Slashdot Mirror
The First Ubuntu Phone Is Here, With Underwhelming Hardware
A few days ago, Fast Company reviewer Jay Cassano was enthusiastic about Ubuntu's approach to apps for its new phone OS: namely, not relying on them, and instead interfacing seamlessly with existing websites and protocols. Now, new submitter ablutions (4006541) writes with a less than glowing review at The Daily Dot of the actual hardware that the OS is launching on. A sample that conveys the gist: Let's start with the good stuff: It sports a 4.5-inch multi-touch screen and a respectable 8-megapixel rear camera and 5-megapixel lens on the front. That's pretty much it. The list of negatives is a bit longer.
Didn't the "first" Ubuntu phone fail as a kickstarter?
Sure, the hardware sucks, but honestly I think people here are more interested in how the software works. At least I am.
Be seeing you...
That is pure linux inside without any of the big corps "all your data are belong to us" thingys in the background.
And so that user could actually, really, honestly, decide Him/Her self whats going on under the hood (on software side).....
Slam it with some top end hardware, I'd be one of the first lining it up.
Why ohh why, those hardware specs. Since this could have been the phone for geeks. Above specs met, I'd be happy to through in 500 or so €
I don't have any opinion about this phone — although I've long wondered why they were bothering — but I have to question the technical savvy of a reviewer who refers to a "5-megapixel lens." A sensor is rated in megapixels, but a lens is not.
While this review of the Ubuntu offering may be "less than glowing", it's still much more positive than this review of Firefox OS. I've never seen any other device or software review filled with so many negatives.
At this point, Mozilla needs to ask itself, "What chance does Firefox OS really have?"
I mean, we already have iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, Sailfish, and now Ubuntu Touch, among others. Firefox OS is at the very end of that list in terms of quality, usability, usefulness, and every other practical measure.
Why is Mozilla wasting so many resources on an 8th place (that's an optimistic ranking, too) mobile OS that is generally disliked by anyone who has actually had to use it?
I know that Mozilla supporters will toss out some vague claims of "openness" or "freedom" in response, but those are just forms of denial. Or they'll claim it's targeting third-worlders, but even they can do better by buying older Android devices.
Ubuntu Touch should be the final nail in Firefox OS's coffin, were Mozilla to have any sense. It will clearly never be able to compete. So they're best off cutting their losses, and putting an end to the project. They should redirect the resources toward something that will actually benefit users, like undoing some of the awful changes that have been made to Firefox these past few years, or finally getting Electrolysis to work (after so many years of trying and failing). Regardless of what they do with such resources, they need to admit that these resources are better spent elsewhere, rather than wasted on Firefox OS.
As long as software is written well and it wont lag (doubt it).
Name one phone with good software and crappy hardware that I'd consider using. There isn't one. Good software doesn't make the weak screen or camera good. Processor speed may be over rated, but adequate RAM is certainly not, especially with a low-end processor.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Underwhelming software as well.
Honestly, I don't care how mediocre it is - if it gives me control over the software on my device I'm sold. I was dreading buying a new Android
I will buy one. My question is it going to be EASY to purchase? It's at a price point that is trivial and if Ubuntu runs on it decently, then I will mess with it. But I tried ubuntu on the Nexus 4 and it was unholy horrible and chunky, so I cant see this lesser phone being better.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I expected comments from someone who has, you know, maybe touched the device at least once.
I'm not enamored with the phablet trend. I like my Galaxy Nexus, its about the idea size to me. Something smaller with touch could be exciting. I don't need a billion pixels on the phone, but it needs to have some grunt and a good way to get a big keyboard, mouse, and monitor attached.
Slashdot Patriotism: We Support our Dupes!
Perhaps better than you think, if it's natively-compiled code instead of some Java-esque thing.
Kid-proof tablet..
And it doesn't say much of anything other than rambling off hardware specs. Is this what qualifies as a review these days?
If it takes too long to boot, to switch appications, to accept input, has too short a battery life, or cannot keep with simple video applications due to hardware limitations, the architectural fanboys are not going to be enough of a market to keep it in business. Small sales won't bring down the cost of manufacturing to compete.
I scimmed tfa, and I'm not sure they touched the phone.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Obviously Ubuntu devs thought the biggest selling point for this phone was that it was running Ubuntu/linux.
We've been here before, it was called OpenMoko. Though that project blazed the trails for ARM-based Linux, it never got off the ground due to the lack of driver support (the chipset guys knew it) and underwhelming h/w. Once an openmoko developer, and seeing how ARM linux has evolved, we really haven't progress much aside from getting driver support and Android (though the biggest mobile player, has an OS that runs less efficient than iOS, BB, WP7).
I'm starting to believe that Linux has finally hit a limit--it excels in the business (server, routers, robots). Forget the direct-to-consumer space--it's not gonna happen, and Ubuntu phone sort of solidifies it w/all the hype that came with it. Hi, FreeRunner 2....
some people want this to compete with an apple or samsung.
How about comparing it to a Motorola? It's no cheaper than a Moto G, which is twice the phone it is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Do we get all the source code ?
Are they happy for people to make custom images for it ?
Android's ART runtime compiles apps to native code. They literally become ELF files, just like every other executable on Linux. The Dalvik format that apps are distributed in is now serving a similar purpose to the LLVM IR used internally by Apple's compiler.
well were it open enough then it wouldn't be a big problem to port over dalvik for some android action. it's probably possible. with the current one as well.
besides, the phone HAS apps. it's just that they decided to focus more on HOMESCREEN WIDGETS.
the fucking "cards" are HOMESCREEN WIDGETS on limited home screen. limited, how so? their shape and positions are limited, so the copped out. cheaper and faster to make the home screen like that
besides all that, you can get pretty decent android phones for sub 100$ now with specs about the same - and you get to run android apps AND you get to run custom homescreens AND you get to read your news, control your music playback and everything else from the homescreen if you really want to, except you get more control over how the homescreens are laid out(you could make one of the homescreen pages a "music" page, one a "news" page and so forth).
besides, if the cards concept as they call it is any good you'll have it in android next week. fuck, the material design guidelines are pretty much "material" cards too(that's the new android recommended ui paradigmschimshshit). I wouldn't be so as surprised to go to android market today and finding some homescreen replacement or another that does the same thing.
furthermore, you can make android apps in qml/qt as well! in fact, it's much less cumbersome method than doind native android(you need to do some android shims only for very few native api's that most apps don't need anyways and it's outweighted by the ease of integrating c++ code into your qt/qml projects vs. native android using ndk).
in short, the ubuntu guys are putting a lot of spindoctoring and this is a completely different much cheaper to achieve cop out than the original ubuntu phone and has almost nothing to do with the original ubuntu phone concept, which at least had the aspect of running desktop ubuntu if you wanted when connected to something! by the way, you can get ubuntu for android on any friggin android phone! or debian for android as well for that matter!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The article neglects to mention both FirefoxOS and Jolla Sailfish. While neither is available on hardware with impressive specs - the first Jolla phone is nigh-identical to this one spec-wise, but at over a year old it has more excuse - I believe Sailfish may offer you the access you desire? It's descended from Maemo, which was pretty literally "Debian Linux compiled for ARM, with a touch-focused window manager and management tools". I haven't personally used Jolla enough to know anything about how much control it gives you, but on Maemo rooting your phone was a built-in (though hidden from casual discovery) feature.
Alternatively, easily-rooted Android devices do exist. In fact, given that this device apparently runs a heavily customized version of Android (yes, I RTFA), it may even come pre-rooted; there's nothing preventing developers from doing that.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Articles like these are absolutely worthless. Sure, it's always interesting to see some numbers, but what matters is how it works. Saying the entire phone is bad purely based on its technical specifications says a lot about the reviewer. Quote: "[The Ubuntu phone is] ... a phone that is so middle of the road it could be arrested for loitering". Is this journalism?
Can anybody please tell my how such an article is able to reach the Slashdot front page?
running a Big Boy's OS. You know, a device that gives its user a lot of freedom and power. A phone that could be connected to a keyboard and monitor to do the same or similar things my 6 year old desktop can do.
These specs are not a good match for that vision. I can live with the poor resolution, the mid-range camera and the relatively small screen size (though I'm definitely a fan of phablets). The slow CPU and limited amount of RAM are killers, though, and not in the good sense of the word.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Linux does fine in direct to consumer space, actually.
You just have to abandon the notion of "a Linux box" as acting how Linux does on the server and other things you know and love.
Replace the upper level guts with something more reasonable and you know, Linux is popular. A stunningly large number of devices run Linux in consumer devices, and Android powers a lot of phones. The thing in common is that the Linux core is hidden behind a pile of custom code that hides its nature because it has to.
Things like SystemD, NetworkManager, PulseAudio and other big blob programs are attempts to get "regular" Linux to behave more like how consumers expect their devices to behave. Which are incredibly complex behavior that can't just be tied together with a bunch of shell scripts.
Just think how basic operations are done on Android. It's obvious Linux can do them, since Android can do it, but damn is it hard to get desktop Linux to behave like Android.
I just don't have the time to root/want to bother risking a bricked device anymore. FirefoxOS got dismal reviews and my experience with Mozilla is that they're more concerned with (bad) design rather than functionality. Jolla might be an option but I have my doubts as to whether they have the resources to hang in long term, Ubuntu might. Any option that allows me to delete (or does not have) the mass of pre-bundled crapware/social media apps/etc. and that can turn off the nightly Android phoning home is better than hardware specs in my books.