Re: Jolla C
 

Polarcells and original batteries have been tested otherwise couldn't stay on market.
I dont know Indian authorities but I do know that in china regulations about a lot of things (safety-environment) are centuries behind eu ones. I AM NOT saying Indian regulation is bad, I am saying that since I don't know how works there, I trust more EU one.
It is like us regulation about food clearly less restrictive than eu one.
(and that's one of the multiple reasons why I am against ttip, but that is another chapter)

Sorry for being that straightforward

Re: Jolla C
 

You usually just pass on to the manufacturer what ever you had to pay.

Re CE mark: It does NOT mean that a device isn't harmful, it just means that who ever imported or manufactured it CLAIMS that it doesn't violate regulations.

Re: Jolla C
 

I disagree with calling this "community program" when it is very clear that it is just a way to sell phones. To anybody and everybody. Which is a nice gesture because it would be hard to get them otherwise.
But the problem is that once again they are doing something that they have no use of. Even if they earn a bit of money on this, it won't do wonders on their account. And that won't solve the fact that harbor does not support payment. And the don't have any other income, TOHs are dead and forgotten.

Re: Jolla C
 

There other also other certification you have to obtain and I am not sure for all it is enough just claiming. Anyway if something happen and then they discover was just an empty claim, that company will be in trouble. So in someway you have to be careful or pray it goes always luckily.

For other question, intex probably was not interested to pay for that,for all infrastructure, and that would be definitely not just 5-10 euro. (wich cover just the warranty for the device,not infrastructures)

Re: Jolla C
 

The aim is not the profit. Is to keep high the hype on sailfish and attract investors and partner. You can try to hack mind of intex heads to make them sell device in europe and also pay for infrastructures, but I think is not that easy
I agree is not a true community programme, but how could they call it?
****ingtheimportingproblem programme?
It is just a mask, and is not that hidden. But is enough to make it possibile legally, I think.
Come on, they are dealing with a problem,trying to find an escamotage. But they are doing that with good intention.
I have been always criticizing Jolla when I didn't like some moves, never been a groupie. But sometimes solution aren't perfect, are just compromises. Otoh if they were perfect, most likely there wouldn't be a real (difficult) problem.

Re: Jolla C
 

The question is, what is their aim?
The problem is that they how no idea where to go to make some income. I still think that the idea of licensing OS itself is not the way to go. At least not in the world in which the most popular OS is already free and has all the apps. I'm not concerned about legality of the program, don't care about actually. But I also don't see how this keeps the hype and interest in investors (you know, those people with money but without idea, just a desire to make more money on top) when even those that are truly interested in sailfish success already lost most of that hype.

Re: Jolla C
 

I was trying to read to much into possible costs of certification.
If it would have been expensive, it could have ment Jolla is preparing something bigger to justify the costs of certification.

But i searched around on relevant sites regarding CE and actually asked at my local chamber of commerce (They take rediculous amounts of fees every month from me so why not get them to work) what i would have to do to apply for CE on imported tech products.
Turns out they have a service to help you with certification and costs are reasonable.
Most companies do it inhouse, as stated by several users it is a decleration of confirmity of the product with eu rules. So in best case its basically translating manufacturer specification sheets into a standardized application form and only problematic if requirements are not met or information is missing.
Sample tests are done by authorities only if complaints arise as i was told.

I think making the device and program open for "all" is rooted in the purpose. Jolla is not striktly trying to beat its dead horse, native ecosystem and resulting Appstore by making this a developer program but tries to get usabillity and bug reports from normal users also.
Given Blackberry actually had a viable base of casual users, it made sense to put forces into dedicated app development programs.
Jolla with >30k(?) devices sold and who knows how few actual users left after several death valleys possibly needs every feedback they can get to improve on all fronts?

Re: Jolla C
 

I think that the community device program is intended to be a community device program :p
For example in two days, there is an event for the earliest who registered. Then there will be special treatment for them (not something wonderful of course because of low budget). I believe Jolla will try to make the most of that program: direct access to developers, c-beta and early bug reporting...etc...

For the device... why to make such a program without a device! I believe it makes sense to propose a device, especially as Jolla1 is getting old.
The fact that it allows people to get a new SFOS device without going to India is secondary at best. The primary purpose is again (to me) to have a community program...
Many people complained that the DIT (doing it together) was just marketing and that when you wanted to help, Jolla would not offer any way to accept those additional arms.
That community program is the response. That was probably difficult to handle all Jolla1 owners into a community program. This is a nice way to select (including with asking to pay) those who are still supporting them :)

Then about making money, whatever they do, this is the crucial part but selling a bunch of couple of thousands device to EU is not helpful at all. This is peanuts (even 5K*50€ which seems to me optimistic would provide them 250K€ to compare with their last financing round of 12 million $ recently raised). So they prefer not to make any money from the community program (and that is contradictory with the ideal of a community program).

The way they intend to make money now is to sell SFOS to device makers. They potentially have Intex, the Russians, Turing, Puzzlephone, Fairphone... I am not clear about the way they could get money out of those deals (do they pay to use SFOS or do they pay to add services to SFOS or do they share some of the revenues...?) but they probably know :p

What Jolla does is never enough because we have high expectations. The comparison with their low size is frustrating but I am pretty sure they do their best.

Re: Jolla C
 

The problem that I see here that makes this not community or developer program is that it's just FIFO sales.
While someone who is just a fan and wants to add device to collection or even worse to sell it after on ebay - he can do it and no one can stop him.
I think the device program would be more logical to have the devices sent based on merit, apps, contributions made by this member and not just to send it to someone who has enough $ and time to f5 the store so he can be able to be one of the first who bought it.
As about the event - I think it's nice, but it would be more logical to check who able to get there and maybe to get more fans who have blogs and spread good word for Jolla or make apps. So it can be useful to show it during the event - maybe more people can jump in.
Instead it was sent to first X people as far as I know.
As always - idea maybe is great, but how it's done - only raises a lot of questions.

Re: Jolla C
 

This happens regardless. Folks that got the N950 and who did absolutely nothing with it was the norm. And then they hit eBay with those unused N950's. These systems will be abused and limiting it to devs only doesn't stop that abuse.

In fact, I'd find it foolish to limit it to just devs anyway. Most do not produce anything worthwhile and the few that do receive too little support from the community.

Expand the scope of who has access and you might get a more varied set of ideas and offerings. Most devs in these parts all seem to be trying to reinvent the same kinds of apps that speak to a very minor corner of use cases of what users may actually want and use.