We have moved to a new Sailfish OS Forum. Please start new discussions there.

[Jolla Tablet] Considering hardware requests usefulness [answered]

asked 2014-11-19 14:17:24 +0300

Grunt gravatar image

updated 2014-11-23 00:09:59 +0300

This post is almost directly from my answer to one of the hardware request, but I thought it might be useful to make it as a separate post:

In an interview with Sami Pienimäki, it was told that the Jolla tablets hardware can not be altered anymore, it is the software-side they receive peoples requests for. I think we shouldn't clog up TJC with wishes considering tablets hardware, as the specs are not changeable according to this interview with Pienimäki.

Link for the interview, unfortunately in finnish: http://www.iltasanomat.fi/digi/art-1288774669985.html

Straight quote: "Pienimäen mukaan laitteiston kokoonpanoon ei voi vaikuttaa, mutta yhtiö ottaa vastaan toivomuksia laitteen ohjelmiston kehityksestä sekä siitä, mitä laitteen tekniset ominaisuudet otetaan käyttöön."

In short, hardware cannot be altered, but company receives wishes considering software development and how tablets technical capabilities are used.

Edit: Jolla should make this fact clear in their TJC post, like the comments suggest.

Edit 2: Stefano Mosconi gave an answer to this question that there is still a slight chance of making hardware alterations, so the HW discussion isn't completely off the table. Still, I wait for the official clarification concerning this matter.

edit retag flag offensive reopen delete

The question has been closed for the following reason "the question is answered, an answer was accepted" by eric
close date 2015-01-16 14:30:19.675565



If this is the case, which seems reasonable considered time to market, then I think it should explicitly say so in https://together.jolla.com/question/63498/the-jolla-tablet-we-make-it-you-make-it-yours/ As of now the request for feedback says nothing on whether or not hardware requests will be considered.

Spix ( 2014-11-19 14:28:10 +0300 )edit

Thanks for letting to know. It was not clearly said by Jolla, that hardware specs were already final. So it's only the software that is starting to shape to it's final form.

Jolla095 ( 2014-11-19 14:33:04 +0300 )edit

Still no official notion of this fact, while hardware requests keep popping up. I think a lot of people will be disappointed if this fact isn't emphasized by the company.

Grunt ( 2014-11-19 22:43:39 +0300 )edit

Good to know, thank you for the information.

MichaelSD ( 2014-11-20 03:54:41 +0300 )edit

3 Answers

Sort by » oldest newest most voted

answered 2014-11-20 17:44:27 +0300

cybette gravatar image

We are taking your feedback seriously, and at this point we can't promise anything as especially many hardware changes require significant volumes. However, we truly are giving your suggestions (both SW and HW) very serious considerations and discussing all different possibilities that we have to make things happen. Once we have something more concrete, we will share that. Thanks!

edit flag offensive delete publish link more



Please be more clear about what sort of hw changes you might be prepared to consider.

i.e. is SoC (CPU/GPU etc) completely ruled out at this point, if so, what areas might you still consider.

jalyst ( 2014-11-20 20:10:17 +0300 )edit

@cybette Thank you for noticing my post. I hope you'll update us as soon as possible whether there is a chance to make hardware reguests, but for now it would be polite to clear this situation officially.

Grunt ( 2014-11-20 22:41:01 +0300 )edit

Just to put it out there, if you do end up going with a Bay Trail chip, would it be possible to at a minimum get the one with the highest GPU clock? The Z3785 looks to have the highest GPU clock of the Z3700 series, so that would definitely be the best one to drive a high res display like this. It's still Intel Gen7 graphics, so it should play nice with open source.

My pipe dream is that you guys ship this with Cherry Trail instead, which should be available Q1 2015. That'd be a significant boost to the GPU as well as using the 14nm process for power concerns.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

bavarians6 ( 2014-11-21 02:42:17 +0300 )edit

We're currently answering the hardware-requests and answered some of the feature-requests yesterday, so I close this topic as answered, thank you.

eric ( 2015-01-16 14:30:06 +0300 )edit

answered 2014-11-22 12:53:36 +0300

iourine gravatar image

updated 2014-11-22 12:55:34 +0300

No doubt that once the h/w design is frozen (an it is obviously frozen by the date of official announcement), further discussions are useless for that product. Yet the life does not end up with that particular product, does it? There should and will be users' wishes for further evolution of the project, and it would be stupid for the company not to take them into account. Probably it worths establishing a separate subforum on future hardware designs, not to mix it with digesting the existing one.

This is same "3 gates rule" known to everyone familar with slalom. (Because the rule is general for the entire life, and slalom is just a particular representation of it.) When passing a gate, you must already be targeting the next one - and in a way that poses you to good approach to the 3rd gate. The start of JollaTablet was great, but keep an eye on the entire course ahead!

edit flag offensive delete publish link more


You're right that the discussion about the first tablet is useful when it comes to future devices. But what I've been trying to point out is that it is not clear enough for the community if there is any chances for changing current HW specs of this device. Otherwise there is yet another chance that the community feels being let down if this matter isn't made clear.

Grunt ( 2014-11-23 00:20:30 +0300 )edit

It seems HW is not fixed. From the Indiegogo Comment section:

joeclifford Will ideas and contributions regarding the hardware specification be considered or is that already set in stone? A larger capacity battery to at least match the N1, better somewhere between the N1 and Nexus, would be my personal preference. Also, STEREO! speakers and a headphone output that can double as a line output (features lacking in the Jolla phone). Zero air gap screen with sapphire glass would be a bonus.

Answer from Jolla: @joeclifford: We’ve just started the project, and we are taking all ideas and suggestions into consideration! The future in this respect is still open.

dac ( 2014-11-24 19:10:25 +0300 )edit

answered 2014-12-13 20:50:46 +0300

proyb2 gravatar image

I will seriously consider Broadwell or Cherry Trail to be a well fit for Jolla. No point having Bay Trail that will be fighting against other tablets at lower prices by other manufacturers. This will make an impression that Jolla is slow at supporting new hardware.

Should we using Bay Trail, it can't perform well enough as a gaming tablet I believe most of us do need to enjoy and attract developers to start developing quality gaming that optimized for Sailfish.

Alternatively, Broadwell M Core is a worthy replacement for Bay Trail, no doubt and I don't mind paying 299USD over 249USD for that upgrade. Don't you think?

edit flag offensive delete publish link more



I have to disagree. I see no need for Jolla to attempt to put out a high-end gaming-oriented machine at this point; as this is their first attempt at a tablet, their emphasis really should be on getting a stable, bug-free, and economic baseline machine upon which to show off their software. The more bleeding-edge they go, the more likely it will be that hardware bugs will obscure the brilliance of their software.

Once their baseline tablet has been established, they'll have time to come out with high-end versions (or even better, license Sailfish to hardware providers, the way Google does with Android -- let the folks who actually design the hardware come up with the specialized devices).

Copernicus ( 2014-12-13 21:07:07 +0300 )edit

Question tools



Asked: 2014-11-19 14:17:24 +0300

Seen: 1,815 times

Last updated: Dec 13 '14