View Single Post
ste-phan's Avatar
Posts: 1,197 | Thanked: 2,710 times | Joined on Jan 2010 @ Hanoi
#1680
Originally Posted by JulmaHerra View Post
Um.... no. You missed the point, which was not comparison between Harmattan and Sailfish.

Mobile OS's and devices have very long history of development, along with it comes burden of history. Now, if newcomer is to support all the bells and whistles invented in that time frame, it will take huge amount of time and resources even if those technologies are considered to be "already existing." So the choice is either to release something that doesn't have it all, or try to reassure investors to fund closed development for 5+ years to have "everything" in place. And after you launch it, there are those cheeky guys saying it's half baked because there is no support for X or Y, if needed it can be some non-relevant legacy bit from six years after the great potato war....

Also, it's worth mentioning that F-16 was to be cheap, maneuverable fighter without all the bells and whistles instead of super expensive, all-new super-fighter like F-15 or F-14 (which actually was also released half baked, it's development was done in three major parts because it was known that it would never enter the service if everything was to be ready at launch...). Most of F-16's capabilities have been added on later, so it kind of launched half baked. But it was extremely successful. F-35 was not made from scratch either, every invention has roots somewhere and F-35 draws from previous generations of multi-role fighters and iterations of stealth-fighter/bombers. Most of weapons for it already exist and have been in active service for years. How come it takes so much effort to integrate them all? One of the reasons is actually software and kind of UI for all of them, as F-35 is not designed to just bolt on different weapons and use them as it has been done before but to integrate multiple systems into much improved combination of sensor data and situational awareness. Among other fancy things. It's very ambitious plan - which unfortunately has resulted in budget overruns, delays and PR-catastrophe even before entering service. Still, there is a good chance it will turn up to be very competitive in the future.

How does it compare to Sailfish? If there are lessons to be learned, IMO they would be these:

- You don't need to have everything 100% ready at day 1 or even day 2. You need a viable platform to build upon.
- Added features increase overall complexity. Complexity increases the cost and time needed to implement and test it all.
- If you try to do too much in one step, you will end up with budget overruns, delays and boatload of bad PR, no matter how good the end product may be in the future. People just love to see bad things happening (to others).
- Adding features in incremental steps has proved to be effective strategy
The biggest lessons to be learned from the F-35 project are still largely in the making while the software is under development to match the hardware’s theoretical capabilities as well as future war scenario’s (also in the making) all currently ongoing air operations are nothing an F-16 would not handle.

The lessons from the F-35 have been learned and proven vallid in the past by Nokia and they failed. Complete your features and don’t stay hanging forever on step 4/5 tills somebody exploits your primary weakness that you were not believing in your chosen direction enough to ever finish the job or simple conclude there is no market for your product and you are unable to create demand. (unlike the makers of the F-35)

Wish you'd stayed with the usual car comparison instead but there are indeed still parallels to be drawn with mobile.

A platform a mobile phone like Jolla you still need engine (mobile data and telephone carrier) , air frame (body that can be held to telephone call), basic analogue instruments and landing gear (display, sound devices, input and offline usability). The detection, deflection systems and weapons or load out are the so called apps. Their type varies based on the usage scenario.
One indispensable traditional feature would be the on board cannon.

F-35 reportedly couldn’t fire it till 2019 because of software. But should be ok as it is a small traditional user base that is crying out for it.

Looks a lot like Jolla thinking to get away with ignoring the users would ever need / appreciate a telephone with call history, address book with groups, SIP,.. from the start. But you have apps, Android apps, you can run your favourite Android apps! And a new, refreshed interface. Sorry, but not good enough two years later.

All will be fine in time when software gets implemented sooner, later or never because if we wait long enough requirements eventually change (cancelled global roaming tariffs would SMS counters financially irrelevant).

That F$#$%-35 is another example of a "we know best what the user needs" project.

It enjoys almost guaranteed sales success through combined lobbying, unlimited tax payer sponsorship and media controlled (down to the news app filled Android device) market eco systems like for example client countries forced into and seeking compliance to new "NATO standard".
As F-16’s still suffice for bombing the usual low tech country with outdated air defences it counts on future usage scenario's in the form of artificially created threats (demands) through global, behind the scenes media warmongering and weaponising efforts (RU is putting its country near to our bases, and see how evil IS' spread can't be stopped with our current and ready super advanced tech etc. etc..).

And if the actual average deployment scenario for this software dependant fighter jet project would turn out not to be exactly the one envisioned by the seller, or simply threaten the economic interests of the sellers’ home country then for certain the on / off switch still remains the seller's option to discharge the situation in his advantage.

Thus the seller retains the possibility for rendering expensive hardware and software -unless thoroughly hacked- useless or obsolete to the buyer, if not ultimately turning itself to attack the buyer. Controlled obsolescence will do its work and it will be time to purchase the next version. Lessons still to be learned.


This forum seems to combine voices about the most critical end-users and the most knowledgeable managers that know exactly how a global company is run and how to please investors while throwing out the minimal required bits to the end users to keep alive the hunger for more.

This large business picture is a great and entertaining way to feed discussions while waiting for a tipping point where our favourite OS becomes self proliferating.

As a user where I needed to assume a very tolerant attitude towards Jolla in the past (2013) with regard to missing basic functionality (groups, SMS character counter, copy&paste, SIP interface, no security interface ..)
IN THE PAST but my patience is running out as Jolla seems not bound to fix the top pages of most voted items anywhere soon.

My Jolla still suffices for phone calling but it is not the best phone I have ever had.
It is however the best phone I have had to surf the web (thanks Mozilla Firefox), but that is just because I refuse to use other platforms that are also very good in just that.
It has good battery life.
It has a cool interface that does not make me mad like Android does but it is not the best interface I have ever used nor is the so called refinement 2.0.
It can record phone calls thanks to low security features. Very useful.

Jolla is still something nice and unique but by no means what I had in mind for the future of mobile in early 2010 when I first touched the N900.
Not that it matters much, I have learned to forgot the past and the expectations of 2010. I compromise with what I have available for direct usage and have learned not to trust tech companies to finish their products.

On a daily basis I forget to look out for this tablet to arrive if it was 2009.

By purchasing that tablet I have chosen to support Jolla in whatever crazy idea they had to come up with that would give them time and funds and a time frame to finish the phone OS.

But now I am wondering if I have helped to give the wrong signal and where a collective “we will not support the indigogo tablet campaign” would have gotten Jolla?

Sailfish could have been at least halfway further to feature completeness and running on Fairphone instead of that tablet.
Now the real work is being left to the community while Jolla is officially supporting Sailfish on a Chinese generic hardware nobody had asked for.

We get it , it is possible and a nice demo, but next time in your free time please.

So now over to the serious matters, feature completeness and combining Sailfish with ultimate smartphone hardware. Now and not in 20 years because unlike defense complexes, Jolla can't shape the world demand to match its offer.

If ever the F-35 sales craziness sparks a hot WWIII before it’s finished, for the time being, my bet will be grabbing a few N900’s for the future computing needs along the road.