The First Ubuntu Phone Is Here, With Underwhelming Hardware 177
A few days ago, Fast Company reviewer Jay Cassano was enthusiastic about Ubuntu's approach to apps for its new phone OS: namely, not relying on them, and instead interfacing seamlessly with existing websites and protocols. Now, new submitter ablutions (4006541) writes with a less than glowing review at The Daily Dot of the actual hardware that the OS is launching on. A sample that conveys the gist: Let's start with the good stuff: It sports a 4.5-inch multi-touch screen and a respectable 8-megapixel rear camera and 5-megapixel lens on the front. That's pretty much it. The list of negatives is a bit longer.
First? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
IndieGoGo.
Likely still would had been a good purchase but it would had been better without the unfair pricing.
Also if it ran Android too it would be a safer purchase (don't remember if it did.)
Then again I guess OnePlus released close to what they intended to release (not necessarily at all the same phone but what I mean is a different premium phone) but the One wasn't not just premium priced (one could argue the Edge(?) deserved to have a higher price - since possibly the material selection would be closer
nobody wanted to pay for canonicals development co (Score:3, Interesting)
well were it open enough then it wouldn't be a big problem to port over dalvik for some android action. it's probably possible. with the current one as well.
besides, the phone HAS apps. it's just that they decided to focus more on HOMESCREEN WIDGETS.
the fucking "cards" are HOMESCREEN WIDGETS on limited home screen. limited, how so? their shape and positions are limited, so the copped out. cheaper and faster to make the home screen like that
besides all that, you can get pretty decent android phones for sub 1
Re: (Score:1)
I don't really care if it have others.
And I don't necessarily care for Dalvik VM either.
What I meant was actual Android. So whatever the OS was good/flopped or not the phone would so to speak had been a no-risk purchase (Maybe they don't want to spend that time and effort moving over Android though.)
I guess Dalvik is better than nothing. I don't know how good it's on the Jolla phone.
Nokias MeeGo and last Symbian phones had USB OTG and MHL too. I didn't really see that as all that interesting (sure Ubuntu wo
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the hardware sucks, but honestly I think people here are more interested in how the software works. At least I am.
Re: (Score:1)
Linux always underwhelms..
Hence the need for extra hardware.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Compared to what? I can't even run modern MacOS or Windows on my old Macbooks and PCs, and Linux runs circles around the old versions of the OSes that came with them by default. Oh wait, you're joking. So hard to tell when people mistake Ubuntu for Linux around here.
Just compared the latest preview version of Elementary OS and the latest preview version of Windows 10 on a notebook with C1D and GMA950.
Elementary OS had horrible tearing, choppy and slow animations, and popped up a "System problem detected" right on the first boot.
Windows 10 worked fully smoothly with all the bells and whistles.
Linux is not the way to breathe life into an old computer anymore. That time was 15 years ago. These days you can make an old PC run Linux fast only by using a simple window manage
Re: (Score:2)
Elementary OS had horrible tearing, choppy and slow animations, and popped up a "System problem detected" right on the first boot.
Uh ... my guess would be ElementaryOS somehow didn't auto-detect your graphics card right and you were using X with VESA. That would do that. I just set up a Linux laptop with an Intel graphics card. Worked great; VA-API allows hardware-accelerated 1080i H264 video, with deinterlacing, with no tearing. I'm sure it could handle the 10 or so polygons used for desktop effects without problem.
Linux is not the way to breathe life into an old computer anymore. That time was 15 years ago. These days you can make an old PC run Linux fast only by using a simple window manager and turning off all the desktop effects. Even then you would be left dealing with loads of bugs everywhere.
Dude, Linux runs on the Raspberry Pi. In the last few years I set up Linux on a system with a 700MHz Celeron and 25
Re: (Score:2)
Uh ... my guess would be ElementaryOS somehow didn't auto-detect your graphics card right and you were using X with VESA.
I verified that and it is properly using the official Intel graphics driver.
Dude, Linux runs on the Raspberry Pi.
The desktop is quite crusty on R-Pi too. It's fine for embedded/server use though, and I do not have complaints about those scenarios. It will be interesting to see how Windows 10 performs on R-Pi 2. :)
Use XFCE on old hardware. And new hardware; it's the current king of traditional desktop interfaces in the window manager world.
XFCE hasn't seen a new release in almost 3 years, the compositor tears (because it is based on XRender), and it does not have any desktop effects. Windows on the same hardware runs cool zoom animations and translucency without a hitch
Re: (Score:2)
The desktop is quite crusty on R-Pi too. It's fine for embedded/server use though, and I do not have complaints about those scenarios. It will be interesting to see how Windows 10 performs on R-Pi 2. :)
Umm ... R-Pi 2 is still ARM, right? So, wouldn't the answer be, "not at all, because MS is bailing out of ARM"? They discontinued the ARM-based Surface recently.
I verified that and it is properly using the official Intel graphics driver.
Weird. Have you checked what glxinfo says? I think it's possible for OpenGL to be software rendering even if the driver isn't VESA in certain broken setups. Another good step would be to try Knoppix on it, to see if it's a distro-specific issue or not. I used Knoppix recently on some random computers with Intel drivers and desktop effects work
Re: (Score:2)
Um, just so we're clear, you're saying that you want desktop effects on an old machine - Linux is crap because it can't make your old computer do all the things that your new computer can do?
Yes, exactly. Because somehow Windows manages to do it just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said: one machine out of six, and I'm using a beta distro.
Like you, I typically only reboot when the power goes out.
Re: (Score:2)
Use XFCE on old hardware.
Ugh, XFCE. Even LXDE is better, and it's lighter, too. But both have absolute shit file managers.
Re: (Score:2)
15 years ago, most distros did not work out of the box on most *current* hardware then. The common quip in forums then was: "Oh, you did not check all the hardware for Linux compatibility before you bought it? It's your fault then". Then we got spoilt by Ubuntu which worked out of the box on most hardware.
Desktop effects did not work on most computers for many years or at least made the desktop unstable after some use.
I think you are pining for a past that never was. You *could* make old hardware work with
Re: (Score:2)
15 years ago, most distros did not work out of the box on most *current* hardware then.
That is not the point here. Although I agree that hardware support is these days very good in Linux. It does not cause big problems for me.
The point is that in relation to Windows, today Linux is generally not "significantly more lightweight" like it was in the past. All those people running Xfce can run full modern Windows 10 on the same machines without any problems. I'm not saying that they would necessarily want to, but perfomance-wise it would work fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but I would argue that Windows was not heavy even back then. In my tests, XP consumed a little less than 60 MB of RAM with unnecessary services turned off. In 2000, Linux certainly consumed less than that, but mainstream Linux desktops got more heavy than that fairly quickly. Most average Windows users had sluggish desktops because they had too many programs that put themselves in startup, rather than with the Win OS itself being bloated or sluggish. Vista did become a bloat, which was an exception rat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If it takes too long to boot, to switch appications, to accept input, has too short a battery life, or cannot keep with simple video applications due to hardware limitations, the architectural fanboys are not going to be enough of a market to keep it in business. Small sales won't bring down the cost of manufacturing to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softwa (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps better than you think, if it's natively-compiled code instead of some Java-esque thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps better than you think, if it's natively-compiled code instead of some Java-esque thing.
Right, just like how iOS apps written in Objective C and compiled for the CPU core in the phone and not for a VM are faster than Android apps. Except they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Ask Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Android phones that compare to Apple hardware are massively overcompensating with processor and battery life.
Wait, is the iPhone powerful, or are other phones overcompensating when they have powerful processors? I'm not up on the iFanboy newspeak this week.
Re: Okay, hardware sucks, but what about the softw (Score:2, Informative)
Android's ART runtime compiles apps to native code. They literally become ELF files, just like every other executable on Linux. The Dalvik format that apps are distributed in is now serving a similar purpose to the LLVM IR used internally by Apple's compiler.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't underestimate the choice of programming language for Android's success - Java has a huge developer base (and a history with J2ME).
i.e. Apple has enough of a cult following with objective-c but would the Play app model have succeeded if the technology had been C++ or open source darling python?
Who cares? it's Canonical (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, but "Linux" from Canonical is not something I'll willingly use even (and perhaps especially) on a phone. Oh, I know I know.. after they got caught installing spyware they completely changed.. or so they say.
Look, if I had time to dig I may change my tune. I don't, and they lost my trust. Not that I was ever a user of Ubuntu, but up until they got caught I was not against them either.. thinking that getting more people into Linux was a good thing and they made it easier.
yeah yeah.. all of them oth
Re: (Score:1)
All ubuntu did was forward your searches to other search engines, in a feature that was easy to disable.
Android tracks and records everything, everything you do with your phone, every search you lookup on the phone, every location you go with the phone. Google's business model hinges on collecting that data and selling it. They ARE the evil of privacy.
I don't think it's possible to do worse, even if Canonical wanted to
Re: (Score:2)
Well I don't use Android either, for exactly the reasons you state. Not that I think Apple is that much better. That said, I don't use Siri and know how to disable location services and other information that makes it easy. Yup, IPs are still track-able as is tower information but those are supposed to require warrants (yes, I know better but at least I have the law on my side).
Be honest about what Canonical was doing. Without any user knowledge they were forwarding _ALL_ of your searches to Amazon, eve
Visually an Apple iPhone Clone? (Score:2)
I wonder if Apple will pitch a fit about the fact that the design of the device is definatly based on the iPhone's visual form. I'm sure there are a zillion "industrial design" patents and copyrights involved...
good CHEAP phone (Score:2)
some people want this to compete with an apple or samsung.
Get a life!
This is a cheap phone that works.
Is it spectacular? Full featured?
NO, but it works! too many idiots have no clue. this a a good phone, for the 3rd world.
Re: (Score:2)
A 170 euro/$190 phone is cheaper than a flagship, but certainly not third world phone. For that you have manufacturers taking the cheapest SoC they can find, slapping the AOSP on it (free!) and selling it at cutthroat margins.
good CHEAP phone (Score:2)
shit CHEAP phone (Score:5, Insightful)
some people want this to compete with an apple or samsung.
How about comparing it to a Motorola? It's no cheaper than a Moto G, which is twice the phone it is.
Re: good CHEAP phone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Netbooks were brilliant and were hot sellers before Microsoft decided they should run Windows CE instead of Linux
Windows CE? Most of them ran Windows XP or Windows 7 Starter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm guessing GP has no idea what they're talking about. I've seen CE-based "laptops", but they pre-date the (original?) EEE netbook, and they didn't generally have x86 CPUs. Not that a netbook strictly needs to be x86 (and some Chromebooks aren't), but most of them were. The Windows ones definitely run NT (XP, WIn7, or more recently Win8.x), though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they probably mean Windows RT, which can be compared to Windows CE in that it is a limited version of windows which has no valid reason to exist.
Windows CE had no reason to exist from the time when portable devices became powerful enough to run Windows NT, but Microsoft kept selling it right up until they cancelled it. Windows RT never had a reason to exist.
Bring me a phone... (Score:2)
That is pure linux inside without any of the big corps "all your data are belong to us" thingys in the background.
And so that user could actually, really, honestly, decide Him/Her self whats going on under the hood (on software side).....
Slam it with some top end hardware, I'd be one of the first lining it up.
Why ohh why, those hardware specs. Since this could have been the phone for geeks. Above specs met, I'd be happy to through in 500 or so €
Re: (Score:1)
What says Ubuntu or Jolla or Firefox isn't that?
Whatever you can modify it all that much after that I don't know.
What for a new phone (though they sold the tablet with the old phone at a discounted price)?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While many parts are open source, Sailfish OS is not completely free software and contains parts under a proprietary EULA.
Firefox OS is mostly open source as well but contains binary android drivers.
Without free drivers, there will always be a binary blob on your system which can then "phone home" or do other nasty things. Before a phone is created which does not require these blobs, there will be no phone completely running free software.
The openmoko gta01 and freerunner were attempts at this.
The gta04 by
Re: (Score:1)
For a phone without "all your data are belong to us" thingys in the background check out the neo900: http://neo900.org/ [neo900.org]
"5-megapixel lens" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
technically, you are not correct. lenses do have a resolving limit and with good slrs and their lenses, you can see that the better lenses do resolve better on a given sensor. its very possible for your sensor to be 'better' than some cheap kit lens. otoh, its never a problem to have 'too good' of a lens even if the sensor is not high res.
but we are talking about camera phones, so in that light, I take back everything I just said.
Re: (Score:2)
lenses do have a resolving limit
true, but it is not expressed in Megapixels...
Re: (Score:2)
It can be :
www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Looking-for-new-photo-gear-DxOMark-s-Perceptual-Megapixel-can-help-you
Re: (Score:2)
(Guess one could go creative in dice designs but .. it really is the standard.)
Even by going "creative", you won't be able to create 10 sided dice... it's a mathematical impossibility as there are only five possible convex regular polyhedra [wikipedia.org], and none of them have 10 sides.
The way a D10 is usually made is by using a 20-sided Icosahedron [wikipedia.org], and have each number occur twice (i.e. there will be 2 faces labeled 3).
Re: (Score:1)
I have never seen a 20-sided die labelled at 10 sided, but I have seen plenty of actual 10 sided dice. They are pretty common in tabletop roleplaying games:
http://www.dicecollector.net/J... [dicecollector.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Did that chafe when you pulled it out of your arse?
Haters gonna Hate... (Score:3)
I will buy one. My question is it going to be EASY to purchase? It's at a price point that is trivial and if Ubuntu runs on it decently, then I will mess with it. But I tried ubuntu on the Nexus 4 and it was unholy horrible and chunky, so I cant see this lesser phone being better.
Re: (Score:1)
According to TFA, it's not really "Ubuntu" in the sense that you might install on a phone with an unlocked bootloader. It's a heavily customized Android image. I don't doubt there's some Canonical-developed code that it has in common with the desktop Ubuntu bot not with either AOSP or, say, RHEL... but it's probably not the Ubuntu you tried on your Nexus 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Mir uses Android drivers via libhybris, and possibly reuses other parts of aosp to bootstrap the platform
That was a review? (Score:3)
I expected comments from someone who has, you know, maybe touched the device at least once.
I'm not enamored with the phablet trend. I like my Galaxy Nexus, its about the idea size to me. Something smaller with touch could be exciting. I don't need a billion pixels on the phone, but it needs to have some grunt and a good way to get a big keyboard, mouse, and monitor attached.
sadly I rtfa (Score:5, Informative)
Mobile will be a HUGE lesson for open source/Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously Ubuntu devs thought the biggest selling point for this phone was that it was running Ubuntu/linux.
We've been here before, it was called OpenMoko. Though that project blazed the trails for ARM-based Linux, it never got off the ground due to the lack of driver support (the chipset guys knew it) and underwhelming h/w. Once an openmoko developer, and seeing how ARM linux has evolved, we really haven't progress much aside from getting driver support and Android (though the biggest mobile player, has an OS that runs less efficient than iOS, BB, WP7).
I'm starting to believe that Linux has finally hit a limit--it excels in the business (server, routers, robots). Forget the direct-to-consumer space--it's not gonna happen, and Ubuntu phone sort of solidifies it w/all the hype that came with it. Hi, FreeRunner 2....
Re: (Score:3)
Linux does fine in direct to consumer space, actually.
You just have to abandon the notion of "a Linux box" as acting how Linux does on the server and other things you know and love.
Replace the upper level guts with something more reasonable and y
WTF? (Score:2)
we really haven't progress much aside from getting driver support and Android (though the biggest mobile player, has an OS that runs less efficient than iOS, BB, WP7).
WTF? Well, Android is Linux, and well, it is the biggest mobile player, but... Linux will never amount to anything.
Who modded up this shit?
Re: (Score:2)
When people say Linux they mean GNU/Linux. Most people dont call it GNU Linux because it give Stallmen too much credit. But they never really came down to a better name.
Linux is the kernel. GNU/Linux is the operating system. Ubuntu is the distribution.
Linux is the kernel. Android is the operating system. The vendor provides the distribution.
GNU/Linux has trouble getting into the end user space. Mostly due to the community belief in GNU licensing, where companies are not on board with, as they want to make m
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm starting to believe that Linux has finally hit a limit--it excels in the business (server, routers, robots). Forget the direct-to-consumer space--it's not gonna happen,
We have it, and it's called Android. It has an even more radical departure of an interface and userland than Ubuntu, proving that this is not the problem with Ubuntu's phone effort — the problem is that theirs sucks. Shuttleworth's vision of Linux is a dumb one, coated with candy but devoid of function. Android is candy-coated for easy swallowing, yes, but it actually does stuff. And if you really want to, you can run pretty much any Linux software you want which is available for your architecture. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
Open source drivers, root access ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do we get all the source code ?
Are they happy for people to make custom images for it ?
Great... (Score:1)
The fact that Ubuntu Touch can run on low-spec hardware is a great thing which also saves consumers a lot of money when buying new phones... Give it time and an all singing all powerful phone will appear with Ubu Touch pre-loaded...
Phones are overpriced (Score:2)
If the Ubuntu phone isn't too overpriced for its hardware, it's fine.
I still don't understand why anyone who isn't wealthy would pay $1000 for an iPhone.
Ok, I'm poor so I have a small, cheap samsung. For 1/6th the cost of an iPhone it runs Android and does everything just fine with a tiny screen and crumby cameras.
It's my music source 100% of the time.
Specs don't matter that much anymore (Score:2)
Articles like these are absolutely worthless. Sure, it's always interesting to see some numbers, but what matters is how it works. Saying the entire phone is bad purely based on its technical specifications says a lot about the reviewer. Quote: "[The Ubuntu phone is] ... a phone that is so middle of the road it could be arrested for loitering". Is this journalism?
Can anybody please tell my how such an article is able to reach the Slashdot front page?
Nexus 4 vs. BQ (Score:1)
It was supposed to be a Real Computer (Score:3)
running a Big Boy's OS. You know, a device that gives its user a lot of freedom and power. A phone that could be connected to a keyboard and monitor to do the same or similar things my 6 year old desktop can do.
These specs are not a good match for that vision. I can live with the poor resolution, the mid-range camera and the relatively small screen size (though I'm definitely a fan of phablets). The slow CPU and limited amount of RAM are killers, though, and not in the good sense of the word.
Bummer (Score:2)
Instead of offering 3 different models of a phone based on the memory it contains, I'd prefer an option for faster processors.
It's no longer the century of the fruitbat, we live in the centrury of streaming, we don't give a crap about memory.
looks great (Score:2)
i'm looking at this phone, and the only thing that is so-so is the screen resolution. ... and running a real linux, all for less then 200 euro.
All other things just look fine, 1.3Ghz quad core, 1Gb ram, 8Gb storage (expandable),
What is not to like? I'm buying this.
A more positive review than Firefox OS got. (Score:3, Interesting)
While this review of the Ubuntu offering may be "less than glowing", it's still much more positive than this review of Firefox OS [arstechnica.com]. I've never seen any other device or software review filled with so many negatives.
At this point, Mozilla needs to ask itself, "What chance does Firefox OS really have?"
I mean, we already have iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, Sailfish, and now Ubuntu Touch, among others. Firefox OS is at the very end of that list in terms of quality, usability, usefulness, and e
Re: (Score:3)
Please don't compare a piece-of-shit $35 phone, with abysmal specs, running an ancient build (1.3) from March 2014 with a 170euro device.
Firefox OS 2.1 is decent on Mozilla's developer phone, the Flame.
Re: (Score:1)
Give it up already. Nobody cares what you think about Mozilla or FirefoxOS except other ACs who want them both to fail because... well, because it's popular to hate on them for not being perfect or something. How about you stop wasting our resources spouting this tirade every chance you get?
Re: (Score:2)
I think even if FirefoxOS and Ubuntu are failures they could still be important. If they come up with a UI innovation something similar will likely find its way into the more mainstream OSs. I think the problem is they can't likely get a good piece of the rich world market (look at MSs attempts and they were the incumbent), so that leaves the low end. But Android and Win Phone are free for small devices so as far as smartphones are "insperational" devices why would the 3rd world user chose to copy valley sn
Re: (Score:1)
FirefoxOS is one the most important projects I've seen since ... well ... Firefox.
Why anyone would want it to fail, or spread FUD this this, is beyond me.
Re: (Score:3)
important to who and why and why is it more important than the other open(even all gpl even) phone projects? it's only an important project for mozilla and let's face it nobody of the users asked for it. if there's anything I want from mozilla it's another phoenix now that they've fucked around with firefox enough.
nobody really cares about it. I'm aware of it, as I'm a mobile developer and smartphone "professional" going back more than 10 years, but heck, but most of the mobile developers I know don't even
Re: (Score:2)
You're too short-sighted. There are positives for you as well, not just the developing world.
See, Mozilla is pushing an open standard app package that other platforms can implement, built completely on existing open standards. That means easy cross-platform mobile apps additional distribution options for developers, For smaller platforms, it means a ready-set of apps for their new platform before launch. Competition in the mobile space for consumers!
Re: A more positive review than Firefox OS got. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would android try to break into a market when iphone and blackberry already dominated it? When android was released it was a complete dog turd of an os on poor hardware that was doing its best to pretend to be blackberry. Then they switched to trying to be iphone and took over.
Windows phone faced the same argument. Why would anyone want a windows phone when android and iphone already exist? I've used a windows phone, and they're actually alright. The lack of apps isn't a bad thing because everything you
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, I have a BlackBerry and a FirefoxOS Phone. Not just any FirefoxOS phone, mind you, but the original craptastic ZTE Open. It's still better than the last Android I had. Even running an antique build (1.2) on third-rate hardware, it hasn't crashed on me once.
Give me higher specs and a US release and I'll switch over permanently, not just when traveling.
Out of morbid curiosity, why do you think it's "unusable". (I can actually safely switch tasks and close apps in FXOS, which Android still hasn't
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, we already have iOS, Android, Windows Phone, Blackberry OS, Tizen, Sailfish, and now Ubuntu Touch, among others. Firefox OS is at the very end of that list in terms of quality, usability, usefulness, and every other practical measure.
Not just this, let's consider a few things. Why would one buy a smartphone, as opposed to a dumb phone running some sort of Symbian or the other? Only reason - the apps. Even the old dumb phones could do some web-browsing, and one wouldn't need a smart phone for that. But the apps totally transform one's cellphone experience, and that's here to stay.
Well, and herein lies the rub. Most of the apps one would be interested in are implemented properly in iOS first, and then Android: anything else is u
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hardware? (Score:4)
Underwhelming software as well.
Honestly, I don't care how mediocre it is - if it gives me control over the software on my device I'm sold. I was dreading buying a new Android
Re: (Score:3)
The article neglects to mention both FirefoxOS and Jolla Sailfish. While neither is available on hardware with impressive specs - the first Jolla phone is nigh-identical to this one spec-wise, but at over a year old it has more excuse - I believe Sailfish may offer you the access you desire? It's descended from Maemo, which was pretty literally "Debian Linux compiled for ARM, with a touch-focused window manager and management tools". I haven't personally used Jolla enough to know anything about how much con
Re: (Score:3)
I just don't have the time to root/want to bother risking a bricked device anymore. FirefoxOS got dismal reviews and my experience with Mozilla is that they're more concerned with (bad) design rather than functionality. Jolla might be an option but I have my doubts as to whether they have the resources to hang in long term, Ubuntu might. Any option that allows me to delete (or does not have) the mass of pre-bundled crapware/social media apps/etc. and that can turn off the nightly Android phoning home is
Re: (Score:2)
Give firefox os a try - it's simple to install as an emulator in your browser by selecting WebIDE
Re: (Score:2)
Old reviews focused on old hardware won't tell you much about the OS. Give it a try before you bash it. It's really well-done. Beats Android in my book. It can even properly switch tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not hostile to them, I'm using Firefox right now. I'm just critical of their choices in certain areas.
Items like the burger menu and status bar being like Chrome's take priority over fixing major issues with the sqlite database(s) (install SQLite manager, you'll be amazed at how long data is being stored) and simple things like being able to view content inside the browser (example bug https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s... [mozilla.org] - yes, it's coming up on its 15th birthday).
Most of their design choices are just "m
Re: Hardware? (Score:5, Insightful)
I scimmed tfa, and I'm not sure they touched the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This is blogspam.
Re: (Score:2)
Size - 4.0 inches (~61.3% screen-to-body ratio)
Resolution - 480 x 800 pixels (~233 ppi pixel density)
OS - Android OS, v4.2.2 (Jelly Bean)
Chipset - Mediatek MT6572
Internal - 4 GB ROM, 512 MB RAM
CAMERA -2 MP, 1600 x 1200 pixels
BATTERY - Li-Ion 1300 mAh battery
Stand-by - Up to 432 h (2G) / Up to 384 h (3G)
The price? Less than $60.00
In what way the new Ubuntu phone can match it?
Eww, yuck.
Pros: cheap, has FM radio
Cons: every other single thing about it.
Verdict: no thanks. I don't care what you compare it to, it still stinks. This is like comparing dog shit to wolf shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what this Ubuntu phone will cost, but it's specs look soundly mid-range to me. I mean, they aren't high-end, much less flagship, but they aren't low-end dross either. Nobody is going to be impressed by them, but an awful lot of people still have phones with worse specs, either because they bought a mid-range phone in the last year or because they bought a low-end phone yesterday.
The phone that the AC grandparent posted is low-end dross (actually, it's possible to get a significantly better phon
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like my HTC Desire A8181 from five years ago:
Size - 4.0 inches (~61.3% screen-to-body ratio)
Resolution - 480 x 800 pixels (~233 ppi pixel density)
OS - Android OS, v4.2.2 (Jelly Bean)
Chipset - Mediatek MT6572
Internal - 4 GB ROM, 512 MB RAM
CAMERA -2 MP, 1600 x 1200 pixels
BATTERY - Li-Ion 1300 mAh battery
vs
Size - 3.7 inches (~54.6% screen-to-body ratio)
Resolution - 480 x 800 pixels (~252 ppi pixel density)
Chipset Qualcomm QSD8250 Snapdragon (1 GHz Scorpion CPU, Adreno 200)
Card slot - microSD, up to 32 GB, 4 GB included
Internal - 576 MB RAM; 512 MB ROM
Camera - 5 MP, 2592 x 1944 pixels, autofocus, LED flash
Battery - Li-Ion 1400 mAh battery
http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_de... [gsmarena.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Larger screen, more pixels
Twice the CPU - 1.3ghz quad core A7
Twice the ram - 1GB
Twice the storage - 8GB
Two cameras, 8MP + 5MP (instead of a single 2MP)
Almost twice the battery
It's thinner too
Bluetooth 4.0
Costs 169 euros.
It's not priced as a high-end phone, why did you expect it to be one?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm also confused by all the bashing. This Ubuntu phone is firmly grounded on Moto G levels of price and hardware specifications, and that phone was a major hit. It's not 2010 - you don't *need* a flagship phone for browsing the web or the UI decently. Flagship GPUs are incredibly overspecced for everything except HD gaming, which is not something most people would want to do on their phones, especially since they drain the battery pretty heavily. The screens are also overkill. QHD screens on phones look be
Re: (Score:3)
As long as software is written well and it wont lag (doubt it).
Name one phone with good software and crappy hardware that I'd consider using. There isn't one. Good software doesn't make the weak screen or camera good. Processor speed may be over rated, but adequate RAM is certainly not, especially with a low-end processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have your timeframe wrong; SVGA dates from the dos era of 1987 - several years before Windows 3.x
Re: (Score:2)
funny thing i'm writing a reply to you on a netbook with a 1024 by 600 screen. Physically bigger than the phone screen. Possibly comparable cpu with the n270 in this netbook too. Maybe a little light on ram. However it seems this was a phone designed for android so at least shares the specifications of an android phone.
The question that intrigues me is will this phone upgrade like a pc or will its first and last operating system be the one that it ships with? Can it switch distro maybe run an arm version o
Re: (Score:2)
funny thing i'm writing a reply to you on a netbook with a 1024 by 600 screen.
I have three netbooks, but sadly, any portable PC with less than 1280 lines is dead to me because that's what it takes to run some of the last windows programs I'm actually using. And that program is older than netbooks.
Similarly, any handheld device on which I'm expected to surf the web with less than 720p resolution is dead to me, because that's not really enough resolution for that.
Re: (Score:2)
The screen has crappy resolution - less than 10% more pixels than those old Windows desktops displayed in 800x600.
Except that it's a 4.5" display. For that size of screen, 960x540 is a deluxe resolution.