Ubuntu phones to ship this year from two manufacturers

Platform will be the "open alternative to Android."


Read the whole story

 

[ClownRazer]

So any news on the my-computer-in-my-pocket docking capability?

 

[Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer]

I'm very curious to see how this goes. I'm more interested in $100-$300 devices rather than high-end phones, though.

 

[grahamwilliams]

Forget the desktop, this is the year of Linux in the pocket.

 

[Sajuuk]

Viewer[/url]":2n17ac3w]AOSP is pretty open regardless of the Ars spin

I don't think anyone argues whether AOSP is open, only that google apps are not

 

[bburdge]

grahamwilliams[/url]":1k6gkr6p]Forget the desktop, this is the year of Linux in the pocket.

You mean unlike the past few years of Linux in the pocket?

 

[vnangia]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":39rpqr5p]I'm very curious to see how this goes. I'm more interested in $100-$300 devices rather than high-end phones, though.

I'm not sure the focus initially is on those devices - or at least the lower end of that range; remember the Ubuntu Edge? I can speculate that this is because running a full Linux stack is probably fairly resource-intensive.

On the other hand, if you're looking for an inexpensive alternative to the big two, you may want to look at the model advocated by Mozilla with the Firefox OS that not only already offers phones in the sub-$100 range.

 

[Sajuuk]

vnangia[/url]":2xvc1ygq]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":2xvc1ygq]I'm very curious to see how this goes. I'm more interested in $100-$300 devices rather than high-end phones, though.

I'm not sure the focus initially is on those devices - or at least the lower end of that range; remember the Ubuntu Edge? I can speculate that this is because running a full Linux stack is probably fairly resource-intensive.

On the other hand, if you're looking for an inexpensive alternative to the big two, you may want to look at the model advocated by Mozilla with the Firefox OS that not only already offers phones in the sub-$100 range.

Firefox OS is running atop Linux as well; how much of the linux stack they use is beyond me though

 

[Corbenman]

Good news that we finally have a linux alternative to the linux powered Android! The more alternatives the better! And I bet this will have some great advantages for the Ubuntu desktop users out there too. All in all, about time to get another OS that is not from Apple or Google.

 

[vnangia]

Sajuuk[/url]":1d9fofn9]
Firefox OS is running atop Linux as well; how much of the linux stack they use is beyond me though

Err, not sure, but enough to run Gecko fairly close to the metal. The Geeksphone that I have does actually have a lot of Android underpinnings - the bootloader, the recovery, etc., all appear to be standard, but after the OS loads, it very quickly stops being Android.

 

[daneren2005]

I'm really trying hard to see any benefit of this stack. In my experience QT is ugly and hard to program for, and HTML5 has terrible performance. I'm not sure how they plan on competing with Android without offering a software stack that is comparable (let alone to iOS). I think the only thing going for it at this point is being relatively easy to update.

 

[Sajuuk]

vnangia[/url]":2lfk7r9r]

Sajuuk[/url]":2lfk7r9r]
Firefox OS is running atop Linux as well; how much of the linux stack they use is beyond me though

Err, not sure, but enough to run Gecko fairly close to the metal. The Geeksphone that I have does actually have a lot of Android underpinnings - the bootloader, the recovery, etc., all appear to be standard, but after the OS loads, it very quickly stops being Android.

How is the actual performance of the dev Geeksphone? Never had a chance to try Firefox OS outside of the firefox emulator

 

[metro2003]

I really want them to succeed, I really do, but I don't see how. First is the OS. I had the opportunity of trying it out on my N4. Yes, I installed it myself..pretty easy process..props for that. But I couldn't figure out to do something as basic as finding the back button or how to actually close or switch to a running app. Also at the time I tried it, and I'm sure the OS came a long way today, it lacked refinement and crashed every few minutes to the point that I had to power it off. I even piched in the $600 when they were running the crowd funding bit on indigogo. So I'm all for trying out new platforms and I always try to see the best in something new. It's my hobby...I like it...However, with market reaching saturation, it's extremely hard to break into it with a lackluster OS. I understand their target may be mid spec phones and other world regions, but when apps are not there, there's not much to support that OS. yes, html apps work out of the box suposedly, but they need to be developed. and developers today are concentrating their efforts in something that actually makes $$ for them. Anywa, this is just my POV. But I hope they somehow pull through...

 

[pavlov]

Sajuuk[/url]":9uecxbz2]

Viewer[/url]":9uecxbz2]AOSP is pretty open regardless of the Ars spin

I don't think anyone argues whether AOSP is open, only that google apps are not

Also, AOSP is not developed in the open like Ubuntu is.

There's no way to contribute to Android 5.0, for instance. We know that version is being developed at Google, but the code is currently closed and won't be open until Google deems it ready. There's no community involvement. AOSP is just a frozen snapshot of Google's hidden dev tree.

 

[Sajuuk]

metro2003[/url]":1zw8vnda]I really want them to succeed, I really do, but I don't see how. First is the OS. I had the opportunity of trying it out on my N4. Yes, I installed it myself..pretty easy process..props for that. But I couldn't figure out to do something as basic as finding the back button or how to actually close or switch to a running app. Also at the time I tried it, and I'm sure the OS came a long way today, it lacked refinement and crashed every few minutes to the point that I had to power it off. I even piched in the $600 when they were running the crowd funding bit on indigogo. So I'm all for trying out new platforms and I always try to see the best in something new. It's my hobby...I like it...However, with market reaching saturation, it's extremely hard to break into it with a lackluster OS. I understand their target may be mid spec phones and other world regions, but when apps are not there, there's not much to support that OS. yes, html apps work out of the box suposedly, but they need to be developed. and developers today are concentrating their efforts in something that actually makes $$ for them. Anywa, this is just my POV. But I hope they somehow pull through...

As far as I understand their UX, everything (and I mean everything) is gesture based - including switching between apps, going back, and going home. Gesture based UX is really cool to use and really cool to show off (when you're already experienced with it), but it inherently hides essential functions of the OS which is always an iffy proposition. Blackberry learned this the hard way

 

[pavlov]

daneren2005[/url]":a133xyeo]I'm really trying hard to see any benefit of this stack. In my experience QT is ugly and hard to program for [..]

You're probably thinking of traditional desktop Qt. Their mobile offering is called Qt Quick, and it's very different.

Qt Quick does away with all those desktop-like widgets. Instead, you build 3D-accelerated mobile interfaces with a high-level language and a simple declarative UI format. In many ways, it's got the good parts of HTML5 without all the accumulated warts and CSS weirdness. You can always drop down to Qt C++ for performance-intensive code, which is an excellent bonus.

It's not for all kinds of apps, but if your project falls into Qt Quick's sweet spot, it's pretty great.

 

[rimbaud]

Evernote really? Been waiting a long time for a Linux desktop client...

 

[Chikahiro]

I probably won't be using one if these any time soon as I'm quite happy with my Windows Phone. I do hope its profitable for all parties in the long run, and that they get a good sized market share globally.

I really *love* how diverse the mobile market is compared to the desktop market, at least for operating systems. I love that there's no "one size fits all," but rather a choice between some really great options. And I love how there are good devices for each platform/OS!

Seriously - I could go into any carrier's shop and walk out with a perfectly good smartphone that will do everything I need pretty darn well! Spend some time and I can find the *perfect* one for me - OS and hardware...

This is almost a dream, and in the next few years might be even better.

I LOVE IT!*

So, that said, best of luck to Canonical and its partners! Go for broke!

edit: * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_For_Broke

 

[metro2003]

Sajuuk[/url]":1xof65ci]

metro2003[/url]":1xof65ci]I really want them to succeed, I really do, but I don't see how. First is the OS. I had the opportunity of trying it out on my N4. Yes, I installed it myself..pretty easy process..props for that. But I couldn't figure out to do something as basic as finding the back button or how to actually close or switch to a running app. Also at the time I tried it, and I'm sure the OS came a long way today, it lacked refinement and crashed every few minutes to the point that I had to power it off. I even piched in the $600 when they were running the crowd funding bit on indigogo. So I'm all for trying out new platforms and I always try to see the best in something new. It's my hobby...I like it...However, with market reaching saturation, it's extremely hard to break into it with a lackluster OS. I understand their target may be mid spec phones and other world regions, but when apps are not there, there's not much to support that OS. yes, html apps work out of the box suposedly, but they need to be developed. and developers today are concentrating their efforts in something that actually makes $$ for them. Anywa, this is just my POV. But I hope they somehow pull through...

As far as I understand their UX, everything (and I mean everything) is gesture based - including switching between apps, going back, and going home. Gesture based UX is really cool to use and really cool to show off (when you're already experienced with it), but it inherently hides essential functions of the OS which is always an iffy proposition. Blackberry learned this the hard way

Correct. this was exactly my problem. it's not something that’s inheritably understood from the consumer point of view the first time they use it. I just had a hard time navigating the phone. I'm sure it would be fine if given enogh time, but why would people invest time in learning this new UI when they can just pick up and iphone or android.

 

[msclrhd]

daneren2005[/url]":376m3vhr]I'm really trying hard to see any benefit of this stack. In my experience QT is ugly and hard to program for, and HTML5 has terrible performance. I'm not sure how they plan on competing with Android without offering a software stack that is comparable (let alone to iOS). I think the only thing going for it at this point is being relatively easy to update.

The Qt applications that will run on the phone/tablet require the QML version of Qt 5 using the Ubuntu QML extensions. QML is a declarative JSON-based UI language (like XAML, Glade, GtkBuilder and others) that uses JavaScript to handle the different events. Thus, applications written in Qt will not work out-of-the-box on the Ubuntu platform.

My experience with Qt4 and KDE is that it is difficult to write code that works with both -- the base types are different and the APIs work differently and have different signatures. The same will apply to the Ubuntu QML API, but you cannot easily switch types like you can in C/C++ code.

 

[Devin]

Sajuuk[/url]":2oz085ov]As far as I understand their UX, everything (and I mean everything) is gesture based - including switching between apps, going back, and going home. Gesture based UX is really cool to use and really cool to show off (when you're already experienced with it), but it inherently hides essential functions of the OS which is always an iffy proposition. Blackberry learned this the hard way

There is nothing hidden about the "home" or "back" gestures. There just isn't a button mapped to them. This is hardly hidden. Hell, anyone I hand the phone to figures it out after I say "slide up from the bottom". Good for Ubuntu if they use that strategy.

 

[daneren2005]

pavlov[/url]":3bnhhavu]

daneren2005[/url]":3bnhhavu]I'm really trying hard to see any benefit of this stack. In my experience QT is ugly and hard to program for [..]

You're probably thinking of traditional desktop Qt. Their mobile offering is called Qt Quick, and it's very different.

Qt Quick does away with all those desktop-like widgets. Instead, you build 3D-accelerated mobile interfaces with a high-level language and a simple declarative UI format. In many ways, it's got the good parts of HTML5 without all the accumulated warts and CSS weirdness. You can always drop down to Qt C++ for performance-intensive code, which is an excellent bonus.

It's not for all kinds of apps, but if your project falls into Qt Quick's sweet spot, it's pretty great.

Fair enough. I google'd it and it at least gives me hope that it doesn't suck like the desktop framework does.

 

[Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer]

vnangia[/url]":4qnds16u]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":4qnds16u]I'm very curious to see how this goes. I'm more interested in $100-$300 devices rather than high-end phones, though.

I'm not sure the focus initially is on those devices - or at least the lower end of that range; remember the Ubuntu Edge? I can speculate that this is because running a full Linux stack is probably fairly resource-intensive.

On the other hand, if you're looking for an inexpensive alternative to the big two, you may want to look at the model advocated by Mozilla with the Firefox OS that not only already offers phones in the sub-$100 range.

Oh, I'm sure they have no interest in focusing on low-end devices right now. And the reason that having a $100 smartphone that doesn't totally suck is even possible is because a lot of people spent a lot of money on expensive smartphones. I've just reached a point personally where I feel like I have subsidized the R&D with a few high-end devices and I'm content to reap the benefits at the other end of the price spectrum.

 

[vnangia]

Sajuuk[/url]":16rtsx7h]
How is the actual performance of the dev Geeksphone? Never had a chance to try Firefox OS outside of the firefox emulator

So by way of background I have the original Geeksphone Peak, which was marketed as the high-end device when it was launched by Geeksphone; the exact specifications are listed on Wikipedia. There are several simultaneous branches of the code available; I've been using the nightly 1.3 branch, though I don't flash it more than once every fortnight or so, for reasons that will become clear in a moment.

The performance is what we would term quite "decent", at least, on the second boot. Almost everything in the UI is stutter free: drags are responsive, switching is usually painless unless an app (always the browser) has crashed hard, and overall the fit and finish of the UX is impressive. This isn't Android 1.0 - it's probably closer to Froyo or even Gingerbread in terms of cohesiveness, responsiveness and other such metrics. When you remember it's running on reasonably modest hardware, it's even more impressive. You're not going to toss the phone into the wall in frustration, as you might with say, an iPhone 4 running iOS 7.

That said, there is a show-stopping issue for me, which is that every time you flash a new ROM, you lose ALL the user data. I've not understood why this happens precisely, because I'm not issuing the wipe command to the user partition the way that the automated script does. So this is, to me, a very bizarre situation. I don't understand it, and it's quite frustrating; one explanation, which if true strikes me as a Bad Idea, is that the user data and the applications all sit on a single partition.

In addition, outside of the UX, the Geeksphone device itself is extremely poorly made. If you remember what late-90s/early-2000s LCDs looked like in terms of light bleed and screen viewing angles, you can relive it with the Peak. GP itself basically doesn't care to offer a meaningful hardware warranty - even getting the phone I paid for to me was apparently an extreme challenge. From mischarging me the amount, to not shipping the device for weeks, to announcing a week after they shipped it to me that the phone was obsolete (though, again, they've not shipped that upgraded model at all, and are now hawking new fictional products), I wouldn't wish a Geeksphone experience on ANY one.

Based therefore on my experience with Geeksphone and the recommendation of a friend who works on B2G at Mozilla, my advice is to use a Nexus 4 if you have one available. It's a bit of a tragedy because Ubuntu has also now set that as the target build device, and neither of them offers dual-booting as an option.

Feel free to ask if you want to know more about the Peak or FxOS more generally. I was too young to live through the desktop OS wars and I'm living it vicariously through iOS, Android, WebOS, WP, FxOS, Ubuntu Touch, BlackBerry and the others

 

[vnangia]

Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/url]":3l2li04z]
Oh, I'm sure they have no interest in focusing on low-end devices right now. And the reason that having a $100 smartphone that doesn't totally suck is even possible is because a lot of people spent a lot of money on expensive smartphones. I've just reached a point personally where I feel like I have subsidized the R&D with a few high-end devices and I'm content to reap the benefits at the other end of the price spectrum.

Hah! Ditto here!

I think it comes down to a question of expectations. I've noticed that I'm extremely impatient when it comes to using iOS and Android in a way that I'm more forgiving when it comes to the other OSes. I was playing with my Pre 3 the other day and thinking, "damn, this is so slow compared to either of the current devices, but I really don't mind so much since I still have it". We'll see - maybe one day I'll stop being so forgiving, but if you're willing to part with less money, then perhaps you might part with patience instead

 

[vnangia]

Sajuuk[/url]":1zs1nrrr]

Viewer[/url]":1zs1nrrr]AOSP is pretty open regardless of the Ars spin

I don't think anyone argues whether AOSP is open, only that google apps are not

Well, it's the cathedral and the bazaar all over again (and I mean this in the sense ESR did with Emacs and Linux, not how it's often now interpreted): both approaches can produce open source apps, but the latter is now seen to represent "true" open source and the former isn't.

I dare say, I did find the hypocrisy of Mr. Microsoft slamming Android as unopen extremely funny, especially when Diane showed up to smack him down.

 

[Incarnate]

If by "open" you mean open to carriers to have their own App stores instead of using the Apple App Store or Google Play, then sure...its "open". To me the Ubuntu phone is great for carriers who want to lock you into their own app store ecosystem so you can't switch carriers and keep your purchases and content, and so that they can get their cut of the app purchases that they currently don't receive from Apple or Google.

 

[PhilGil]

I wish Canonical the best. I have an Android phone; it's fine but I've become increasingly uncomfortable with how much Google knows about me and would like to wean myself away from Google services.

My needs are pretty basic. I don't run a of of apps on my phone now so I would be a good fit for an alternative OS. I would love to see an Android alternative that offers a Google-free productivity stack (contacts, calendar and tasks) that I can sync with my Linux PC's.

 

[jdale]

So, what does this really mean for privacy and support? I assume it runs its own apps. Does it run Android apps as well? If so, do you get better granular control of their privacy settings or is it take-it-or-leave-it as Android is?

 

[Sajuuk]

Devin[/url]"otrpsrg]

Sajuuk[/url]"otrpsrg]As far as I understand their UX, everything (and I mean everything) is gesture based - including switching between apps, going back, and going home. Gesture based UX is really cool to use and really cool to show off (when you're already experienced with it), but it inherently hides essential functions of the OS which is always an iffy proposition. Blackberry learned this the hard way

There is nothing hidden about the "home" or "back" gestures. There just isn't a button mapped to them. This is hardly hidden. Hell, anyone I hand the phone to figures it out after I say "slide up from the bottom". Good for Ubuntu if they use that strategy.

I have a z10 - if there's literally no onscreen indication of an OS function, it's hidden by definition. And if you have to explain how your phone works every time someone grabs it...you goofed in the UX department

 

[Devin]

I need to resize that picture.

Your statement is untrue, or every phone with gesture functionality has the same fault. No touchscreen that I know of has any indication that by swiping left or right it will expose more applications. There may be some ambiguous boxes below the icons that indicate other pages, but how would someone who doesn't have a smartphone know what that means?

 

[Aslan7]

It's always nice when we see links to the companies mentioned in the articles and I'd be interested in signing up to be notified when preorders are available. I look forward to seeing these phones.

 

[Voo42]

Devin[/url]":1dgxiicg]

Sajuuk[/url]":1dgxiicg]As far as I understand their UX, everything (and I mean everything) is gesture based - including switching between apps, going back, and going home. Gesture based UX is really cool to use and really cool to show off (when you're already experienced with it), but it inherently hides essential functions of the OS which is always an iffy proposition. Blackberry learned this the hard way

There is nothing hidden about the "home" or "back" gestures. There just isn't a button mapped to them. This is hardly hidden. Hell, anyone I hand the phone to figures it out after I say "slide up from the bottom". Good for Ubuntu if they use that strategy.

Congratulations, you answered your own question right there.

 

[Terminalmancer]

There are multiple levels of UI obfuscation.

- There's the "giant button with text explaining to tap on it to make something happen" level, which is essentially all instruction and no obfuscation. So long as the user has some sort of basic understanding (e.g. the ability to read) you guide them through use of the feature.

- There's the "regular button" level of obfuscation, where you provide some sort of visible interface that most Arsians unfamiliar with the particular UI would still understand right off the bat. A reusable pattern. You don't provide instructions on using the particular interface, though--its purpose must be inferred. Buttons are one example; mobile has introduced a few more of them, like scrolling the page, or scrolling a carousel (like the Android list of running applications). This is often where new computer/phone/etc. users get stuck, for example using a mouse.

- There's the "fully hidden pattern" level of obfuscation--both Apple and Android use a fair number of these, and it sounds like the Ubuntu phone would use even more of them. There's no visual indication or hint that the interface is there, it's just something you have to learn, rote. It's not a bad way to introduce advanced features, and the lack of a visible UI is often a boon for power users, but adoption is heavily dependent on how good the individual user is at learning arbitrary patterns. One parallel to this is the command line interface--the patterns are there and you can learn them, but there's not much, if any visual indicator and it usually takes practice to retain. Barrier to entry is higher so you don't generally want to put key behavior in this category.

If the Ubuntu mobile OS is putting a fair amount of important functionality in the third category, they're probably going to have some usability problems. That doesn't mean it will be a bad OS for power users, of course, and I don't know of many regular users who would go for an early-model Ubuntu-powered phone anyway.

 

[Devin]

Voo42[/url]":62qbri4t]

Devin[/url]":62qbri4t]

Sajuuk[/url]":62qbri4t]As far as I understand their UX, everything (and I mean everything) is gesture based - including switching between apps, going back, and going home. Gesture based UX is really cool to use and really cool to show off (when you're already experienced with it), but it inherently hides essential functions of the OS which is always an iffy proposition. Blackberry learned this the hard way

There is nothing hidden about the "home" or "back" gestures. There just isn't a button mapped to them. This is hardly hidden. Hell, anyone I hand the phone to figures it out after I say "slide up from the bottom". Good for Ubuntu if they use that strategy.

Congratulations, you answered your own question right there.

It is disingenous to say there is no obfuscation with any platform, as I mentioned above, as well as assuming that your phone can just be picked up and used by anyone. I think the only phone that qualifies to that level would be the Windows phone as their visual cues are omnipresent.

 

[jdale]

Terminalmancer[/url]":4c7crny9]There are multiple levels of UI obfuscation.

- There's the "giant button with text explaining to tap on it to make something happen" level, which is essentially all instruction and no obfuscation. So long as the user has some sort of basic understanding (e.g. the ability to read) you guide them through use of the feature.

- There's the "regular button" level of obfuscation, where you provide some sort of visible interface that most Arsians unfamiliar with the particular UI would still understand right off the bat. A reusable pattern. You don't provide instructions on using the particular interface, though--its purpose must be inferred. Buttons are one example; mobile has introduced a few more of them, like scrolling the page, or scrolling a carousel (like the Android list of running applications). This is often where new computer/phone/etc. users get stuck, for example using a mouse.

- There's the "fully hidden pattern" level of obfuscation--both Apple and Android use a fair number of these, and it sounds like the Ubuntu phone would use even more of them. There's no visual indication or hint that the interface is there, it's just something you have to learn, rote. It's not a bad way to introduce advanced features, and the lack of a visible UI is often a boon for power users, but adoption is heavily dependent on how good the individual user is at learning arbitrary patterns. One parallel to this is the command line interface--the patterns are there and you can learn them, but there's not much, if any visual indicator and it usually takes practice to retain. Barrier to entry is higher so you don't generally want to put key behavior in this category.

If the Ubuntu mobile OS is putting a fair amount of important functionality in the third category, they're probably going to have some usability problems. That doesn't mean it will be a bad OS for power users, of course, and I don't know of many regular users who would go for an early-model Ubuntu-powered phone anyway.

I would argue that the third category is fine for functionality you use frequently. These things should be covered in start-up tutorials to introduce new users. You use them often, so they don't get forgotten. Less-used functionality needs to be discoverable because it may be beyond the range of what can be covered by a tutorial or the range of what a new user can actually learn and remember all at once.

Swipe up to minimize the app is something you'll use frequently, so it should be fine. Also, it's exactly the same as WebOS was, and it was easy there.

Android has plenty of these things too. It's not at all obvious, for example, that the ... button is where all the menus are hiding. Once you learn that detail, it's fine.

There are arguments about whether someone totally unfamiliar with your phone can immediately start using it when they take it from you, but frankly I don't think that's necessarily an advantage. Phones are personal.

 

[Terminalmancer]

jdale[/url]":1a4kdetq]

Terminalmancer[/url]":1a4kdetq]There are multiple levels of UI obfuscation.

(stuff)

I would argue that the third category is fine for functionality you use frequently. These things should be covered in start-up tutorials to introduce new users. You use them often, so they don't get forgotten. Less-used functionality needs to be discoverable because it may be beyond the range of what can be covered by a tutorial or the range of what a new user can actually learn and remember all at once.

Swipe up to minimize the app is something you'll use frequently, so it should be fine. Also, it's exactly the same as WebOS was, and it was easy there.

Android has plenty of these things too. It's not at all obvious, for example, that the ... button is where all the menus are hiding. Once you learn that detail, it's fine.

There are arguments about whether someone totally unfamiliar with your phone can immediately start using it when they take it from you, but frankly I don't think that's necessarily an advantage. Phones are personal.

I don't disagree in principal with anything you're saying. There are certainly cases where things don't work that way, though, for any number of reasons--humans are complex, confusing, and often kind of confused creatures.

Look at Windows 8, for example. Using the corners drives a lot of habitual Windows <8 users wild--even though you would expect that, as frequently-used functionality, you'd get used to it over time. Some people do, and some people have not. Why is this different from WebOS or Ubuntu Mobile? Is it because of the built-in Windows habits that suddenly got changed? Is it because there's no visible indicator? Is it because Windows is exposed to a far wider audience than WebOS and Ubuntu Mobile ever did, and so you have a much larger number of users who are only marginally computer-literate?

I haven't run any usability studies on any of those three platforms so I don't really have a conclusion. I do have anecdotal evidence--when we added notes to each of the active corners of a Windows 8 machine, my wife, myself, and my wife's relative all found Win8 much easier to use.

For what it's worth, the menu button (...) commonly used on Android would be an example of the second case, not the third. There is a visible indicator, hinting that some functionality is provided. Interactions in the third category have no visible indicator--there is no discoverability there, meaning access to the interaction is entirely reliant on functional memory. (This usually isn't absolutely true, because you could discover the functionality by accidentally triggering it. But these categories aren't absolute categories anyway.)

 

[Sajuuk]

Devin[/url]":2cgxes6k]

Voo42[/url]":2cgxes6k]

Devin[/url]":2cgxes6k]

Sajuuk[/url]":2cgxes6k]As far as I understand their UX, everything (and I mean everything) is gesture based - including switching between apps, going back, and going home. Gesture based UX is really cool to use and really cool to show off (when you're already experienced with it), but it inherently hides essential functions of the OS which is always an iffy proposition. Blackberry learned this the hard way

There is nothing hidden about the "home" or "back" gestures. There just isn't a button mapped to them. This is hardly hidden. Hell, anyone I hand the phone to figures it out after I say "slide up from the bottom". Good for Ubuntu if they use that strategy.

Congratulations, you answered your own question right there.

It is disingenous to say there is no obfuscation with any platform, as I mentioned above, as well as assuming that your phone can just be picked up and used by anyone. I think the only phone that qualifies to that level would be the Windows phone as their visual cues are omnipresent.

I never said other OS UX designs lacked any and all obfuscation or hidden functionality, only that Ubuntu / Jolla / bb10 take this to an obvious extreme

 

[Viewer]

pavlov[/url]":2gouh8ik]
Also, AOSP is not developed in the open like Ubuntu is.

Oh Really?

"Key parts of Ubuntu 13.04 will be developed in secret, to escape the critics’ ire"

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/13 ... ritics-ire

pavlov[/url]":2gouh8ik]
There's no way to contribute to Android 5.0, for instance.

Wrong! That is just a lie! You can submit code to Android for future releases in a similar manner as any other open source project.

http://source.android.com/source/submit-patches.html