Why do you guys always think you know what users thinks/wants?

Users want 4G, can it still happen ?

Because we're users.

Worse, we're unhappy geeks with the multitude of options out there and more than likely think that whatever Frankenstein monster of a "bit of this and a bit of that" type of creation would be better than what's currently being shoveled towards the masses.

And I'd say that we'd be all wrong. But we continue to do it anyway because it's fun...

Yes, I also thought about that before I wrote the post. I remember when iPhone was released and "everyone" said something like it cannot succeed because it is half-baked and masses require more. But history keeps repeating itself to infinity, for the good and the bad. Also I want to believe in "A progress can only achieved by trying, and trying again if you fail" as I said earlier in the thread. So that is why I came to the conclusion it is still possible to challenge the current dominant dinosaurs. It might take time but it is possible

And in 2007 the most smartphone users expected to be able to run apps on their phone. But you are correct that the coolness was one of the driving forces for selling it and overcoming many of its shortcomings. I see no difference if it is 2007 or 2015. There will come new cool things which will help to change the smartphone world and masses will again forgive some of things that come with them.

You are correct that it rises the barrier, and it is not the only barrier. Jolla is breaking those barriers one by one. It takes time. And it remains to be seen if they have chosen the right path through the rock so that they can succeed. The story is still unfolding.

Good answer. Ok then. Let's continue.

It's either half baked on release, or it will never release. That's the reality.

Same thing with many other projects, for example F-35 project gets similar gripes because not all weapons systems are working and certified. It's like "back in days we had everything working with F-16 on release and now they cannot do even that right..." without any consideration that since then the amount of different systems have multiplied and whereas older fighters were integrated cumulatively as those weapons systems were developed over timespan of multiple decades, some people now expect F-35 to do it in couple of years and judge the whole project as failure because not everything is ready at this very moment. It's very easy thing to do - just parrot what every not-so-objective armchair-general says. But in truth, most of it doesn't have anything to do with reality. And as with Jolla, much of bemoaning is actually result from the openness that was not present when those "good old planes" were developed....

Another thing is that we should not expect everything to happen instantly. It took Android years to break through, not to even mention all the money that was needed to do it. It's simply not realistic to think Sailfish will conquer the world in couple of years, if ever - but to be relevant it needs continued development and effort to get manufacturers to adopt it. In time it will earn it's niche, or it will die (and community will have "I told you so!1!!"-party).

I don't follow fighter jets but that sounds like a good example. You make it sound like the F-16 (Harmattan) was the result of a long evolution but the F-35 (Sailfish) was made completely from scratch, as if no one has ever made a fighter jet (mobile phone OS) before. Clearly this is not the case. Moreover, I do not know about the difference between F-16 and F-35 but the difference between Harmattan and Sailfish is not that great so this is where your example loses a bit of an edge.

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

IC. Thanks for the clarification, now I see where you are coming from. To clarify my stance, I was completely and consciously ignoring that bit because to the best of my knowledge, Sailfish comes from the same people as Harmattan. Not the same company, but the same people. So, as far as I am concerned, Sailfish is not a newcomer. It is Harmattan 2.0. Jolla does not have to implement all the bells and whistles anew, only remember how they were implemented the first time and do it again, in those few cases where for copyright reasons they cannot use an already existing code.

I am a software engineer in real life. Been for 25 years. And you can trust me when I tell you that it is much easier to reimplement the same functionality I implemented a long time ago for another employer (and therefore I cannot just reuse the code, and even if I could, it may not fit in the new project anyway without modification) than it is to implement something I have only heard about but never worked on myself. I see Jolla in exactly the same position.