Re: Jolla C
 

No reason for me to get this phone. Little support on US carriers. Hope development continues and can be used on Jolla tablet as I'm pretty happy to enjoy the fruits of your labor on that. Seriously. The efforts of those that have developed for this device is appreciated.

Re: Jolla C
 

Amen! The core is almost there already, just needs a bit of polish. I expect AD is the challenging part.

Re: Jolla C
 

Perfect!
I think it was me spreadig the rumor here based on what intex stated earlier to @sifartech
Still, CE only for the >2000 Community devices seems a little awkward?!
Are we testing for a possible grand release or is CE that cheep to acquire these days?

Re: Jolla C
 

I will completely ignore this Jolla C if SFOS FP2 is available. Just please don't set a time to grab it. I want at least 2 or 3...

Re: Jolla C
 

Fairphone is a different phone with different price and different aim. What sucks is that there are every time a lot of hyped announcements that aren't followed by materialized results. Fairphone is just an example,as well as Turing and intex apparently. Most of all the times it is not (only) jolla's fault, but it is annoying the same.

Re: Jolla C
 

They're all affected by "soon" magic aren't they?

Re: Jolla C
 

They all affected by "soon" magic but if you check https://translate.sailfishos.org/ you can find dedicated files for Turing and Intex. So I think this two phones are around the corner.

Re: Jolla C
 

I am not an expert in this field, so someone correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the CE marking can be self assigned by the manfufacturer (at least for non-risky products). I guess Intex can simply check wether regulations are met and follow the process of self-certification --> Not a lot of money needed.

Also I assume that most regulations regarding mobile phones are covered by international standards (radio bands, signal strength,..) and many others by the OS (e.g. volume limit). In my eyes Intex should have too many problems to certify the Jolla C.

Re: Jolla C
 

Artificial scarcity sure seems to be working out well. 'Soon' became 'some'.

Re: Jolla C
 

Mobile phone is dangerous one. Electronic, dealing with electromagnetic waves, can explode...i dont think is simple as making a certificate for a pen. And you have to test SAR under different condition. Honestly i dont think is that easy.

Re: Jolla C
 

http://cnoemphone.com/industry/quali.../certification

To enter European Economic Area, the mobile phone must pass three kinds of mandatory conformity certification: CE (European Conformity), phone number IMEI and ROHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances), which includes three methods: 1. Chemical Analysis: Divide a mobile phone into metallic parts and non-metallic parts to have a chemical analysis. 2. XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) and Analysis: Scan the complete handset with a XRF machine and chemical testing. 3. ROHS Report: Gather all the ROHS reports of a mobile phone parts and make them into a complete ROHS report of the mobile phone.


Certifications for Mobile Phone Battery
1.There two kinds of certifications for mobile battery: one is EN60950-1, which needs lower cost but will have more chance for checking; the other is IEC62133, which costs more but will be approved by the local government.
2.To get Battery UL (Underwriter Laboratories Inc.) certification of United States, you need to make sure that you have get UL approval for battery core.
3.The CB reports and certifications for battery are sent by specified institutions, such as TUV, SGS, BV, ITS, CQC. Related certification marks:

Re: Jolla C
 

Perhaps I'm missing some bit of this dialogue; but why is any of this important on a community/dev device? It's different than other prior Nokia device programs, but not too dissimilar to the BlackBerry Dev Alpha B device - something given out to a cross-section of folks, mostly devs, not "sold" but sent out and represented an incoming device; in this case the BlackBerry Z10.

The convo seems to overlook that... or something and has gotten into certificate particulars for a device that's not really sold, but exists for other reasons.

Or... am I missing something huge? Which very well might be the case.

Sorry to ask such a potentially stupid question but this whole convo seems just off to me from afar and isn't where it's important (to me)

Thanks in advance.

Re: Jolla C
 

I am not familiar with the BB programme. Was the device in question being given away or for a charge like Jolla C? (Genuine question.)

Re: Jolla C
 

BB devices were true dev devices and therefore got handed out free of charge and only to developers. They remained the property of RIM IIRC and were to be rendered useless after some time (which never happened).

EDIT: Found some more information: http://crackberry.com/blackberry-10-...sical-keyboard

There should be more over at crackberry.

Re: Jolla C
 

For the Dev Alpha B, no charge. I think there was a charge for the Dev Alpha C device though - not 100% sure on that one though. I know I turned it down, I think it was because there was a fee (honestly cannot remember)

Re: Jolla C
 

Nope, the Alpha C was free, too, for "real" devs:
http://devblog.blackberry.com/2012/1...0-dev-alpha-c/

Re: Jolla C
 

I am also not an expert, but from what I know the manufacturer can decide to put the CE marking *and* issue a declaration of conformity with the applicable guidelines. The marking would not include the number of the certification authority (because there is none) and the manufacturer has the responsibility of figuring out which guidelines are applicable.

To me, not putting the CE marking and still selling the product in the EU means they either (1) don't give a d*mn, or (2) have no trust in their own product (i.e. don't want liability if the battery overheats and burns your house).

Re: Jolla C
 

There is a declaration of conformity from Jolla for both the original Jolla phone and the tablet. There is none for the Jolla C which means that for the time being, it may not be marked with the CE mark and may not be sold in the EU.

https://jolla.com/legal/

The problem probably is that Jolla simply isn't the manufacturer of the Jolla C (not built to Jolla specs like the other devices) and hasn't tested the devices for conformity yet.

Re: Jolla C
 

They confirmed me it has CE Certificate. Lets wait. I dont think at all it is a lie. This stuff is mandatory to give away a device in europe..as they are doing

Re: Jolla C
 

http://jolla.com/guide/#sec-27
Under safety chapter you can find the sar value. That means that it was measured, as the law requires.
I expect the same for jolla C- and there is no reason why they should not have been doing that.

Various governments have defined maximum SAR levels for RF energy emitted by mobile devices:
◾United States: the FCC requires that phones sold have a SAR level at or below 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) taken over the volume containing a mass of 1 gram of tissue that is absorbing the most signal.
◾European Union: CENELEC specify SAR limits within the EU, following IEC standards. For mobile phones, and other such hand-held devices, the SAR limit is 2 W/kg averaged over the 10 g of tissue absorbing the most signal (IEC 62209-1).
◾India: switched from the EU limits to the US limits for mobile handsets in 2012. Unlike the US, India will not rely solely on SAR measurements provided by manufacturers; random compliance tests are done by a government-run Telecommunication Engineering Center (TEC) SAR Laboratory on handsets and 10% of towers. All handsets must have a hands free mode.[4]

From wikipedia

It seems that india's law is more efficient than US one, with more controls,at least in theory (not sure about reality).
Also it seems that indian and european law require a different test (first one on 1 gr of test tissue, second one on 10 gr) so maybe they cant use the same test used for intex device in india. I dont know if there is a way to convert the value without re testing, and if this is accepted from eu law,though.

Re: Jolla C
 

Is SD212 enough to smooth working android aplication? Is there any comparison with SD400 8930?

Re: Jolla C
 

It's not the device, It's their way of selling it.

Re: Jolla C
 

Thanks for your clarification. So you disagree with how they're selling it? Or the fact there's a fee attached to this device at all?

Re: Jolla C
 

Come on it is so clear this is a trick to be able to sell phone without standing the warranty obligation. But they have no choice,cause they don't have enough money.

I dont know if you want to show that Jolla is bad and scamming company,trying to sell phones in a bad way, or if you want to say they should offer device to developers for free.

For me is clear this is a way to provide intex device to fans,without having to guarantee warranty. But they have no alternative, apart not offering the device at all. It is a way to import intex devices in a semi official way, avoiding people relying on Indian or travelling friends.
From mine, I am quite confident they will deal warranty issues in a friendly way, without too much avoidance . But they need to feel legally free from that, cause otherwise they could be potentially be in troubles. And in this way they dont have to set phisical places for reparation, legal procedures and so on.
I am not saying is a good solution, I am not saying it worth the value ( even if I bought one), I am just saying is a solution to a problem (whether right or wrong is totally subjective)

Re: Jolla C
 

I was honestly asking since I do not get the concern.

For me, neither. I do not feel either way about the way it's being handled and stated (or so I thought) clearly that this ongoing discussion didn't make sense to me. It's a device for advanced users/devs that's being sold at a minimum but it might not have some certification that's causing this discussion.

Your comments makes me think it's something else.

I can see your point here. Thanks for sharing.

Re: Jolla C
 

I don't think that Jolla is a bad company and i appreciate having the choice.

But this is not about Jolla not having the money to cover the costs of proper warranty. Intex will probably sell Jolla the Jolla C somewhat cheaper if Jolla doesn't want warranty for the customers. But the same customers would be willing to pay the extra costs. We're talking about 5-10 EUR here.

Unless there's something wrong with the devices.

Re: Jolla C
 

The discussion about certification is cause- speaking for myself- I dont wish to use a potentially harmful device and in general this could be not legal.

For the last sentence, that is actually what I think. And I guess that if intex was selling the device here, Jolla c wouldn't exist at all. Maybe i am delusional, but maybe not . :D

Re: Jolla C
 

I don't think that a device is harmful if Indian authorities have no problems with it. At least not more harmful than cheap chinese batteries we like to buy :D

Re: Jolla C
 

Since Jolla is selling device and not intex, Jolla would have to satisfy all legal requirements for a warranty, wich afaik include customer care service,phisical address to send device, legal procedures and we can carry on.. Is not just about the fee to pay to intex buddies

Re: Jolla C
 

IMO they should have done that 3 years ago. Along with financial incentives for finding bugs and more for fixing them. Sailfish might have been a usable OS already with some attractive apps, not for geeks only as it is now.

Their behavioral patterns suggests that they have given up around mid-2015.

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.