What are people's thoughts on being able to switch to a R&D mode where warranty is void, but you can flash kernel, own rootfs, etc?
I think there needs to be a balance between one app being able to flash it's own kernel, rootkit your entire system and software freedom somehow.
I totally agree with the need to find balance.
options for consideration could be:
Dev devices that are handed out/awarded via a program (similar to the n9/n950 programs). open/unlocked with standard dev device exclusions and limited warranty
Standard consumer device, where purchased via a retailer or through an online service, "locked" .
Opening up "R&D" mode done via an online registration and unlock code linked to the IMEI, which includes a consent to waive SOME warranty aspects where damage occurs resulting from hardware overclocking or hacking to make use of/or implement tweaks or mods not yet approved in upstream base code?
What are people's thoughts on being able to switch to a R&D mode where warranty is void, but you can flash kernel, own rootfs, etc?
I think there needs to be a balance between one app being able to flash it's own kernel, rootkit your entire system and software freedom somehow.
Only if the community was willing and capable of helping me whenever I got stuck.
Case in point. I have a Motorola Xoom. I lurk over at XDA a lot and once I got sorta in a sticking point with a certain flash. I got hit up behind the scenes by one of the main ROM builders, we worked it out and apparently I found a nasty pitfall that could have hit others. He acknowledged that, walked me through it - he hit it once himself, thought it was a one-off - and they were able to fix that for later builds.
That level of community support would have to exist for me to accept that. But in the end, yes. I'd accept it.
Dev devices that are handed out/awarded via a program (similar to the n9/n950 programs). open/unlocked with standard dev device exclusions and limited warranty
No, this is wrong. There should be a free choice what device to get. Both devices need to be purchasable. Censored distribution of N950 was a bad thing. Instead Nokia had to just sell them, but they didn't because of general sabotage and shift to MS. There is no need for any limiting of distribution.
No, this is wrong. There should be a free choice what device to get. Both devices need to be purchasable. Censored distribution of N950 was a bad thing. Instead Nokia had to just sell them, but they didn't because of general sabotage and shift to MS. There is no need for any limiting of distribution.
I will note that they did allow purchases, but only from "registered developers" who were accepted into a special program.
Still, it didn't do much to cultivate any community, though I suppose that was a moot effort due to the changes already in play.
Whereas, such constraints would definitely cripple any real community from developing around this platform (permanently locked retail handsets / tightly limited distribution of "dev" handsets.)
The article stirred no confidence in me, though my cynicism regarding the entire space is in effect. I will gladly be proven wrong.
Guys whole Open Closed thing is just speculation at this point in time, we shouldn't take everything we reed on websites and true. As far as i know Jolla has not officially confirmed this!
i just wonder why NONE of those big companys has released any consumer mobiledevices with x86 if intel is soo good?
seriously if jolla will use intel I jus take theyr device as an device marketed for early adaptors and NOT consumer device because theyr cpu has not been heavily tested.
what jolla should use is a hw and architecture they have been tested for long OMAP that is...
Well intel has a released their phone here in UK i'm just not sure how well it's doing
I like this line of thinking.. how about tying this into homescreen abilities - UI people got any good suggestions?
One thing I've always wondered is to have some kind of visual feedback that a background application is 'running hot' (using a lot of resources)
I would change the color of the battery icon (green => discharging slowly, red, fast), depending on the discharge rate of the last 5 minutes, or depending on the average cpu of the last 5 minutes. If the phone is locked when the status comes to "fast discharging", I would vibrate or notify the user.
"For example I can’t tell you anything about possible partnership with Intel."
That statement scares me.... Does this actually mean they MAY consider using an Intel chipset OMG! please NO.
I want ARM not shitty x86
The medfield chip is currently fully comparable in terms of price, power and consumtion to a mid-range+ arm chip (mid range in terms of power and price).
They need to up their game to provide high end chip for flagship devices, but as far as the "cpu power"/consumtion is concerned, they're finally fully competitive.
No, this is wrong. There should be a free choice what device to get. Both devices need to be purchasable. Censored distribution of N950 was a bad thing. Instead Nokia had to just sell them, but they didn't because of general sabotage and shift to MS. There is no need for any limiting of distribution.
Perhaps I failed to communicate my intent. I most certainly don't want a dev only device or restriction on the capacity to develop, but I do think that there needs to be line drawn from a warranty perspective, with an acceptance that, by making a device completely "open" to hacking, a person can, by their own hand, be responsible for bricking it.
I was referring specifically to the application of warranty options, not suggesting that a fully open device be made available only through an award basis.
My suggestion for consideration was based around an acknowledgement that a device for a general consumer does not need to be fully "open" from a hacking perspective, but there needs to be some means by which a company can mitigate risk to itself when it comes managing warranty claims for devices damaged through hacking.
It is only fair to assume that Jolla (or any vendor for that matter) shouldn't have to wear the cost of replacing a device that was overclocked to a point of combustion, just because it could be, or because someone loaded a piece of home cooked code with a fatal typo...
If hardware protection can be built in, to ensure safety to the device, then this point becomes moot, as technically, there wouldn't be anything a reflash couldn't fix
