asked 2017-10-26 00:32:58 +0300
For example, for a Huawei.
I wish that anyone who has paid Sailfish X does not have to pay for Sailfish H (Huawei H), for example.
answered 2017-10-26 02:23:07 +0300
Objection: Jolla has put in a lot of work into something that is difficult to sell and demanding it for free is not going to help Jolla and Sailfish OS survive in the long-term. You might ask "Why should we have to both buy the device, and then spend money on Sailfish OS, when Android is handed out for free? This is an answer that for everyone is different.
In my opinion the benefits of paying outweigh the inconvenience of having to open my wallet for the following reasons:
The downsides are that people generally believe that when they pay for something it has to be exactly to their liking, and when it isn't (and they were informed about it) they tend to complain (see the Jio/Reliance crowd as an example).
I think that pricing should be adjusted to account for device cost (ie, SailfishforPixel2XL should be 100 EUR, while SailfishforElCheapoMediaTekDevice should be 2 EUR) and for the ability of an average person to afford the software (ie, A Luxembourgish consumer can afford to pay 60 EUR, while a Belarusian consumer might only be able to afford 3 EUR). This of course will always have those people who want the cheaper price even though they can afford the price more aligned with their national average income.
Further, I do not think that device manufacturers that are controlled or even partially owned by governments should have official versions of SailfishOS made for them because there is the heightened risk of state-party influence in such arrangements. SailfishOS is more trustworthy than Android or iOS, and it would be great to keep it that way.
TLDR: No, because there is no such thing as a free lunch. Programmers (and support staff) need to eat.
answered 2017-10-27 05:30:07 +0300
Paying with cash is preferrable to paying with your entire life data being raped. Either way the monetary value is about the same but the extra considerations make Jolla the much cheaper option, that is unless you like ot live like 1984?
answered 2017-10-26 23:49:57 +0300
Hi @Kalatti, in a way your question duplicates this one, yet hypothetically. The essence or what you can be sure of is, if SFOS should be extended to support even more hardware, you still would need to pay again for another license if used on more than one phone simultaneously, mostly due to the licensed parts (dalvik etc.).
Asked: 2017-10-26 00:32:58 +0300
Seen: 1,428 times
Last updated: Oct 27 '17
Why should one have to? The license is bind on account so you are allowed to flash it on another phone. And think practical, Jolla team is pretty low numbered and they maybe want to add some devices but why a Huawei? I think they take just another Sony because it worked already once. Coosing other manufacturers would be more complicated
NuklearFart ( 2017-10-26 01:55:23 +0300 )editgreat question!!
XFish ( 2017-10-26 03:16:30 +0300 )editI bought Sailfish X 2 weeks ago, and expect to use this as my main phone for quite some time. Let's say I buy a new phone in 2 years, I would then happily pay extra again to get Sailfish on the device. Infact, I would find it wierd if I didn't have to.to
Freddo ( 2017-10-27 03:01:30 +0300 )editI actually like the Idea of licensing a device open OS to a user versus licensing him a device specific OS. Same as a Windows license which can be installed on your machine of choice, this approach may even help to get Saifish OS run on more devices. Maybe they'd sell a 'device specific OS' for that price, and a 'non specific OS' for such price - so we have a choice?
danfin ( 2017-10-27 09:09:35 +0300 )editTechnically, you paid for product A (Sailfish for Xperia X), so it would be the most normal thing to be charged a second time if you buy product B. When I buy milk today, I'll still have to pay for cheese tomorrow, even if I buy it at the same shop.
The issue might be buried in the licensing agreements for the proprietary stuff Jolla uses. If Jolla pays licence fees per device specific implementation or per device (both of which are the more likely alternatives), you will certainly have to pay a second time. If they pay per end user (much less likely), you probably get future versions for free.
ossi1967 ( 2017-10-27 12:31:28 +0300 )edit