Comment by cartoonworld
6 years ago
If the price were 20% less it would demand some more eyeballs.
When I saw the price I assumed they were trying to position a premium product. I think this is a little bit of a mistake given that in the market of handsets, Apple owns the "premium" devices, and maybe samsung counts as #2? Nobody is crossing that Rubicon.
$700 isn't really bad but I don't like the look of it. Maybe if they can make this thing for 6 or 7 years. People who are worried about this have been aware of Essential phones which aren't the same, but end users aren't shopping these Freedom characteristics.
I predict another few years of nobody batting an eye to these devices. Great shame.
>When I saw the price I assumed they were trying to position a premium product.
They are. They are building a product that let's you do anything you want on the device.
Honestly, the phone should be priced at a premium level because it will appeal to a demographic that will pay more for a phone that lets them break free from the closed ecosystems of Android/Apple. It also gives them extra cash to re-invest in the company and doesn't require them scaling their manufacturing just yet.
What can you do with the Librem that you can't with a Moto G?
Run a modern mainline kernel (and future mainline kernels) without losing compatibility with the drivers for most of the hardware.
23 replies →
Get regular security updates.
> They are. They are building a product that let's you do anything you want on the device.
Completely orthogonal to “premium”
I mean it is essentially a premium feature in the current market of cheap locked down shit.
2 replies →
They should have added significant storage and a top notch camera and actually made it a $1000 premium product.
> a top notch camera
The advances in camera tech these days are primarily software, which is not open source. We're talking dozens of person-years minimum to replicate what Apple, Google, Samsung, etc do in software.