The free trial lasts for 30 days, but you can have as many accounts at foreca as you wish (I haven’t tried it yet). Or you can subscribe to any of the paid services: the cheapest one is for 990 eur/year. Almost free. 
4 Likes
I have extended it once already, the only catch so far is that you must provide a new email when requesting a new trial key for 30 days. Not a big deal for those who own a domain. Although it was so much nicer when it worked out of the box 
4 Likes
Is there any chance to change the weather service provider, e.g. to Location Forecast - Yr ?
2 Likes
I wonder if it would work with the email address extensions like the plus in gmail, where anything you add after a plus sign gets dropped before resolving the final mailbox name.
So you could use e.g. youremail+forecaMMYY@gmail.com
2 Likes
Dots (“." ) are ignored too
I’d like to add some more arguments to change the weather service provider:
- Foreca seems to depend on a priced package: Foreca Weather API
- OpenWeather has to be paid as well: Weather API - OpenWeatherMap
- YR seems to offer a free service: Terms of Service - Yr
So why not try to convince Jolla to:
- change the weather service provider or
- change the Weather App to open source, so SFOS community could fix it?
5 Likes
More ideas could perhaps come from the Kodi project. It has a number of free and open-sourced weather addons (which don’t require a paid key/subscription).
1 Like
From the opening page of the Sailfish OS site: https://sailfishos.org/
False advertising and the deception of the consumer is against the EU law.
1 Like
Though the weather information can be now shown with Meecast and Meecast Event View from OpenRepos. I know it’s not a default feature anymore (or at the moment) and Meecast is a workaround, but still.
Therefore i personally don’t consider anything false advertising.
Also i don’t want anyone to be surprised that Sailfish needs a bit tinkering every now and then. I think it’s fun, even if it is a bit frustrating sometimes. But i think that’s what i signed up for.
6 Likes
Meecast and Meecast Event View (or any app from the OpenRepos collection) is not part of the operating system, while the Weather app is. The screenshot and the SailfishOS website above is talking about the default, built-in Weather application, which cannot show weather information anymore. So it is in fact false advertising actually.
3 Likes
Would it make sense to post a Feature Request for changing the weather service provider?
1 Like
This does not fall under false advertising. First of all, Sailfish OS is not even a product being sold, it is literally free to use. Secondly, there is no intent to deceive. The functionality exists and has existed for many years, but is simply temporarily unavailable. Thirdly, this report is marked as tracked by Jolla, and there’s even a comment by a Jolla employee that they’re looking into it.
Save the big talk for when it’s needed.
11 Likes
- Free, really? Have you seen https://shop.jolla.com/?
- I’m using Sailfish OS for 4 years, so for me 40+ days of unavailability means ~3% service disruption. Could we call it “temporary”?
- Tracked, yes. The last and only comment from Jolla was on 25th of August (more than 40 days ago). I was able to obtain a free/test API key from Foreca within an hour (it could be longer for a corporate subscriber like Jolla, I admit…).
Anyway, seeing the likes (and lack of likes) on our posts, I’m in the minority with my opinion. So I quit posting here anymore.
2 Likes
- I have. Where exactly have you seen “Weather application and widget” in the list of paid features?
- and 3. If you’ve been using Sailfish OS for 4 years, you know how often updates come. Should a Jolla employee post a comment on every tracked report every day about whether they’re still working on it or not? Or would every other day also be okay? If Jolla employed 10000 people and had fifteen billion euro cash to spend, it would be justified to complain that the problem still wasn’t fixed, but there’s only a few dozen people and no cash, and it still wouldn’t fall under false advertising either way.
6 Likes
This kind of ‘false advertising’ argument has come up before, specifically where a feature has been advertised by Jolla but doesn’t work, or hasn’t worked, properly from some time (in the previous case, for years).
As a lawyer specialising in contract law, I can say that @tice_rex is basically right, and such a situation would be likely to be classed under the law on misrepresentation. There are different statutes in the EU and in other countries, but the legal principle is always the same. If a person or company knowlingly represents a product to be capable of doing a, b, or c, and they also know that that product provably can’t do a, b or c then that person or company would be liable for any losses suffered by claimants as a result of that misrepresentation.
There are various classes of misrepresentation - fraudulent, innocent, negligent, etc - and depending upon which class applied would determine the scale of liability incurred by the person or company making the misrepresentation.
However, it is up to the claimant to prove any losses incurred as a direct result of the misrepresentation, and since the core Sailfish OS is free that would be a hard, although not impossible for consequential losses, thing to do.
You would have to be able to demonstrate that, for example, (a) your only source of weather information was the Sailfish OS in-built weather display, (b) that you could only rely on this function to, say, plan the harvest on your farm, and therefore that (c) because it no longer worked you lost your crop (which resulted in a consequential loss of whatever). If you couldn’t establish what is known as a ‘chain of causality’ (i.e. prove (a) and (b) and (c) in that order) from the misrepresented feature to a financial loss then there wouldn’t be much point in suing Jolla over this.
And since, from what I hear, Jolla currently may well be bankrupt anyway, even if you were successful in your legal action you would be unlikely ever to see any financial compensation.
9 Likes
Even though the legal risk to Jolla is low, there is an easy way for them to mitigate it - either they change their website so that it does not advertise functions that no longer work, or they publish somewhere else that certain features are temporarily unavailable. The key legal principle here is intent. If there is no intent to fix the weather, twitter feed, etc, either at all or for some considerable time, then they really should remove the advertising of these features as they are knowingly making the Sailfish product look more capable (and therefore attractive to users) than it really is. If there is an intent to fix such features within a reasonable timeframe then a notice to say that these functions were temporarily unavailable would remove all legal risk of misrepresentation.
5 Likes
How long time do you consider temporary and after what period you consider it permanently? Cause pretty sure it is going to be permanently, and in this case you are wrong…it is false advertising!!!
Do not worry…they are the fan boys, they do not have anything to do with reality. You can find them for every Brand: Apple, Tesla, etc. It doesn’t matter what shit the companies are doing, they cannot see further, cause their eyes are covered from it.
2 Likes
You do not understand the concept that WE payed a license that included features.Some of us, such as myself, multiple licenses. 1 euro, 5 euros or 10000 euros do not matter. We payed, we got it and now it is gone. That’s your argument that we payed too less? And the company has too few employees? So, when you buy a car that has heated seats, and the company has financial issues, it is ok that the featured that you payed dissapeares?!?! Incredible what logic you can find here lately.