| ▲ | poisonborz 2 hours ago |
| Jolla / Sailfish is a 13 year old project and through all this time they couldn't make a foothold, or even sustain some small motivated community around them. During this time: - company folded and changed hand multiple times, including russian ownership - the tablet scandal leaving users with lost funds - closed source parts - locked bootloader - charging a $50 device reset fee - not much change in Sailfish OS since ages - buggy Android compatibility and near zero native devs, all jumped ship At this point I think they are just one of the grifters preying on naive "EU first" supporters shoveling whatever they still have in a new casing. I'd love the idea of a greenfield EU Linux mobile OS, but I don't think it should come from this company. |
|
| ▲ | dijit 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Jolla / Sailfish is a 13 year old project Realistically building a production quality database takes 10 years. Building a production quality game engine takes 10 years. They're building a mobile operating system and the hardware it runs on; that's harder and a moving target. How long do you think it takes to build a supply chain of hardware that doesn't suck (if it takes 2 years to get moving: you need to start with hardware specs for 2 years from now) and an operating system that doesn't suck when you're also trying to catch up to a major duopoly cranking out devices at an unfathomable volume, with more money than most nation states? Your standard is "succeed against Google and Apple within 13 years on a shoestring budget with no volume discounts." How can any project clear that bar? What would you do? |
| |
| ▲ | poisonborz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Your standard is "succeed against Google and Apple within 13 years..." Absolutely not. My standard is the many other AOSP-based ROMs communities and companies that were founded around them, having success within a few years - yes, they could lean on the ecosystem compatibility and didn't produce their own hardware, but maybe that's a more viable way to start? "shoestring budget with no volume discounts" does not explain the points of criticism above. | | |
| ▲ | dijit an hour ago | parent [-] | | AOSP is just a totally different destination, it's not a faster route to the same one. Sailfish is spiritually MeeGo: actual Linux on the phone, not a custom skin on Google's foundations. Obviously it's faster to build a kit-car than a car factory, I don't see how that's a rebuttal, it's an entirely different conversation. An AOSP fork on Qualcomm hardware isn't independence. Jolla are actually trying to build the factory. The $50 fee and tablet scandal are fair hits- but fuck-ups don't make you a grifter, and we've forgiven larger players far worse. You still haven't said what you'd actually do. | | |
| ▲ | microtonal 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't see the issue of using AOSP. You get to skip the many years that Sailfish OS will still need in user testing. You get to skip all the possible incompatibilities with Android apps through the compatibility layer. AOSP is also Linux on the phone. I guess you mean GNU/Linux on the phone, but AOSP now also has official support for a Linux VM (you want a VM because traditional desktop Linux security is not great). They are even adding support for running Wayland apps. With the recently-added desktop support, you can plug a phone into an external screen and you'll have a desktop with Android apps and Linux desktop apps. I think the chance of Google completely closing AOSP is pretty small, AOSP being open maintains a power equilibrium between Google and other OEMs. Closing up AOSP carries the huge risk that Samsung and some other big OEMs will fork it and Google has essentially lost the whole market overnight. I am pretty sure this is why Samsung phones also have the Galaxy Store with a bunch of apps like Netflix in it. The Galaxy Store is Samsung's subtle message to Google saying: don't try to rein us in, we can cut you out. That said, even if Google closes AOSP, forking it and maintaining it as an open project is going to be far less work than brining Sailfish OS to the level of polish, security, etc. of AOSP. | |
| ▲ | poisonborz an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why is AOSP a wrong path? Why would it be "tainted"? Any large enough entity can fork. Hundreds already did, successfully. Even China couldn't do otherwise - via Huawei they mutated it to HarmonyOS (becoming much different from its roots, and incompatible to it, structurally becoming superior in many ways). Why throw away 20 years of development and a sea of dev experience? But even if you insist on a non-AOSP way: Supporting any other, more well regarded projects and initiatives? Random top of my head idea: motivate Fairphone (Denmark) to adopt some non-android OS like Ubuntu Touch? | | |
| ▲ | fsflover an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Why is AOSP a wrong path? Because its existence relies on a good will of Google. See: Google will allow only apps from verified developers to be installed on Android (9to5google.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028 and GrapheneOS accessed Android security patches but not allowed to publish sources (grapheneos.social) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925 > Any large enough entity can fork. Only megacorps will likely be able to support a hard fork for such a large codebase. > Hundreds already did, successfully. Which of them are hard forks? China will not be a benevolent dictator of AOSP > Fairphone It's Android again. There are indeed non-Android alternatives, but not in Europe. I use Librem 5 btw. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | toast0 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Jolla / Sailfish is a 13 year old project and through all this time they couldn't make a foothold, or even sustain some small motivated community around them. Sure, but somehow RCS is viable in 2026. Old projects can come back! |
|
| ▲ | embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > but I don't think it should come from this company. Could*, maybe than should, unless you believe that all those things will apply to the phone they plan to release in September. Otherwise I don't see the issue with a company keep trying until they get something right (or give up). Why not? |
| |
| ▲ | poisonborz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | True, but I also wanted to signify that I find any user trust (eg as a result of this new marketing campaign) is misplaced and steals air from a better alternative. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | tpoacher 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| on one hand you're not wrong on the other, I really, really loved my original jolla phone back in the day. I happily used it as my daily driver and only phone for 2 years. Until it had a hardware fault which I could no longer repair via the company. |
|
| ▲ | badgersnake 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I got burned with the tablet too. Still have the phone and the first one t-shirt that went with it, as well as a Nokia N9. And I agree, it’s turned into a bandwagon grift. They’re also selling AI boxes that do who knows what. |
