Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 55

Thread: Ubuntu Edge Pulls In $7M USD In One Week

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,367

    Default Ubuntu Edge Pulls In $7M USD In One Week

    Phoronix: Ubuntu Edge Pulls In $7M USD In One Week

    It was one week ago that Canonical launched the Ubuntu Edge crowd-funding effort in hopes of raising 32 million dollars in the period of one month to develop a high-end Ubuntu-powered smart-phone...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQyMzI

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Funding a phone like that seems rather hard. I mean you need to solely rely on diehard fanboys and people wanting to upgrade their phone next year and those groups are not that big. Not to mention that the core open source community doesn't really love Ubuntu lately and that the phone will most likely be dry on apps at launch. If it would have been a cheaper phone people would have been more inclined to hop on but a high end phone just seems like asking a bit too much in this form.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Old Europe
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Since then, their pace of raising money has slowed substantially but is still pacing enough
    where they may be able to hit their $32,000,000 USD threshold in the next month.
    How do you come to that conclusion?
    With the current pace they won't make it even close to the $32m goal.
    Substracting the ~$3-4m from the first 24 hours,
    that's slightly more than $500k/day.

    So unless they change/add something... no way.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    221

    Default maybe

    a lot of people is waiting for the last days to see better prices to the phone. if all people who uses ubuntu brings the 20 bucks they can the 32m

  5. #5

    Default

    They need to sell a 32 GB version at $600. That's the price point everyone loved. They overspecced it with 128 GB of storage, I think, and if they really could just make one model, they should've gone with the $600 32 GB model, instead of the $830 128 GB model. People rarely pay that much for an unlocked phone even in Europe, let alone in US, where most think $200 is the real price of a high-end phone.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    They need to sell a 32 GB version at $600. That's the price point everyone loved. They overspecced it with 128 GB of storage, I think, and if they really could just make one model, they should've gone with the $600 32 GB model, instead of the $830 128 GB model. People rarely pay that much for an unlocked phone even in Europe, let alone in US, where most think $200 is the real price of a high-end phone.
    actually I think the 128gb is the one thing it has going for me, I just use a 64gb micro sd now but decent size internal storage is a big plus.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    715

    Default

    Look's like it's going to End up being a ARM CPU

    "RobinJ1995
    There were some concerns raised about the specs saying the Edge would have (at least) 4GB of RAM, although currently 2GB is the maximum amount of RAM a device is able to use with an ARM processor.
    What are your thoughts about this? Has this been carefully planned ahead, or is it more a find-and-solve-problems-along-the-way kind of project?

    Mark Shuttleworth
    I've been told by the CTO of a very big mobile silicon manufacturer they could do it."

    and what Linus thanks about PAE if it End's up being ARM

    From: Linus Torvalds <Email Removed>
    Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
    Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native
    Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:11:28 UTC
    Message-ID: <Removed>

    On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
    >
    > I took my standard config, and turned on AUDIT, CGROUP, all the sched options,
    > all the namespace options, profiling, markers, kprobes, relocatable kernel,
    > 1000Hz, preempt, support for every x86 variant (ie. PAE, NUMA, HIGHMEM64,
    > DISCONTIGMEM). I turned off kernel debugging and paravirt. Booted with
    > maxcpus=1.

    Turn off HIGHMEM64G, please (and HIGHMEM4G too, for that matter - you
    can't compare it to a no-highmem case).

    It's one of those options that we do to support crazy hardware, and it is
    EXTREMELY expensive (but mainly only if you actually have the hardware, ie
    you actually have more than 1GB of RAM for HIGHMEM4G - HIGHMEM64G is
    always expensive for forks, but nobody sane ever enables it).

    IOW, it's not at all comparable to the other options. It's not a software
    option, it's a real hardware option that hits you not depending on whether
    you want some sw capability, but on whether you want to use memory.

    Because depending on the CPU, some loads will have 25% of time spent in
    just kmap/kunmap due to TLB flushes. Yes, really. There's a reason 32-bit
    kernels are shit for 1GB+ memory.

    After you've turned off HIGHMEM (or run on a sane architecture like x86-64
    that doesn't need it), re-run the benchmark, because it's interesting. But
    with HIGHMEM being different, your benchmark is totally invalid and
    pointless.

    Linus
    Last edited by LinuxGamer; 07-29-2013 at 03:29 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,006

    Default $80,000

    Of course no company have payed $80,000.
    Really, what kind of idiot at a company would buy in 100 devices at a price of $80,000 without evaluating the device before if it suits their needs?

    Any such idiot would quickly be fired.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxGamer View Post
    Look's like it's going to End up being a ARM CPU

    "RobinJ1995
    There were some concerns raised about the specs saying the Edge would have (at least) 4GB of RAM, although currently 2GB is the maximum amount of RAM a device is able to use with an ARM processor.
    What are your thoughts about this? Has this been carefully planned ahead, or is it more a find-and-solve-problems-along-the-way kind of project?

    Mark Shuttleworth
    I've been told by the CTO of a very big mobile silicon manufacturer they could do it."

    and what Linus thanks about PAE if it End's up being ARM

    From: Linus Torvalds <Email Removed>
    Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel
    Subject: Re: [benchmark] 1% performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native
    Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:11:28 UTC
    Message-ID: <Removed>

    On Wed, 3 Jun 2009, Rusty Russell wrote:
    >
    > I took my standard config, and turned on AUDIT, CGROUP, all the sched options,
    > all the namespace options, profiling, markers, kprobes, relocatable kernel,
    > 1000Hz, preempt, support for every x86 variant (ie. PAE, NUMA, HIGHMEM64,
    > DISCONTIGMEM). I turned off kernel debugging and paravirt. Booted with
    > maxcpus=1.

    Turn off HIGHMEM64G, please (and HIGHMEM4G too, for that matter - you
    can't compare it to a no-highmem case).

    It's one of those options that we do to support crazy hardware, and it is
    EXTREMELY expensive (but mainly only if you actually have the hardware, ie
    you actually have more than 1GB of RAM for HIGHMEM4G - HIGHMEM64G is
    always expensive for forks, but nobody sane ever enables it).

    IOW, it's not at all comparable to the other options. It's not a software
    option, it's a real hardware option that hits you not depending on whether
    you want some sw capability, but on whether you want to use memory.

    Because depending on the CPU, some loads will have 25% of time spent in
    just kmap/kunmap due to TLB flushes. Yes, really. There's a reason 32-bit
    kernels are shit for 1GB+ memory.

    After you've turned off HIGHMEM (or run on a sane architecture like x86-64
    that doesn't need it), re-run the benchmark, because it's interesting. But
    with HIGHMEM being different, your benchmark is totally invalid and
    pointless.

    Linus
    Or it could be an ARM64, we don't know.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by entropy View Post
    How do you come to that conclusion?
    With the current pace they won't make it even close to the $32m goal.
    Substracting the ~$3-4m from the first 24 hours,
    that's slightly more than $500k/day.

    So unless they change/add something... no way.
    Even if they keep the total pace so far, $7,115,955/7*30=$30,496,950, so over $1.5 million short.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •