Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

Lots of messages there, before I answer them individually, I think there is something important to understand from my point of view: I am not a FOSS advocate. I don't have any sort of religious adherence to an open software concept. I use FOSS, I've coded FOSS, sure, but simply as part of normal association with software in general. I'm not against FOSS, nor am I pro FOSS, it is one part of the software world.

So, I don't mind at all if a company decides to build on open software, while also developing on their own some closed components. I'm not a GPL3 kind of guy at all. If my FOSS adherence were to lie somewhere, perhaps BSD then. I would like companies to state their open vs. closed policy clearly, though, as doing otherwise might mislead volunteer efforts of contribution, but I don't mind at all if a company has closed software. I don't mind if a company is all closed either, as long as they are upfront about it.

When reading my messages, please keep that in mind.

My point of view in this thread has been about Jolla's transparency and their relationship to the community, or the movement as they like to say. I've been advocating added transparency helping them positively with that community relationship as well as with their business in general, while still in the early adopter phace (I agree the community will become less meaningful if they make it big time).

Certainly I think a part of that transparency is the give-and-take of a FOSS community, and Jolla's insistence on using words such as "truly open" for Sailfish (which is quite hard to reconcile fully with their FOSS participation) and "transparency" in their values (which I don't think they are living up to IRL), but mostly I'm advocating these things because I think they would actually be a good move for a small company and thus good for Jolla's business.

Whether or not they have some closed components is completely beside the point for me and the point of view I have been trying to get across in my own messages.

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

I'm sure Jolla has learned many lessons, and I do agree they probably feel unreasonable demands are made of them - but I think going for the defensive has made them miss genuine and reasonable calls for added transparency. If you read the IRC log, there are similar concerns.

As has been pointed out by some in this thread, and I've agreed, Jolla have a very controlling style when it comes to their image and some of us feel they have taken that too far - and that is hurting them through hurting the community relationship. No matter what some in their responses imply to me, I don't actually want any harm to come to Jolla, quite the contrary. I think they are hurting themselves now, though, by sticking to their silence and secrecy in difficult issues.

I think the past year has shown us a quite "untransparent" Jolla and some of us are pretty disillusioned. I think it would do well for Jolla to reconsider and bring back these people.

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

There's still the case of the missing better example and/or solution.

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

First of all, gerbick, please read my comments on FOSS software two messages upwards. I am not a FOSS guy at all, so I don't mind closed software.

If only this were about FOSS licenses, though. It is not.

Certainly there is a balance to be struck. I'm saying they are not striking the right balance - that is my opinion.

The Nokia comment was a reference to the way there was certain renegade spirit within Nokia when it came to FOSS. The argument was Jolla is much more controlled than that, and thus less open and less transparent in the eyes of some. It was not a commentary on where Maemo was ported. Nokia, of course, had plenty of closed components and I certainly think Jolla is well within their rights to have closed components. So that's not an issue at all.

I wouldn't agree repositories make a company open, I'd say the entirety of their operation makes them open. Is Jolla a contributing open source participant? Sure. Are they as a company as open and transparent as I think they could be within the realm of business? No. And most importantly, I think the latter hurts their business, it doesn't help it, as long as the early adopter + FOSS communities are so pertinent to their business.

Some things are suited and understandably behind closed doors, sure. Again, I'm disagreeing with the balance they have struck, not the concept of keeping some parts hidden.

I have been spending pages and pages describing a more transparent Jolla, offering concrete examples of things they could have said and done differently. For example, the SIM card holder TJC case. Jolla updated and eventually closed it without any explanation. I think those kinds of keeping secrets just hurt them, because it makes them look secretive. There was keeping hidden the pre-order delivery issues until it was too late. On the IRC log people lament that nemo development discussion became hidden once Jolla took big part and so on.

Now, perhaps some of these they must do for some reason (I am not trying to be unreasonable and say there couldn't be a reason for some that I would agree with), but my argument is there is a mounting trend that Jolla prefers to choose the "untransparent", be it out of carefulness, control or whatever, rather than be "brutally honest" as jalyst suggested in his message on page 3 - it is a good read and explains the same point much better than I ever could: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...1&postcount=29

I don't think all these cases of secrecy are likely necessary, no, I don't believe that at all and I'm pretty sure neither do many of you. Some of them are a deliberate choice by Jolla to remain silent. I think they would be wise to reconsider and notch up the culture of transparency a bit and push back on the culture of silence that seems to have crept up in at Jolla.

Well, we've yet to witness a profitable Jolla either. :) But as FOSS wasn't my point, all that is irrelevant.

There are plenty more transparent companies in the world of small business, though.

Again, here's what I'm advocating: I think Jolla's business would benefit from being more "brutally honest" in their comms, instead of trying to control the message quite as much as they do. So, there was a SIM card holder part issue, use TJC to share. So, you struck a database issue with pre-orders and delays are likely, just share as it happens. Try to find ways to share your plans with FOSS guys better (OK, so the preliminary idea you said to open up a component isn't happening now, just tell people and give some short reasonish why). Don't try to move all things to TJC or some closed server if they could be done in a neutral setting, it just makes you look controlling and weird.

I think these kinds of examples would be appreciated by an early adopter community and thus Jolla would enjoy better support from said community.

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

Then if you have no solution nor an answer, why attempt a discussion?

I read your prior stance. My takeaway, you'd rather resolve nothing while stoking the fire.

I've personally no more time to waste with vapid responses that solve nothing. It's a masturbatory process that produces nothing of consequence.

But you may continue. I see no resolution ever coming from your rhetoric. Damn shame, you're obviously intelligent and that's despite not falling in with the meritocracy of FOSS (it's not a requirement).

Edit: One thing I will say, I'm not a fan of how Jolla does marketing, how they've handled community relations nor how they've handled key communication. But it's because I have an agency background alongside being a dev as well.

So clear, concise and direct communication works with the early adopters and fans. Leave the flowery rhetoric for the unconvinced and outliers.

But... I fear that my way would not be a solution for them. It'd have to reverse the suddenly closed stuff that reminds me of the Fremantle WONTFIX type of BS that Nokia did without ever communicating why that decision was made while still trying to sell is stuff. It sucked.

Thus my continued inquiry. What's the solution?

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

I was referring to the guy fk_lx had an argument with shutting up. The resolve the issue would have required them talking to each other. It is hard when one chooses not to. No?

As for fk_lx, I am the first to agree his rampage hasn't been a wise one. Certainly it has hurt his own image and made telling his legitimate points harder. On the IRC log I linked to, there is a guy lamenting that fk_lx's concerns he agrees with have been nullified by all that happened since. I think it would be wise for Jolla and the community to consider those real issues, though, still. They are not any less real just because fk_lx blew a casket.

Now, I'm also inclined to think that a more transparent and brutally honest Jolla could probably have dealt with all that before it blew up. It seems to me they tried to avoid addressing the issue for quite long. Unfortunately it has not been completely excluded as a scenario that Jolla chose to be secretive on the issue so as to not loose a valuable employee either. There is a nagging feeling in the back of my head that perhaps fk_lx wasn't quite fairly treated either.

What if a more transparent, more talkative Jolla could have stopped that rampage before it even started. Would have been good.

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

Again, just empty air blowing and no examples to be seen, with clear explanation how they'd be more open and what's the profitability like.



[damn me I already vowed to stay out of this silly arguing with brick walls but I just cannot help it...]

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

Agree. But that's the case of any company that's embraced a community. They have a very fine line to tread between engagement and company mantra reinforcement.

But some situations cannot be saved. Again, I'm done with that.

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

The problem with examples is that some of them a very specific, when taken to the size of Jolla companies. Large stories like Toyota are very simple to communicate, it is much harder to translate life experience working with SMBs in various fields to a comment on TMO. It's the same in reverse: I've seen Jolla compared to the likes of Red Hat, when in reality size-wise we should compare Jolla to much smaller companies.

For example, I've dealt with one company, more closer to the size of Jolla than Red Hat, whose CEO spent considerable time on online forums for two or three years in a row, when their business was starting. When they had delivery issues with their first product, he personally emailed everyone who had ordered one and explained in gruesome detail what went down during the process.

Frankly, these examples are so numerous in the tech world that anyone who has dealt with small companies knows some of these stories. I know several people who design hardware products who are frequenting forums etc. and discussing their products very frankly with their respective communities. These guys get a following, because people love this level of participation and transparency.

If you really don't believe such companies exist, perhaps I can dig some proof for you, but really - look in the mirror for a moment - you know they exist.

Jolla has chosen a more "big company" style, yet they are not yet a big company, nor one that doesn't need its early adopter community anymore. Jolla could still benefit from the early adopters and the FOSS people, so improving relations there can still help their business. I think it would do them good to be more personal, more "brutally honest" as jalyst put it:

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...1&postcount=29

That's my point.

Re: Discussing JollaOy strategy
 

Well, that's for you get for 'name two'. I forgot there's an option of avoiding the comparison even without using the word 'unlike' :)

What I am basically reading is "I will not compare to profitable companies" - because profit is not by which success is measured, right... If you wanted Jolla to be successful by greater transparency, like you're claiming (and I doubt it), then you wouldn't be avoiding comparisons to successful companies.

IMO you're basically throwing buzz words (transparency, openness) without any concrete ideas for improvement (not that they are buzz words per se, but now they are, without any concrete ideas), you refuse to provide any logical basis and evidence about why it should be better for Jolla, if it had more [buzz word] and you avoid any direct comparisons.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you are either really bad at arguing your point of view, or you just too stubborn to listen to facts provided and to react to them.