Paid Updates to support Development - what do you think?

Also we never got that cloud service we have been promised.

Or a way to opt out, like all those "give me my OS 1.0 back" Luddites ;)

Either way, too slow. I am fine with a subscription model but if Jolla does not collect some money right now, there won't be any updates to pay for.

@picholo: You have just kinda described something slightly similar to the enterprise Linux model - paying a subscription for assurance that the API/ABI stays stable while getting fixes, security fixes, new hardware enablement and selected new features.

Not sure how would this work in the mobile space and if someone tried it yet.

@coderus you mean early adopters that suppose to hunt for bugs should now pay for this?!

nowadays EA not hunting any bugs. Exactly same version is being available as release. Jolla have cbeta team for testing new releases month before early adopters.

@coderus but then why have the whole early adopters update? Yet another feature that makes no sense besides some marketing blah. Why not push it straight to everyone? On the other hand, if they want to save up some money they should either get rid of their beta testers or put them to more productive use, and let community do the testing for them.

Not necessarily. You have an anti-virus software on your PC, don't you? Well, you should (no, running Linux does not make you immune).

An anti-virus is an excellent example of a subscription model. No subscription, no updates. Yet you do not have any say in what should be in those updates.

The sad reality of Jolla is that everyone wants to meddle so I expect there would be throngs of users wanting to dictate what should be in the updates. Jolla has to be strong to resist that pressure.

When I bought 'open source', 'poeple powered' phone no-one mentioned paid updates (i think the most idiotic think someone could think of while launching a such startup btw). If that would become real we could forget about open-source sailfishOS.

And Anti-virus software is imo the worse example. First of I would never trust closed source security solution, simply because you don't know how secure that solution is. Secondly you dont know what exactly your update does. And Third of all creating perfect anti-virus is the worst thing those companies could do for their business, therefor they will always be buggy so that there is always need to make more updates and cash-in more.

I did not say I agree with the idea of paid updates. I just provided an example where it works and the user does not get to manipulate the producer like you suggested. I thought that was your main objection.

Regarding the anti-virus, I am sorry but you do not know what you are talking about. I used to work for an AV company (please note the past tense: I do not work there any more and have no incentive to defend them other than for the sake of truth). The "anti-virus conspiracy" is very popular amongst the naiive masses but total rubbish. But feel free to entrust your PC to an open-source anti-virus software. It is worth less than the money you pay for it :)

@pichlo In your example users don't get to see what the software does so obviously they cannot manipulate producer. Also it's a different culture where there is no community oriented collaboration between company and their customers.

Regarding the anti-virus thing. Of course my post was a bit exaggerated, but it comes form the fact, of the software being closed. That is why people come up with 'conspiracy' theories. And it is not only about Anti virus.

As for ClamAV, 90% of emails around the world is scanned by it.

yes, you are right

There the problem with this business model is directly clear. I like the idea of the Blackberry Priv (privacy, rapid updates and patches, clean version of Android i.e. no bloat), but don't like the hardware at all (that keyboard looks like the worst possible way to implement a qwerty keyboard on a phone + it's very expensive). There's an enormous amount of differentiation in Android hardware and many individual preferences, so Jolla would have to spend enormous amounts of time porting Sailfish to a specific phone to maybe sell a small number of licenses.

I think you got me wrong. My Idea is not offer Sailfish for all the Phones on the market, but for a wide range. What means to focus on different phones let me say the Priv as an example for an expensive one with hardwarekeyboard, but also we need a small cheap one with a small formfactor, one cheap one with a large screen and the same one in the mid price range and also for the high price range. So all in all not more than 6 to 10 phones. Just that there is a phone for every like and purse.

I like this idea +1

well what would you expect, when half of the staff doesn't get wages.

how long has that been the case?

who really knows???