Because it looks like the car business is (or will be) profitable, the AI business probably gave them the 10M funding, and sailfish without the Russians paying is just a loss without any chance of ever being profitable direct to consumer.
Just a guess 
I would order immediately if the C2 hardware would be up to date. I wouldn’t even mind if that device would cost more than 500€.
C1 was the worst SFOS device ever in my opinion so I have no intention to make this same mistake agaim.
Quality over quantity…
Every android based os is just android, whether they call it calyx/graphene/e/younameit it’s all just aosp, sfos updates do trickle downstream as in for example clat, expecting half a dozen guys hired by jolla to do sony’s job in hw adaptation is just unreasonable, with c2 they will have better access to drivers, for sony devices what you get is what you get, maybe newer binaries will fix an issue or two (like color banding/echo with 13), that’s not on jolla but sony’s b team that screw aosp releases time and time again
Yeah maybe look into pinephone or purism, it will most likely be best supported on driver side again, but if you need bells and whistles it will just be c1 again. Lacking latest bells and whistles, but the ones it does have will ring loud and true, if you need specs, this is not the boat
You say new customers? I say that they lose also the current customers… This thread is the proof. But we’ve notice the company’s focus on automotive, A.I., forum censorship, etc… and not really on Sailfish OS. Release 4.6 is a huge disappointment… I see that some people still have high hopes from Release 5.0 and C2 (if it will be delivered cause I have doubts), but I am not that optimist.
Highly unlikely…European car industry is in a deep crisis from which it might be that they will never recover.
Well they’re working with Mercedes so I think for such a tiny company they’re doing great.
Well, just to clarify, I think the emotions are blurring some views. In this thread there is no customer in terms of “what actually makes the business for Jollaboys”. The most individuals here in this forum are end-users that can participate in this bumpy ride, and contribute to it (well, someones get panic about the subscriptions, are surely not customers).
Regarding the 3 cameras here is a solution:
Pros:
Limitations:
For me, 4.6 was a bit of ‘one step forward, one step backwards’ - in other words no significant change from what we had before. For my use case, some bugs were fixed (e.g. Android mobile connectivity, etc), some longer term ones remained untouched (e.g. Office365 account integration not working properly, fingerprint sensor stops working on X10 iii, OOM kills, sound disppearing in calls, etc) and some new ones introduced (e.g. AppSupport randomly crashing, Android video messaging in WhatsApp, Facebook etc only occupying a third of the screen, Nextcloud calendars now only being available when you are online, some existing native apps can’t (yet) be installed, etc). However, it was only a point release and it is still only the Early Access version, so maybe some more bugs will get squashed before the general release - I really hope so.
I also think our expectations were set too high. It is nearly a year and a half since the last point release (4.5) was made available, so maybe we were expecting more to be done during that extended ‘release desert’ period to improve the existing product line than clearly was done. We all know some of the possible reasons for this. As I understand it, the AI and car parts of Jolla are separate, with presumably a largely separate workforce - but what has perhaps happened is that the SFOS team have been spending a lot of their time on the hardware port of the new C2 Community phone, rather than concentrating on fixing the issues with the existing Sony based product line.
Like many on this forum, I am also concerned that Jolla’s approach of leaving a trail of ‘unfinished products’ with long outstanding functionality bugs in their wake whilst always moving onto the next new thing - be it new phone hardware, AI, car integration or whatever - will neither preserve nor expand their user base. And this is, of course, essential if they are to ensure their long term survival. Surely at least some of these bugs could have been fixed if their resources had not been spread too thinly. As has been said on this forum many times - its better to do one thing well than it is to do many things badly. This is more about the company’s business strategy than it is about the technical team’s ability to technically fix bugs.
I hear the argument about the C2 coming with SFOS pre-installed - and that this is a better approach than one expecting SFOS users to be technically competent in Linux and flashing phones, etc. I agree with this. But lets face it - this approach should have been adopted years ago, and I wonder why it is only now the penny has dropped. Its not as though this hasn’t been discussed endless times before. My only concern now is, according to opinions on this forum, why have they chosen hardware for the C2 that is apparently so unattractive? In a spec-comparison driven market where customers are reluctant to buy aged or poorly specified products this seems like a misstep which will only appeal to the existing SFOS super fans.
And then there is the monthly subscription. If you pay a one off permanent license then you feel like you’re ‘buying’ a product for what it was at the time it was purchased, and that any further functionality additions are a bonus. You can’t really complain at an erratic release schedule, because nothing was really promised in the first place. But a monthly subscription is a different matter entirely. If you keep paying, you keep expecting something more for that payment - and you have every right to do so. With a monthly subscription long term unsolved bugs will be unacceptable, an erratic release schedule with large gaps of nothing will be unacceptable, functionality lagging behind comparable mobile phones in the market will be unacceptable. Nobody will regularly pay money on a long term basis simply for the status quo. Customers will expect proper SLAs on bug fixes, regular and planned functionality releases, and security patching releases that are only days or weeks behind the discovery of vulnerabilities. Are Jolla really now set up to deliver this massive shift in operation?
I would have though a much better licensing model would be where you buy a licence for a major release (say SFOS 5.0) and that that license gets you all of the point releases to that major release as well - major releases bringing new functionality whilst point releases fix bugs and patch vulnerabilities. If you want the next major release (e.g. SFOS 6.0) then you buy a new license for that and so on. This model brings in regular income for the company (whilst incentivising them to bring new functionality to the product) and choice/value for money for the user. Its also less onerous on a small company to keep having to deliver to justify a monthly fee. Lots of small software companies successfully operate this model.
So, I think the 4.6 release (functionally small as it is) should give Jolla pause for thought - but more in terms of a better business strategy than anything else. They need to think about the impact of spreading their resources too thinly across too many product lines, the market/perception of leaving too many serious and frankly extremely irritating bugs left unfixed for too longer time, and a mixed and messy licensing model which will now set user expectations at a level they may not be able to meet.
And finally, yes this is a personal opinion, and yes I am a Jolla supporter and I do want them to succeed (though I am a pragmatist, not a fanatic). But at the end of the day its no good having a beautiful UI, etc, etc, if some of the most basic functionality that would be expected in today’s market either doesn’t work properly or isn’t there at all.
Well said. The question of a subscription was discussed before and the outcome was mixed: some would support it, others didn’t like it at all. With this outcome a monthly subscription is a bit risky.
It also gives Jolla obligations. Undoubtedly Jolla’s developers are clever enough to improve the OS on the phone. Indeed, why not focusing more on the mobile OS instead of on AI, crypto or whatever?
I think the simple answer is: that’s what’s hot these days in terms of VC funding, you can get money from investors looking for the next big thing with AI, 0 investors are looking to invest in third mobile OS, we were supposed to be killed by purism/pinephone for over 4 years now by power of opensource, still the only daily drivable linux on phone ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
“0 investors are looking to invest in third mobile OS”
0 investors are looking to invest one more time in third mobile OS from a company from a country that is ready to self hurt & cancel its business with existing investors on command of a transnational political entity that even when it had still the power and overwhelming reasons to do so stood by and did nothing to protect the 1st (Symbian - Symbose project) and upcoming fourth (Maemo) mobile OS when it was clear that this critical infrastructure would shape the way information is being transferred between citizens, businesses and governments.
If governments can just cancel and worse, start to confiscate, some sectors become too risky to invest in.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 24 hours.