<br>First, let me start by saying I bought a Neo 1973, and would support such<br>a device again -- depending on my finances at the time. :)<br><div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div>
<style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:41 AM, arne anka <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:openmoko@ginguppin.de">openmoko@ginguppin.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">> And, I never understood why we should assume, that a premier league<br>
> player would ever care for a small community like ours.<br>
<br>
</div>not for that small community per se.<br>
it would most likely be only a intersection of interests.<br>
the manufacturer would be able to<br>
- gain a reputation as being "open" (which might appeal to goverments as<br>
well b/c of several reasons)<br></blockquote><div><br>Or not -- see the current spat over Blackberry in India/UAE/etc. "Open" isn't<br>good for governments looking for tight controls. And while it might be great<br>
for their citizens, it's the gov'ts that control devices, unfortunately.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
- additional promotion by mouth-to-mouth through people being interested<br>
in open devices, probably cheaper than paid merchandising for the same<br>
group<br></blockquote><div><br>While this is true, this target audience is small.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
- somewhat broadened developer base<br></blockquote><div><br>Do you really think that the term "open" will attract more developers? Maybe<br>a handful or two, but developers flock to where the money is. See iPhone. :S<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
- android inspired cost structure: make your hw specs public -> enable<br>
developers to make the best from it -> gain market share since your device<br>
offers the most b/c developers can use the hw and are not limited to<br>
app-like apis (cf iP[od|hone|ad])<br>
<br>
with the success of android, i think a more open approach might appeal to<br>
vendors.<br></blockquote><div><br>I'm not up on all the latest android stuff, but from what I've seen, you can make<br>a pretty closed system from those building blocks.<br><br>What Sean got right was that a phone should have mass appeal. If your girlfriend<br>
and her mother want to use it, then that's good.<br><br>The Neo and the Freerunner are second (third?) class hardware -- there is no<br>doubt. The idea was to build great software, and that would make the appeal<br>to ordinary people strong, despite having hardware that wasn't best of class.<br>
The problem was that the great software never got there, and combined with<br>old and problematic hardware, it didn't have a decent chance.<br><br>It's clear from the GTA03/0X wishlists that there are people out there who want<br>
an open phone. Some are even willing to pay good money for one. I am.<br><br>However, to not end up with a hobbyist phone, some compromises have to<br>be made. Not everyone will be happy, but the journey to a fully open smartphone<br>
will be long, expensive and perilous. It's important not to lose sight of the end<br>goal -- which should be a device that is long-term viable.<br><br>There aren't enough geeks out there to make an open phone successful,<br>
unfortunately. And to get the latest bells and whistles, the phone has to be<br>successful, so that there is another phone to follow. So, it's important that<br>the phone be pleasing to the eye, have good software and hardware.<br>
<br>So, forget about "open" short term. Consumers don't care, vendors don't<br>care, operators don't care. If we can build something _appealing_, that<br>hackers find fun and consumers will buy, even if it isn't as open as<br>
everyone would like, then that would be awesome. And as such a project<br>gains success, it has more clout and more money. And more clout<br>and more money means more leverage with suppliers, hopefully meaning<br>that things can be more and more open.<br>
<br>Let's remember that even the great iPhone maker Apple stumbled with<br>their first phone -- not iPhone 1, but the joint deal with Motorola called<br>Rokr. And even their latest phone has some issues.<br><br>Now, some on the mailing list might already know this. What I haven't<br>
seen, so far, is anyone talk about how many devices would be needed<br>to be a "success". Would 100,000 phones do it? 1 Million? More, or less?<br><br>I'd love to see a truly open smartphone running Linux and BSD, with<br>
full access to as much of the hardware as we want. I'm hoping to see<br>this sooner, but we'll have to see how many intermediate steps there<br>are, from "mostly closed" to "fully open". I'm willing to accept Android<br>
as a stepping stone, but it won't warm anyone to "open" or push<br>suppliers in that direction.<br><br>Gerald<br></div></div>