any GUI I want to create in the future, it's a really clean and nice way of working.

HTML5 is also supported. From 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."

( >similar to XAML from MS...< Cough; XUL!)

> 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/

How does this hardware compare to FirefoxOS' hardware offerings?

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

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.

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).

> 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?

> 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).

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.

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

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.

any info on getting a shell/root/native code?

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 ;-)

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 :)

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.

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).

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.

>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.

They seem to aim for the high end, but on the other hand it seems still difficult to provide all-around desktop platform without Intel/AMD instruction set.

But if it is ARM and it still works, then it would still be a nice office platform.

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

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn't a lot of people just acquire some pirated version of a Windows OS?

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.

(b) because usually you can't. Nor should you be able to...

I believe there are some strong anti-trust arguments for it to be possible to pay for only the OS you want to buy, not the one the manufacturer bundles with your device?

Granted there's still a de-facto monopoly on paid for desktop operating systems for general x86 pcs -- but does that really mean that we should try to keep it that way?

That's not how systems are designed and built. You're not paying for the OS, you're buying an integrated product that wouldn't exist unless it was designed and manufactured for Windows.

I think your speculation is quite wrong. Linux users are typically the highest payers for games, on average.

On every[0] Humble Bundle so far, the highest average donations come from Linux users.

On some, they've even donated the same amount or more in total dollars compared to OS X users - ie, Linux users have been more profitable even though they have a much smaller market share.

In short, Linux users are very profitable (per-user).

[0] I can't confirm that it's 100%, but it's been every Humble Bundle I've participated in (a lot), which I think is a large enough sample size for the purposes of this statement.

I noticed that too and have always wondered why.

Maybe the lack of games make Linux users appreciate it more?

That and the fact that a lot of people want Linux to succeed as a desktop platform.

When you use a lot of FOSS, I think (at least for myself) I tend to pick my spots to get closed-source, for-cost software. If it'll run well on my platform, and I like the organization developing it, it feels more like... monetary collaboration, say, than simply buying another thing. If you're used to buying all your software, paying the minimum might look like just the (perfectly reasonable) cheapest way to get it?

Not to suggest that there actually IS any difference between the two groups when they pay - I just feel like more a good-deed-doing partner when I voluntarily pay more for something like humble bundle, that's all. It's silly and false, but it's definitely a feeling.

Or maybe it's because Linux users tend to be software developers, who are mostly quite well off due to the industry right now.

Or developers appreciate the effort it takes to program something, and want to break away from the 99c per app approach and want to make a more fair payment?

I pay for bundles I don't even play, just to get the word out that there is a market, and I want more games in it.

My gut feeling is that someone running Linux as their desktop OS has had to opt in; this means that the pool of potential desktop Linux game purchasers is more likely to be made up of people who are motivated by Linux itself; and that these people are thus more likely to be people who are invested in the success of Linux as an environment.

I'm not au courant with Linux in any of its various forms, so my assumptions above could be wildly wrong, of course.

> ... these people are thus more likely to be people who are invested in the success of Linux as an environment.

I think that you are correct -- at least in part.

I have zero desire to play games but I have purchased many of the Humble Bundles, for example, simply to "support the cause" and encourage other vendors to also consider Linux as a viable platform. I usually give away whatever it is that I've bought.

I think this is partly caused by the lack of offering. For instance: I'm throwing a lot of money at Steam and Valve for the games that are available there because it is one of the very few vendors that has native games for my platform.

Way I look at it, there's fewer commercial games on the platform, so users are more grateful and focused on buying those games.

A single, idealistic phone like this will allow those users to focus and buy it - in much the same way as the games.

A man in a desert will also pay a lot more for a glass of water.

Your comment isn't really as relevant as you think it is. It would suggest Linux would be a highly lucrative platform to target for games, however the more normal it becomes to port games to Linux the less likely people would be to pay that price. This would happen much faster than you would think too.

Find how many Steam subscribers are running Ubuntu and buying games, and subtract that number from the total estimated Ubuntu users.

Count me in the 'buys games' lot.

Ubuntu is a very reasonable average joe OS. It is actually really crappy for gaming - when I was using Ubuntu at the Unity switch around 10.04, there were tons of absurd full screen and tearing bugs in games. Even now that most of that is fixed, Unity/compiz is still vastly outperformed by everything else when running full screen opengl apps. On Gnome / KDE I never encountered those.

I'd encourage you to try it again. I'm running Ubuntu 12.04 on my Dell XPS 13 (Sputnik Edition of course) - and I have no problems with playing Steam games.

I havn't really had any problems playing any game that works on *NIX so far - not that there's all that many.. but still.

I switched to Arch a long while ago. I also prefer the KDE app suite, systemd, and pacman. I still like where Ubuntu is going, but KDE just has feature density I like. I just put relatives on Opensuse because tumbleweed is really solid.

I value that Canonical can bring people to *nix, but I like my customization and a lot of the magic that KDE can pull off. Also, I love writing QML + C++, though with Ubuntu transitioning to be qt focused I could get that anywhere.

I hope this means, more than anything, the year of qt is 2014, because I'd really like to get employed working in qml / qt projects.

If prior form is anything to go by they're about to break it all again with the Mir switch.

10.04 was a virtual lifetime ago.

I just played Euro Truck Simulator 2 in Ubuntu 13.04 this morning. With the latest update it runs very nice. Full screen, no tearing. It has less FPS than in Windows, but that's expected for this particular game. Using an empty Openbox desktop to run it made no difference, the performance issues are not because Unity, but because of the game engine. I'm only working in moving my savegame from Windows to Ubuntu.

On the other hand, Portal and Half Life 2 run PERFECT in Ubuntu. Just as fast and pretty if not faster than in Windows 7. I'm waiting for Portal 2, as that's one game I have not managed to finish in any platform yet. They also support virtual desktops, so I can ctrl-alt-arrow them away in an instant if my GF needs something from me.

If you are in a country, where people can't afford MS products, then they usually don't give two damns about legal issues(because there are none). All hail the pirates, because pirating is the norm.

Source: From country where pirated windows used to be norm. Still is in ethical standpoint. Only OS bundled with computers has changed that.

I don't use Ubuntu because I'm cheap, I use it because it's the best tool for the job. I think in general Ubuntu users are going to be developers(read have expendable income to spend on gadgets). I think making a play for the high end is the smart move, create a device everyone wants and aspires to own and they will sell themselves. Also if your main market is developers(as I'm assuming it is for the Edge) then you need to blow them away with a beautifully designed high end device to get them to buy it and then start developing the app ecosystem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com