[maemo-developers] Maemo for commercial development (was Re: N810 RIP)

[From: Sebastian 'CrashandDie' Lauwers]

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 7:06 AM, Quim Gil <quim.gil at nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Quim,

Thanks for taking the time to answer what nearly was flamebait.

>> Nokia opened their
>> platform to encourage developers to contribute their expertise, but their
>> capriciousness and opacity about their hardware roadmap are tolerable only
>> to hobbyists or companies porting software from another platform as a
>> sideline.
>
> As much as I love free software and open roadmaps, I must reckon that in
> the current times transparent hardware roadmaps are not helping
> companies to sell devices sooner, cheaper or better.
>
> For companies like Nokia, the ultimate reason behind hardware roadmap
> opacity is to sell more and better, which is equivalent to increase more
> your potential user base. Get more (and happier) users by bringing
> better products than the competition and get more (and happier) users by
> managing consumer expectations and media hype.

There is another point I would like to stress here. Ever since I have
been involved, every so often, I see a rant and it just baffles me.
These rants can be about an array of different subjects, but every
time, it boils down to the same thing: Some people believe Nokia owes
them something. I'm not saying Nokia need not work to keep their
customers happy, far from it -- they wouldn't still be in business had
they not, but I don't understand how people can even think that Nokia
should bow before their every whim and wish.

In this particular case, the troll believes that Nokia owes him the
assurance that he and his company will be able to develop and sell
applications. I'm sorry, but where do your business ideas come from?
Yes, you are a Nokia customer, and as such, you have the right to
technical support, or software updates, but you are *not* entitled to
some unheard of commercial agreement. The NIT is a platform, open as
it can be, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your agreement with
Nokia is that you will develop software, make profit from it, and
Nokia will support you.

Let me stress this a bit more. If you were a software developer, and
you bought the hardware device from Nokia, put your software on it,
and then sold the device, yes, you would have a contract that entitled
you to get heads up to the EOL of a product. You would most probably
also have access to product lifecycles and product updates, so that
your company could brace for the next version. But this is not what
happens. You buy the product as an end-user. You may not use it as
such, as you are a developer, but regardless of that, you still are
just that. An end-user.

Apple would not justify itself if it discontinued the Mac Mini.
Verisign did not send apologies when they stopped issuing md5-based
certificates. Miltek did not flame at VW when they discontinued the
Golf 3 in favour of the Golf 4. So why would anyone have the right to
attack Nokia when they are sticking to their internal product
lifecycle?

>> If you see only
>> melodrama in these concerns, then perhaps you have never tried to run a
>> business in the face of such uncertainty.

Again, if you don't see how little sense you are making -- from a
business standpoint, I do understand your fears as Joe Blogs -- I
doubt you should be trying to run a business. You are not a Nokia
partner, they are not your hardware providers. You are using their
platform to your own interest. Why would Nokia care?

Praise the day people realise we are talking to a big product company.
Not a hardware manufacturer, not a big brother whose job is to get
your business -- or life for that matter -- going. They will do what
is profitable for them, and if they're not, they're idiots --
business-wise.

Yes I know, I'm a troll as well. Sorry.

-- 
question = ( to ) ? be : ! be;
      -- Wm. Shakespeare