1. 24

  2. 18

    I backed it. I expect something hideously out of date, very poorly supported and nowhere near as useful as Firefox OS, let alone Android.

    Having said that, I backed it because I hope it does well, and I think we need open hardware out there if we’re going to break the iOS/Android/closed hardware monopoly.

    1. [Comment removed by author]

      1. 1

        If you want to support an open hardware phone, back the Neo900 or GTA04. This is where actual innovation is happening.

        As much as I love my N900, there doesn’t seem to be much exciting there. The SoC they’re building on is outdated, and the software for mobile isn’t very viable right now. (I’m keeping an eye on Plasma mobile though.)

        The key thing that people forget with the N900 and the NITs when it comes to open hardware, is that they were good phones/tablets first and foremost, with robust and well designed hardware and software. The fact they ran a fairly open GNU/Linux is a secondary concern. What these open phone projects fail to realize is that you need good software and hardware. (Or they do realize it, but can’t deliver.)

      2. 3

        I doubt the hardware will be “open” in the sense that all HW design files / firmware source code and such would be public.

        One big ostacle would be finding or making an open hardware device which does this:

        Works with 2G/3G/4G, GSM, UMTS, and LTE networks

        1. 15

          Of course the baseband won’t be open, but:

          CPU separate from Baseband

          Hardware Kill Switches for Camera, Microphone, WiFi/Bluetooth, and Baseband

          The worst part of current phones is how the baseband is integrated into the SoC, with direct memory access. Getting rid of that is the most important part.

      3. 3

        I wonder if this is feasible. Especially when not building on top of android, maemo, meego, jolla, openmoko or something else.

        1. 6

          I think it is only feasible (long term) if you do not build on top of any those, but instead focus on mainstream Linux/BSD distribution support with the default distribution kernel. Anything else on this small scale is wasted effort and requires way too many resources to keep working. See e.g. Fairphone.

        2. 2

          I’m just waiting for a project like this where we can actually track the development progress, i.e., there’s an open GitHub repo (or org) with all the code (diffs, commits, etc.) in it. Let us know what kind of company we’re investing in, how committed they are. Right now all we have is a file directory, no version control or higher-level view of how the project is doing, other than when it was last updated.

          1. [Comment removed by author]

            1. 1

              Alright, the first one has a development roadmap (a la Kickstarter), but what about the second one? All I see is a grid of links.