Originally Posted by tortoisedoc

was it possible to hook a n900 to a bigger screen and a kbd + mouse?

Originally Posted by tortoisedoc

And also, the whole industry has moved in the opposite direction in the mean time methinks?

Originally Posted by JulmaHerra

Cyanogen is not very good comparison to Jolla, as they build on top of Android, which is developed in many other places with considerable amount of manpower and resources. On the other hand, just by open sourcing everything doesn't mean it's going to fly. Sailfish would still face the same challenges as it does today.

Originally Posted by nthn

If your application is good enough, people will pay for it. The people who wouldn't pay for it, would never have paid for it, and would figure out a way around the ads anyway. If they don't know how to do it themselves, they'll ask someone else to do it for them. If you can't make a living by developing applications without ads, maybe you should develop applications in your spare time and find a new (read: real) job.

Originally Posted by NokiaFanatic

Clearly, Cyanogen are doing something right and Jolla are not.

Originally Posted by nodevel

Dual monetizing model

On a related note, one big advantage of systems like SailfishOS is how apps adhere to the design guidelines and make use of the default components. This could be leveraged not only with the 'user stats' and 'cache', but also by monetizing apps.

I am also not a fan of ads, but let's think of it this way: what if there was a switch that would add an ad to a Header {} element of Silica and when releasing it through the store, there would be three business models:

1. free apps (no ads)
2. an option between paying or seeing ads
3. paid apps (no ads)

Let's look closely at the 2nd option - you as a developer release an app for $4. If a customer buys it, you get $3 and $1 goes to the Store owner (the developer of the OS). But if the customer decides to go for free version with ads, you get $3 from Store owner and the Store owner then gets all the revenue from ads in that application. At any point of time, the customer can decide to pay his way out of the ads by paying $4, which would then go to the Store owner.

This model would resolve the problem with buying an app without trying it - customers could try it with ads first and then buy it to get rid of them. There would be no model that would force ads onto the user without having the option to pay for the app instead.

Originally Posted by NokiaFanatic

Outside of Jolla staff, no one contributes to Sailfish (yes I know you can contribute to Mer - but I cannot easily put Mer on my Android device).

Originally Posted by NokiaFanatic

Are you saying that everyone should just give up?

Are you saying that the current strategy is successful?

It's sad, Sailfish is on its last legs here and it looks set to go out on a whimper. Perhaps it is just a case that there simply isn't enough commercial demand for it to be able to stand on its own two feet?