Now that Ubuntu phones and tablets are gone, I would like to offer my thoughts on why I personally think the project failed and what one may learn from it.
To recapitulate my involvement in the project: I had been using Ubuntu Touch on a Nexus 7 on an on-and-off-basis between its announcement in 2013 and December 2014, started working on Click apps in December 2014, started writing the 15-part “Hacking Ubuntu Touch†blog post series about system internals in January 2015, became an Ubuntu Phone Insider, got a Meizu MX4 from Canonical, organized and sponsored the UbuContest app development contest, worked on bug reports and apps until about April 2016, and then sold off/converted all my remaining devices in mid-2016. So I think I can offer some thoughts about the project, its challenges and where we could have done better.
Excellent and detailed explanation of why Ubuntu Phone failed.
I think some of what the author mentioned makes sense, other points though I disagree with. For example, I agree with the author the lack of stock was a big issue. There were hundreds of back orders for phones that never arrived. Either Canonical or the OEMs did not order enough units to keep up with demand and it left a lot of people without the devices they wanted.
Canonical did seem to stretch themselves too thin. The concept and design of the phones were good, but they were tackling a lot without enough resources. I also agree it was a pain to try to develop for Ubuntu Phone, doubly so if you weren’t running Ubuntu on your desktop. It was virtually impossible for non-Ubuntu desktop users to develop apps for the phone and a little more inclusion of the Linux community would have helped a lot.
However, I strongly disagree that there wasn’t a market for non-Android/non-iOS phones. There was clearly a lot of interest in alternatives. Look at any phone forum, look at the massive interest the Canonical Kickstarter received (over $20 million in funding), look at all the alt phone OSes that popped up around the same time Ubuntu Touch did (Sailfish, a new Blackberry line-up, Firefox OS, etc). A lot of people wanted something different.
The author seems to think the design or implementation of the phones was bad, but I think that is a matter of taste. I liked it. Most of the people I showed the phone to liked it too. Not all, but for the most part people seemed to like the concept and how it was implemented.
Finally, I disagree the killer feature would have been Android/iOS/Windows compatibility. Some people want it, but Ubuntu had its own ecosystem and it is/was much cleaner, less ad-filled, easier to navigate than any of those markets. I don’t want to run Android apps on a non-Android phone, I’m escaping from the platform, I don’t want to take its clutter with me.
The thing to remember when lookinag at phone forums is that most people who go on there are somewhat aware of how limited the market is, and most are technically inclined. For every post you see on a phone forum wishing there are alternatives, there are a hundred people who contentedly use what they have and couldn’t care less about what their phone runs.
Many of the people I encounter on phone forums are general users, not technically included folks. But your point is well taken.
I’d like to point out though that even if uninterested users vastly outnumber technical ones, there was still enough interest in a Canonical-backed phone to raise something like $20 million on Kickstarter. That’s just people willing to pay up front for a product sight-unseen that will compete in the mobile market. I’d say that indicates there is a definite interest in something other than Android or iOS.
No, No, and triple No. There wasn’t demand. Sailfish, Blackberry, firefox os were company lead initiatives. Companies wanted consumers to use non Andriod/IOS devices. No large group of consumers were demanding them, which is a large reason why they all flopped.
The author is exactly right. Unlike PCs, the phone’s being so proprietary and vendor locked prevent most users from even trying ubuntu phone. I personally like trying alternatives, but unlike a PC where I learned to use linux by popping in a CD, I couldn’t do that with my phone, well because they’re so vendor locked. Consequently I’ve never tried ubuntu phone. It might have been good or bad, I just don’t know because I never even got to even run it.
So.. I know it’s very difficult for a government to mandate any particular (non-essential) functional requirements
But.. perhaps some “encouraging” of more “open” phones and mobile computing devices could be done via progressive taxation.
E.g. with VAT/Sales Tax
Could have 3 levels:
Closed/Locked @ 30% VAT
Open 1 @ 20% VAT
Open 2 @ 10% VAT
Where Open 1 is a fixed but “open” bootloader with options for pointing to (signed-kernel) secondary/tertiary OS partitions/boot device listings.
Open 2 is fully replaceable loader with instructions. And the supplied one is Open source bootloader and phone baseband is non-network locked. Or similar
Based on the article, it’s no wonder why it failed. Even as someone who is interested in Android/iOS alternatives, if it doesn’t have the Google suite of apps as standard (esp. Maps and Voice), it’s a non-starter as far as I’m concerned, unless they’ve got superior alternatives.
I am sad it never took off. But I tried one of their devices, I think the b5, once and it was so hopelessly behind even what Jolla had that I was immediately convinced it would fail. It was all the bad of Unity on steroids. It was unresponsive, unintuitive and there were no apps whatsoever. As I later learned, a “Scope” would replace them. I never really understood the concept of scopes. Try convincing my mom.
Looking back, I must say, I’m glad I went the Sailfish way, while this was (and is) a tough ride as well they’re still around, updating their first device from 2013. I guess I really shouldn’t complain…. There’s even new devices coming out, no really. https://together.jolla.com/question/157582/inoi-r7-a-new-russian-dev…
Edited 2017-06-21 19:25 UTC
Why would anyone pre-order from them ever again after the tablet nonsense? They’re just going to burn through the preorder money and use it on software improvements and not have anything left for actual hardware.
I really wish I could get these millions of dollars companies waste on “me to” products like Windows phone and they don’t have a clue how it will be received by the market. There was no niche for this to fulfil, and running Linux desktop on a phone only ports the inconveniences over.
I’m an ubuntu user since over 10 years. I was quite excited about the ubuntu touch project when it started but I lost interest completely several years ago. The main reason was that I use and like ubuntu desktop, and ubuntu touch was nothing like it by design.
What I like about ubuntu is actually nothing really specific to ubuntu, I mainly use it because it works and it’s what I started with, but debian would suit me fine and probably also fedora with some more adjustment. Ubuntu touch on the other hand had nothing of what I use and like on the desktop. Worst part in my opinion was the dreadful locked down application lifecycle, which made it impossible by design to have a working terminal, instant messager or even mail client.
I use sailfish on my phone since 2 years, and that is really much more like ubuntu desktop (ie. much more similar to a ‘normal’ linux distribution) than ubuntu touch would ever become.
I really hope that canonical can reinvent themselves after this complete failure and somehow continue to invest in the desktop.
Your comment about a desktop and touch is exactly the same issue that MS is having with Windows 10. The majority of W10 users are using devices that are not Touch enabled yet you get the same tiled interface as you had with a Windows Phone. Doh!
There have been calls for Apple to merge iOS and MacOS but the problems identified with Ubuntu and Windows show that making a single unified OS for both Desktops and Touch enabled devices like phones and tablets is fraught with problems w.r.t usability.
I also agree with one other comment about Canonical stretching themselves far too thinly. IMHO, they took their eye off the ball with the desktop and it suffered. That’s a bit part of why I jumped ship to CenOS (+ Cinnamon) in 2013.
Now free of Windows as well, I can concentrate on getting stuff done rather than fighting the OS all the time (as with Windows)
Even though I completely agree with what you said about windows 10, I think you misunderstood my point. I did not talk about the user interfaces at all, I was talking about ubuntu, the desktop operating system, and ubuntu touch, the mobile operating system.
Even though they shared part of the name, ubuntu touch was an entirely different kind of operating system, where you could only run ‘apps’ specifically designed to fit into a strictly defined model, and that made it impossible by design to make an app that do most of the things I want my phone to be able to do. The idea was that the operating system itself would eventually handle all of the things ‘apps’ were prevented from doing, but on one hand that never happened, and on the other hand such a locked down system is really alien to most linux users including me.
Edited 2017-06-22 10:52 UTC
Ok, point taken. I did missunderstand your point. I never had the chance to use a Ubuntu powered phone so I bow to your experience.
Canonical’s recent lay-offs do I venture to say, show how thin they were stretched and with the business AFAIK, not having anywhere near the revenue streams that SUSE or RedHat has, the fantastic voiyage they have been on, had to come to an end sometime.
But not the right mix and match. My feeling after this reading.