The warning at bootup will be there though and ota won't work.

The sailfish-x license is also bound to your account, not device so you'd probably have to sell both your phone and account.

I am not sure about that. I do not believe enough people even know about Sailfish.

Really? I managed to completely miss that point. That is quite a serious drawback.

I have been seriously considering an X Compact (you can get vanilla X cheaper but boy are they huge!) and even have a few earmarked on eBay even though I am not exactly in the position to spend on frivolities, but this Microsoftish behaviour (you "rent" software, not buy it) is a very serious argument for saving my money.

So much complaining here so I would share my thoughts. My biggest concern is that sailfish is connected to the refund. Now the good part is that could easily be solved without HW mods or SW update.

Why you guys always note some tiny issue. Look at the opportunity instead!

Look who's talking.

Do you use Aliendalvik, exchange etc.? If not, you could just use the community port.

Sorry, I don't get your point here. Since Jolla decided to sell SFOS X individually, they need to somehow keep track of who bought a licence and who don't. The easiest way for this is obviously by using the Jolla Account which you probably already use to access the Jolla store.

I agree with you that such restrictions are a negative thing, but I don't see any better way to handle the verification thing. Tying the licence to a specific model would be even worst in my opinion, since this means a lot of effort if you need to replace your phone. Furthermore, it probably means some kind of online activation (which truly would be a microsoft thing) and maybe even regular license checks.

So, how is the solution to bind the license to your Jolla account a "microsoftish rent your software" thing?
What solution would you suggest to Jolla?

Did Jolla mention exact time the public sales/download starts on 11th? And which time-zone? (Assume it's Helsinki +5 ?)

I don't think it was that, more the fact that they said they would support the xperia x for a set amount of time and then re-evaluate.

IMO that's reasonable since you're not paying again and again for the same thing, you're (possibly) paying in the future for security fixes etc.

This is also how corporate software subscriptions work. The idea is that software development is ongoing process (new features & security fixes) and that there are related costs you have to pay as well (support people, QA, infrastructure, etc.).

So it makes perfect sense to make also the licensing/subscription an ongoing process, to better reflect that & sustain the development and fund the related related costs. There is also the motivation factor for the company - the customers might not renew their subscriptions if they are not happy. So you do what you can to keep them happy & subscribed (new feature and RFE implementation, prompt bugfixing, fast handling of security issues, responsive support, robust infrastructure, etc.).

There are also some specific mobile device relevant aspect of subscriptions - it might help to finally fix the issue with manufacturers dropping support early for perfectly functional hardware. They normally get all/most of the money when you buy the device and don't really have any monetary incentive to keep supporting the device once it has been sold - they want you to buy a newer model so they will again get your money. An not releasing updates (AKA planed obsolescence) can only help with that.

Now consider the subscription model - you get money from users as long as they run yous OS, regardless of the hardware. So you don't really have any incentive to stop supporting devices as long as enough people who have them are paying. This might help breaking the current vicious circle of planed obsolescence.

Also, even though people might not really notice it, they are actually already paying a subscription for mobile OS. It's just they they are paying with their privacy and private data, instead of money. That's another area where subscription might help - you will just pay them upfront and they will not have an incentive to sell your privacy to the highest bidder, as that might make you drop your subscription.

I can see people asking why they should pay for OS if it they are normally getting it for free. But it' not actually free, they are just paying with they privacy & the need to regularly pay for a new device as the one (perfectly working one) they have is no longer supported and updated.

Actually, jenix was right. I am OK with limited time support. What I do not like is that I do not own the license and cannot pass it on as I please..

I see no difference between software and any other product. Bread, a brick, a car or, perhaps the best analogy, a book. Once I buy a book, I can do whatever I damn please with it. I can keep it on the shelf and never open it. I can read it every day. I can sell it or give it away if I no longer like it. And finally, I can lend it to a friend. If I do, then I can no longer read it until I get it back.

Software used to be like that too. That is, until Microsoft came along and changed all that. Now you no longer buy software, you buy "the right" to use it.

No, they don't. J K Rowling does not need to keep track of who bought her book. It is not something Jolla needs to do, it is something they want to do.

There are a million ways of how to provide software anonymously, yet provide updates and guarantee that it is at least difficult, if not impossible to copy. Software companies have sorted that out decades ago. Each copy could come with a unique identifier and an activation code. They can still track each installation to their heart content but the crucial point is, it does not have to be linked to you, the user.

I do not need AD and I would never allow my Jolla spoiled with Android. But, sadly, I need Exchange for work. I would be perfectly happy to pay for the license.