You overestimate how many people care about whether something is open or closed source.

I had a Windows Phone. It was bad. Even Microsoft apps were subpar. Skype app was simply unusable. They weren't dogfooding.

Also Google torpedoed it.

The third party app platform was pretty slow and missing a lot of APIs relative to the others. The first party UI, which got praise from reviewers for being smooth, was written in a different language and framework.

In the first version, the default blank app from Visual Studio's "new project" wizard was slow to load. I think I measured it on the order of 500ms at the time. Not much room for third parties to add more stuff without being slow.

The only question I'd ask is : how many phones should they sell to break even ? Cos if they actually make some profit, that's just fine. Maybe they don't aim to go to mass market. And that's why MSFT may have failed : they tried to fight on Google's ground, head to head. Of course Pine can't do that. So if they just repeat what's been done for Raspberry, that's just great enough to have a living ecosystem.

I personaly just need SMS, voice and a browser. The rest, I can live without it (or program it :-)

You greatly overestimate the number of users who care about how closed or how open an ecosystem is.

If the user can't interact with their bank, whatchu YouTube, talk to their friends and parents over Snapchat or Skype, call Uber, play Spotify, etc etc etc, it doesn't matter in the least if your phone is 100% open source.

Microsoft had sunk billions into trying to get the ecosystem off the ground. What makes you think that "a truly open system" will get that ecosystem?

> If the user can't interact with their bank, whatchu YouTube, talk to their friends and parents over Snapchat or Skype, call Uber, play Spotify, etc etc etc, it doesn't matter in the least if your phone is 100% open source.

Most of this should be available on the PinePhone at launch (albeit not as nicely as on Android).

Bank - should have a website (and if they don't have a website they most likely don't have an app anyway)

YouTube - website again (youtube.com)

Skype - has a web app and a Electron app available for Linux (web.skype.com)

Uber - has a PWA that can be used for booking rides (m.uber.com)

Spotify - has a web app and a Electron app available for Linux (open.spotify.com)

My bank app has significantly better usability than the website because it can mostly cache credentials and support a short login procedure. Or use the fingerprint scanner.

Your web browser can fully cache credentials.

.. but the bank sets them to expire after five minutes of inactivity, because it (correctly) doesn't consider it to be all that secure.

Why is it secure when an app does it?

> Bank - should have a website (and if they don't have a website they most likely don't have an app anyway)

In my experience mobile banking is more often than not provided via app exclusively.

Not really, among "normal" banks. This does seem to be the case with the new "challenger" banks like Monzo and Starling, which are all "mobile first" and are basically impossible to use if you don't have an Android/iPhone. But every regular bank in the UK has a website with online banking, often with more functionality than the apps, but maybe this is different in other countries - online banking in the UK has been commonplace since before mobile apps were really a thing.

Funnily enough, my last bank and two current ones, the app is increasingly a front for a mobile web version. With each new update I see more functionality moving to web.

What are some American banks that don't have a website but have an app? I'm curious.

BofA, the bank that most Americans use, doesn't support mobile check deposit outside of the native app.

I have an account with Bank of America and was not aware of this so thanks. That said, you can do pretty much everything else via the website. The opposite is also probably true, that there are some features on the website not available on the app (for example can you open a new CD in the app?).

> Spotify - has a web app

Doesn't that require Widevine DRM?

No whatsapp = dead in the water in Europe.

And Viber, which is quite famous on Balcan countries.

The target audience isn't people who need to use Skype, Snapchat, or Uber. But I'm sure it will be possible to run some of those android apps through anbox. Spotify has a Linux client, and for YouTube there's the FreeTube client, which actually protects users' integrity.

What's your point? They are very aware that they are targeting a niche market.

it doesn't have to.

All it really needs to do is make calls and have good browser (Firefox would do). Signal would be a nice bonus.

This might not be enough for all (i am sure it wont), but for me and several other people I know, it would be enough, to be our main phone.

That's how Openmoko sold a grand total of 13000 phones. Not enough to even cover the cost of production, most likely.

The market you're describing is minuscule.

People on HN seem to hate them, but honestly progressive web apps have potential to solve most/all of those usecases.

I love them, thanks to it I have refocused on mobile Web, even though I tend to prefer native apps.

For traditional CRUD apps, PWAs are quite alright, and one avoids having to deal with Android's always changing "best practices", with a stagnant Android Java.

(Hopefully) Ease and flexibility of development for 3rd party applications?

Do people really complain about ease and flexibility of development for iOS and Android?

In regards to Android, it is more lack of thereof.