… and a utilising a central, most relevant component, which all GUI programs (i.e. all apps) use from 2016, with its final release in 2017 and security support ended in 2019: Qt 5.6
8 Likes
It all comes down to thinking opening up would be a matter of losing something.
In general, for complex systems as this, the source code and the derivations are just more success. One copyleft notice and they all spell Jolla on the aforementioned derivatives.
So this fear of opening up when you have a core of community supporters is not rational. It is the opposite of rational: opening up would enlarge the ‘core’, and all the derivatives would just add more users, some of which could someday want to be inside the core user group.
I already said in this thread that installable images could still be per subscription, even if they are actually open source. So I think that this forum of people is a proof that we can already pay and the rest of the world can find out about Sailfish as an added bonus,
4 Likes
It only takes one motivated community member to set up nightly builds and bypass Jolla. Someone could also fork like owncloud/nextcloud. I support FOSS, but I understand their fear. They still hold onto something and they fear they could lose it.
1 Like
If you could take off the binary glasses from your nose, you could probably think about business. There are many that kept good relations with the other side. I also do not agree that Rostelecom was anti-american. In fact it was a try to protect from US intelligence, but anyway - it was rhetoric question.
I do not see many western companies cooperating with Jolla after all.
In fact I really don’t care about your or Jollas political bias. It is pitty that just10y later there are a lot of things still not working, there is no big enough user base, poor support etc. etc. And on top comes the wokism. As if it is on purpose to destroy the confidence.
To put it understandably short: Make finally a fully working phone or just give it up. Using the user base just to pump money from here and there is not profitable for the users. This makes me really think moving to Volla or whatever is working out of the box.
4 Likes
Except that ‘everything’ back then, isn’t everything today. 
And ‘everything’ also worked flawlessly 10-8 years ago (Jolla Phone and Jolla C).
3 Likes
I dislike the “pay us monthly or you lose everything” model. Still, it’s clear that Jolla can’t operate without a decent, predictable revenue stream and I would hate (at least as much) losing them and Sailfish OS.So, I have been buying new licenses, more or less making it into a subscription anyway.
I think an actual subscription could be made to work in a similar fashion, if the terms make it clear that one is still entitled to the latest version received while the subscription was still active.
Today the license is bound to the device, so revenue would drop as people upgrade their devices. (My Xperia X is still running, but I’m likely in the minority.) But what if licenses were bound to the person instead? Then a subscription would make more sense, as the license could be brought along when that person gets a new phone (and decomissions the old one).
Or, what about a mix? License fee up front, then a subscription after, say, 12 months.
Maybe transferring the license to a new device could come at 50% of the full license fee? (Subscription covers ongoing general improvement, transfer fee covers the work done for device adaptation.)
2 Likes
Perhaps Irrelevant;
but would this “paid updates” then allow for community ports to be finance-able as well?
Or is it something worthy of the “mainline” SFOS / official ports only?
Do you mean, “Would «paid updates» also affect community ports, i.e. would users of community ports also have to pay for their updates?”
I would assume so, unless one re-flashes to upgrade SailfishOS by using a newer image.
Side note: All community ports are done by persons in their spare time for free AFAICS, hence they are not “financed” at all.
5 Likes
That’s why I used the “allow” word.
It would be a positive thing indeed for community ports, no?
And perhaps even help spread the effort to get more devices to SFOS (porters would get some sort of support).
But perhaps for Jolla it would work only on a revenue-share basis…
1 Like
If Jolla would share the revenue from “paid updates” with community porters: yes.
I do not think that is Jolla’s intention for a multitude of reasons, one being the effort to implement the required logistical infrastructure: Community porters would have to register themselves with their banking information at Jolla.
2 Likes
See, I did not say Jolla would share part of the revenues; that’s never going to happen.
The community would share them (for the devices ported) to Jolla.
1 Like
Wat?
2 Likes
Community could leverage the (eventual) paid upgrades infra of Jolla for community ports; at a partial cost of the total price (could be the same?)
meaning that community port upgrades could be payable as well (to port maintainers via Jolla infra).
These are your words Deloptes, not mine.
It still happens that my words are getting hidden for no reason, so I start re-posting them as soon as they get hidden. This is my new way of protest.
2 Likes
So, you are admitting spamming?
4 Likes
Not just yours. Some members of this forum even censor their own right to be properly informed, as you can see e.g. here.
There is a race here who wants to pay Jolla more money, whereas in exchange you can’t even expect to be properly informed about which device is to be supported while the last untis disappear from the stores as we speak.
2 Likes
I don’t know what woke is, but hearing about its omnipresent ills repeatedly in a forum about a small alternative smartphone OS is getting tedious.
19 Likes
Five hidden replies. I suppose full of
censorship vaccination lizard people communism yadda yadda flat earth all nazis except ma and me yadda yadda free speech for the dumb yadda yadda…
Half of this thread is unreadable.
6 Likes