Ubuntu Edge: failed, but open always wins.

Remember when I called out ZDNet’s open source nerd for saying the Ubuntu Edge would reach it’s crowd funding goal?

Yeah well…I was right.

They wanted 32 million…missed by 19 million.


Ubuntu Edge: Bat shit crazy.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols for ZDNet:

Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu and its parent company, Canonical, is making a bet with the technology market. He’s betting that enough of you will be willing to invest in a smartphone that can double as a PC, the Ubuntu Edge, to raise the $32 million needed to manufacture it. You know what? I think he’s going to win that bet.

The premise is that they will build a phone that you can connect a monitor, a mouse, and a keyboard to, and it will boot from Android into Ubuntu Linux.

Besides the fact that desktop Linux is dead, let me ask you one simple question: How many monitors with mice and keyboards do you encounter when you go about your daily business?

Actually, let me ask one more: With all the peripherals that you find…just laying around…how many times have you wished you could just plug in your phone and get to work?

I thought so.

Chromebooks? @sjvn give me a break!

So, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is running with a story about Chromebooks being “a bright spot in the dark PC market”. Right on…

I have tried not to tear down articles too much lately, but this one just needs a spanking. Here we go – I promise I’ll make it short.

SJVN is quoting NPD in that Chromebooks (Linux, yeah!) have grabbed about 20 to 25% of the below $300 notebook market. Note, not the whole notebook market.
Anyhow, this is supposed to be a bright spot, so let’s calculate:

15.000.000. That’s roundabout the number of PC’s sold in the US, according to NPD.
It’s pretty save to assume that about 2/3 of those were notebooks, so about 10 million.
Now comes the tricky part: How many of those were below $300?
Just for the sake of it let’s say 50% – I know…that’s a way too high estimate, but let’s use it nevertheless.
5 million notebooks sold that cost less than $300. Of those, 20 to 25% were supposedly Chromebooks. Again I’ll use the high number of 25% – which comes to about 1,25 million Chromebooks…in a year…at $300 a pop.

I’m sorry but even if those numbers pan out, which they won’t (hint: it’ll be more like 500.000 or less), how is that “a bright spot in the dark PC market”? Really Steven, please do explain.

Hey @sjvn ! That’s why Apple is suing.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols for ZDNet:

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, has granted Apple’s request to halt the sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab, which runs Google’s Android operating system. The Galaxy Tab’s crime? It looks like a tablet.

No. I’m not making that up.


Apple’s legal case rests on a single design patent, USD504889. In it, Apple claims “the ornamental design for an electronic device, substantially as shown and described.” You can see Apple’s patented design for yourself in this story. Looks pretty much like a tablet doesn’t it? Do you see anything about it what-so-ever that looks unique?

In fact, it looks pretty much like every tablet that’s ever been created in history. That’s because, “It’s A Tablet!!” There is nothing innovative or original about its design. It’s A Tablet!!

Really? Let me show you why Apple is suing:

That’s why. Idiot.

ZDNet’s Ken Hess: Apple doesn’t compete with Android.


Choice cut:

Apple operates in a vacuum. They always have. Apple’s designers aren’t thinking about whether an Android phone has this or that extra battery-consuming port or another useless feature, they’re focused on building a product that people want. And, one that people want to pay a lot of money for. I doubt anyone at Apple says to a coworker, “Hey, dude, did you see my (insert Android-based phone name here), it has this. We should totally put one of those on the next iPhone.”

Nope, not a conversation that you’ll ever hear.

Nothing to add, besides my thought that I don’t believe for one second that Foxconn’s CEO actually talked about an unreleased Apple iPhone vs. the Samsung Galaxy S III. He has been misquoted before, and he’s smart enough to know that this is a huge No-no.

Google didn’t infringe on Oracle’s Java patents…really?

It’s the talk of the town right now: A jury has decided that Google didn’t infringe on Oracle’s Java patents.

Big win for open source, right?

Nope. Why? I’m glad you asked!

Here’s the thing: Can a layman jury really, I mean really, decide on this?
This is a highly technical matter, one which most engineers will have a tough time sifting through, and we expect a bunch of people, randomly picked off the street, to decide such an issue? Really?

I think Google lucked out BIG TIME here.

I like ZDNet’s Steven Shaw’s take on this issue very much. Please read it. It makes sense, unlike the decision handed down by this jury.

Google may have prevailed, but fundamentally it seems reasonable for the owner of Java to expect to profit when others profit from Java.

ZDNet’s Jason Perlow nails it in his follow-up.