Geeks, stop trolling.

I think the hardware is a good compromise performance/battery.
The screen is probably the most disappointing aspect, but again it should save on power consumption and everyday user will enjoy the experience of the OS.
1GB RAM is smart also because RAM is a big source of current consumption. It should be enough for a very good Sailfish experience.
Same for the processor, dual-core as a must have today, 1.4GHz for the raw performance.
As for battery, the new iPhone 5S has a 1560mAh one. So 2100mAh is not a bad idea neither.
Bottom line, If they don't mess up with the camera and the device really feels premium, then they will have a hit.

As for the price tag, don't forget that they are small and they need to eat and grow. They probably get a good deal on the phone hardware, so putting a bit of a high price-tag will get hard-core fans (they know about spec, they live with it) and people liking more the design of the phone/OS (they don't give a **** about spec, they enjoy the experience, much like iOS users). Nobody wants the cheap android fanboys to even try Sailfish.

Someone mentioned I2C for the other half communication; where do you get this information ? Is that official ? This is a slow for a communication bus.

i2c written in fin language jolla website

maybe this http://jolla.com/fi/your-jolla/

Good enough for NFC, battery control, Lowpower screen, keyboard, trackpad (wtf ), etc... Not usable for extra camera sensor for instance.

I rather have a smaller screen with higher ppi for battery life. switching application with one hand is barely enough on 3.9 screen. It is hardly convinced this screen is an upgrade compare to n9, other specification is fine.

Now I rather stay on harmattan/Nemo.
Should I change to sailfish for Android application with lack of sensor?

I2C ram, I just ROFL'd my breakfast coffee out of my nose.

Any chance they might upgrade the RAM at this point?
makes me think I should wait for the second Jolla Phone

That would not fit my definition of the word geek. Specs are for clueless lusers, geeks care about capabilities.

Amen!

Which part of it is "disappointing"? The resolution? Don't make me laugh! My previous smartphone had a 160x160 screen and it was MUCH more usable than the N900 with 800x480. At least you could read the SMS without a magnifying glass. Sure, it was not very good for browsing, but since it did not have a WiFi it did not really matter.

There was a time when humans were so obsessed with technology and what it could achieve that they put TVs in watches. It did not last very long: the small screen was unwatchable. Now the history is repeating itself, only this time the battleground is mobile phones. Clueless masses want pixels, but some smart people have already realized that increasing the pixel count makes sense ONLY if you also increase the screen size. There is a niche market for the likes of Dave999 who like to carry around devices the size of a paperback but the most of us just want something small enough to fit in the pocket and comfortable in the hand.

pichlo, your comment on the screen is as extreme as the other guys... You're not making any point.
It is just sad/surprising that the next Jolla phone will have pixel density which is lower than N9. That's all.
They are probably good reasons for that; and I hope one of them is low power.

Years of sub-par screens and using the pixels as units of length made people think that higher resolution means smaller elements. This is not true. Higher resolution means more clarity with similarly sized elements. 300dpi has been the low barrier for printed material since a long time ago. It's time screens get up to par. Are all business cards hard to read? They are still 600dpi though. Increasing resolution without increasing screen size becomes pointless only well north of 300ppi for handheld devices (including books)

Now when viewing distance increases, that changes.
If you want to read more about that http://play.qwazix.com/grog/?p=456