First of all, I must say that I love Ubuntu on my desktop, being my main and only desktop OS, however I think Shuttleworth is deluding himself ...

So, I'm having problems seeing Ubuntu compete with Android. He claims that Android is too fragmented, but regular users aren't complaining about fragmentation, mobile makers and careers aren't complaining about it either. How can they, when they are responsible for it? If anything, the only reason they'd like an alternative is precisely because Google is imposing their will on them. The only people complaining and caring about fragmentation are the developers. And for good reason, fragmentation is a serious problem, however this hasn't stopped Android from dominating the landscape. And Google, with all of their muscles, still hasn't solved it and it isn't for a lack of trying - I'm really curious about how Canonical plans to solve it, because I'm not seeing it as being something solvable, at least not by Canonical.

If fragmentation + being an alternative are Ubuntu's sole raison d'être on mobile, then it has no way to win anything. And also ...

> [Shuttleworth] says that Firefox OS has the weakness that "everything it does is in the browser, and that isn't necessarily going to be recognised by websites as a mobile browser - so you get the desktop site on your mobile screen. Ubuntu uses a WebKit-based browser [like Apple's MobileSafari and Google Chrome] so you get the mobile one."

I've been using Firefox on my Android(s) for about 1 year. I think it is the best mobile browser right now and I never noticed the above problem.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen sometimes (maybe it does), however the mobile web landscape is in a funny state right now. Companies and individuals that care about the mobile web (e.g. Twitter, Google) do realize that WebKit is not the only game in town. Companies that don't are those that provide a miserable web experience, so I end up requesting the desktop version anyway.

Plus, Google forked WebKit and Internet Explorer 11 is presenting itself as WebKit although it isn't. I've also spotted plenty of differences between desktop Safari, iOS Safari, Chrome and Android's stock browser, while working with HTML5. Also Google advises tablet makers to differentiate tablets from phones by identifying the browser as "Safari" versus "Mobile Safari". Add to that the dozens and dozens of different Androids on the markets, some of which respect these guidelines, some of which don't, with their slow upgrade cycle and by relying on "WebKit" (whatever that means) you've got yourself a recipe for mediocrity.

On Firefox OS, I think it is in a much better position to cater to those 25% of users that Shuttleworth is targeting, as Firefox OS does bring something new to the table - (a) it is created to run on low end phones from the get-go, (b) it is a platform based on open web standards designed to be extremely developer friendly and for breeding new web standards and (c) the web browser is the ultimate sandbox.

If Firefox OS wins 3% of the market, everybody wins. If Ubuntu wins 3% of the market, nobody will notice anything.

The whole campaign was more of a dream, rather than something even remotely realistic. One month with average million a day? Now get it to 3 months and better advertising and it might be possible. I believe it was a decent PR act, but they never really counted on succeeding in it.

If anyone has watch the presentation video for the 'edge' device: I am still wondering how some people got sold on the whole: "look at the shiny, shiny" with a price tag of 700 USD, when you can have a some really nice piece of kit today for a third of the price from the like of xiaomi.

Sure the desktop experience embedded in a cell phone would be nice, but seeing how the desktop computer is being pushed to irrelevancy for light usage in comparison with tablets, it is hard to see how the ubuntu phone would revolutionize the cell phone world, more than say, a new battery technology.

And the showed a lot people want an Ubuntu Phone, that's good news, too.

Hey, I'm one of that 25%! I have a Galaxy Nexus which reads but cannot send email, reads and writes SMS, and which gives me a tiny little sliver of a peephole into the web. I run no apps because I am not willing to put any Google account credentials into the device, and for reasons I cannot comprehend, even free apps require you to go through Google Play.

All of which is to say, I'd love to run a smartphone with no ties to one of the big tech companies and their proprietary sandboxes. I'd install apps if I didn't have to deal with some proprietary app store which requires a login just to download free stuff. A smartphone might be a cool thing to have - but not if it's tied to Apple, Google, or Microsoft.

What we had here was a lack of commitment. A lack of commitment on the part of Shuttleworth which precipitated a lack of commitment from consumers.

No one wanted to pay that much to wait that long for what was still an un-materialized promise.