hi Nathan Who said I was upset :) ? I didn't. In fact I think I am very relaxed about it. Just trying to get the maximum info that I can before deciding on a new device for myself.
I need a new phone after having run down 2 n4's, and a bq e45. I would really love it to be another Ubuntu phone but i'd hate to have shelled out a 100 euros for a sec hand N4 or Oneplus one or whatever and discovering that a month later a new supported phone hits the market. Dont blame me too much for asking ;) Thanks for your response non the less cheers Mathijs On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Nathan Haines <nhai...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On 08/26/2016 03:21 AM, Mathijs Veen wrote: > >> Hi Nathan, >> >> Canonical has *very* little to do with this. Everything is up to OEMs >>> and carriers. So you'll need to rely on Bq or Meizu for any kind of >>> definitive information. >>> >> >> I know that that is the official response when pppl ask about a possible >> new device on the cards. And I appreciate that such an announcement >> would certainly be up to oems. >> But if a device is actualy *not* being worked on (anymore) by Canonical, >> Why shouldnt that be ok for Canonical to say so? Just like I would >> expect Canonical to be in a position to confirm it is NOT currently >> developing an Ubuntu edition of say a Lumia 640. >> > > Because there's no way for them to know. The ultimate fate--launch, > suspension, reevaluation, cancellation, etc.--literally depends on the > OEM. In the cellular industry (as with all others), the contracts come > with non-disclosure agreements. The OEM's business department decides > whether or not device development will begin, at what specs, at what launch > target, and then when that is contractually locked down, they will > determine the continuing status. The OEM's marketing department will be in > charge of any announcements, on what channels, and in what shape > communications will form. > > i am of course refering to the vanishing Midori images. Also, at least >> some of the buzz of months past about the MX6 must have originated from >> Canonical sources ;) >> > > No, there's no reason to think that. Chinese vendors often leak > information as a way of measuring interest. If so, this was something that > Meizu did. > > But we have seen no more news or hints for months >> now. So if the MX6 is -for some reason- no more, it would be cool -and >> really practical info for me and a lot of others- if that could be >> confirmed. >> > > The MX6 never *was*. In fact, this is exactly my point--you have made a > decision based on a rumor without an announcement. Now, that's up to you, > but I would never recommend it. It's a very foolish thing to do. > > Now imagine that an OEM (or worse, Canonical, who has no say in whether a > device launches or not) makes an announcement before things have been > determined and budgeted. How much more upset will you be if you make a > decision based on that? > > You're asking Canonical to undermine their partners in a most professional > way. You're upset that OEMs don't undermine themselves in a very > professional way. You're asking about an imaginary device that was never > announced. Maybe they ran some tests and decided that the phone's hardware > wasn't compatible, or wasn't powerful enough, or wasn't profitable enough, > or any number of reasons a company might not continue development on a > model. Maybe the MX25 is coming out next week and they shifted focus to > that. In any case, if work was done on midori, it wasn't announced and we > can see that in general this is for good reason. In fact, it's usually > *illegal* to leak this information because of SEC and other stock > regulations. > > Business just doesn't work that way. And OEMs don't necessarily tell > Canonical anything at all, much less in a timely manner. In the meantime, > you're on this list asking developers who don't work for Canonical for > inside information. > > This is a pretty good rant, and it's not all directed at you. I'm > explaining this in detail because "Why doesn't Canonical derelict their > contractual obligations by committing securities fraud, trading insider > information, and betraying and undermining their commercial partners plans > and market advantage so that I, personally, can be excited about a phone > before it's certain that it will be released?" is a question that comes up > a lot. So I'm elaborating to give others something to think about. > > The answer is because there's *zero* reason to do so, and a lot of very > expensive legal reasons not to do so, even if anybody *would* work with > Canonical again if they did. > > I understand the excitement, and I've wanted to ask colleagues at > Canonical as well when I have the privilege of seeing them in person. I > don't ask, because they don't know and it's an extremely unreasonable > question. > > -- > Nathan Haines > Ubuntu - http://www.ubuntu.com/ > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone > Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
