I’m on the same line here. It’s at least disappointing.
Let me ask you to do something complex that you have never done before, but before you do it, tell me how long you are going to take to do it. And while you are doing what you are doing, spend a whole bunch of time, that you could use to get things done with, estimating so I know when you will be done. If you think this through, it becomes obvious why some expectations will never be meet.
As a service professional this is something I do on a fairly regular basis. The primary path to success is to under promise and over deliver. Sure this means estimating a longer timeline than what some people would think is reasonable and will even look like you don’t know what you’re doing during some/many of the updates along the way, but you’ve never done it before so you don’t know what you’re doing, you’re figuring it out. It also means intentionally padding your timeline instead of providing an “accurate” estimate which will have its own set of criticisms but those are much easier to defend against by simply pointing to that first point of admitting you don’t know what you’re doing the first time you do it.
This particular defense of poor communication and inaccurate timelines is one I just can’t get behind for those reasons.
As a reference, my general method for estimating something I’ve never done before is to search how long it takes someone who does do this regularly and find an average time. I then take that average and double it. I then add 50% to that doubled time. At the halfway point to completion I’ll assess where I’m at. If I’m on schedule to complete before my estimate I leave my estimate alone. If I’m behind schedule I’ll make a note of what the new estimate would be. I’ll re-assess at 60% and 70% at 75% complete, assuming I haven’t overrun my original timeline I’ll average out the new estimated completion times then double it, if that is under the original estimate that estimate holds, if I would be over I’ll add another 50% then provide that as an updated estimate.
The net result of my method is 90% of the time I come in under my original estimate and 10% I come in under my revised estimate. I have yet to have to revise a second time. Sure some people get frustrated that my estimated timelines are so long, and they assume I’ll come in under that timeframe, but they are rarely ever disappointed that I went over my timeline.
For a project as large as this, and knowing what I know of the chip manufacturing business I would have estimated 2.5 years to get a phone to market using an existing Operating system. I do not have enough knowledge of the Operating System market to estimate that timeline.
With this knowledge and my understanding that Purism started this process in September 2017 it actually looks like my methodology would have worked out pretty closely for them (I didn’t think that would be the case when I started writing this post). That is not to say my method doesn’t have flaws, just to point out why your argument may fall on deaf ears for myself and others who often do have to do things we’ve never done before and communicate along the way.
My preferred version of this approach when it comes developing software is known among Trekkies as the “Scotty Factor”
Can I ask you if that makes sense? Why does somebody need the firmware without the capability? If you have it built in, you don’t need to use it! If you have it there unused, it just won’t do anything. Then why have 2 flavors of firmware? Are they saying that having firmware with the voice capability is in conflict with something else and needs to be avoided in some instance? I have a hard time accepting that!
Ultimately any device is dependent on software as well. If I have a webcam it is dependent on software. But do they state that laptop webcams or smartphone cameras are software optional??
It just makes no sense to me!
I’m not 100% sure but my take would be for an IOT device that didn’t need voice capability. Its like the ability is there, you just need to activate it.
In your webcam example, a camera can work fine but with software it can support HDR or some other feature? Just a guess.
They built this modem capable of xyz, but can’t guarantee that just snapping it on a device will activate all of xyz and work properly. Even though, it has drivers for most mainstream platforms, they have no control over one’s carrier and device in use.
By your own admission, timelines are made from inaccuracy.
You cost your employer money for that experience. I do not think that we funded the phone crowdfunding campaign with enough money to pay for your kind of experience. This is about realistic expectations. Purism has produced a lot of software and hardware based on what we have seen. They must have had minimal overhead, which is what estimating is…overhead. We generally expect the producer to have more responsibility than the consumer, but as a serial crowdfunder for technology products, I have more experience than Purism about timelines. I know the difference between a guess and reality. Purism is doing an excellent job with the resources that they have at their disposal. If they were to do this again, the only thing that they should change is to keep timelines private. Everyone hates hearing “it will be done when it is done,” but that is the only honest and responsible answer. It takes experience, or luck, to figure this out because the demand for dates is so strong. Your own method of estimation that is no more defensible than Purism’s. It is still a guess, something that you do not know for sure. Everyone these days works with suppliers who sometimes do not deliver what they say they will. It has better odds, but you are still gambling. I am not going to defend gambling as something that could produce accuracy. I do not want to see the word accuracy and the word timeline in the same sentence (in the context of a creative endeavor), except to describe the folly of putting them together.
Check out Factorio’s frequent Friday facts. They don’t give estimates about how long features will take to implement, and especially no estimate of final deliverable dates. Instead, they give a recap. of the last week’s progress. This can be quite short, and somewhat vague, as there is often technical information of limited use or interest that would take too long to explain. Sometimes it speculates on what the next week of work will be, but most of the time it’s pretty confined to “this last week we…”. Does it take some time away from progress? A tiny bit; a large project really needs tight time management, so someone should be doing a weekly retrospective internally anyway, the time to publish that should be minimal. Does it improve the public image of the progress being made? Absolutely.
I understand your opinion, and would first like to clarify “inacurate timelines as an excuse for not meeting expectations” is what I take issue with. I don’t disagree that the first time you do something your timeline will be inaccurate, there are better ways to set expectations and to track progress and reset expectations appropriately.
I respectfully disagree that not sharing a timeline at all is better. Sure not setting any expectation at all is an alternative, but I’m not convinced that is better than setting an expectation that is padded in a way to increase the probability that you can exceed that expectation, and more importantly the tracking of progress and resetting those expectations with more padding if needed.
Not setting any expectation is also less transparent and transparency is something Purism does tend to pay itself on the back for right before going silent. Are they doing better than the other manufacturers, yes; should they be applauded for doing better than the other manufacturers, yes; is there room for improvement, yes; should people voice their criticisms, yes.
You’ll notice, my method is actually not about precision (though there is an aim for some amount of accuracy), but rather about being inaccurate on the side of being worse than internally anticipated; the objective being to not produce as much negative feelings and greatly increase the probability of exceeding expectations. Yes, some people will be negative if you come out months ahead of schedule, but that is much less negativity than coming out behind schedule. Also fewer delays is better, very few people have complained about there being any delays, but the more delays the more frustration.
Regarding the resources and money portion of the conversation, those pieces do play into the timeline estimate, to a degree. More money can only increase a timeline to a certain point and less money can stop a project all together, though this is also something that should be being reviewed along the way and used to adjust expectations.
This is not totally unreasonable, but you would be saying then that Librem 5’s implementation of the M.2 card may or may not get the voice capability while another manufacturer might have this? I cannot see that it would be dependent on ATT, Verizon or T-Mobile’s web interface as the voice signal is likely already given digital form and transmission on 4G or LTE, likely the latter, should be to a standard already set.
If the card would not function on Librem 5, it will still be worthless to us.
It is hard to imagine that with various IEEE standards, implementation of hardware creates alternate implementations of voice capability. Voice capability should be a software standard and even that would seem to be following certain reproducible algorithm handling not requiring alternate implementations. Particularly Qualcomm derived chips should all share the same code system as I doubt that they have multiple lines of implementing voice translation as digitalized form encoding or decoding.
Qualcomm found in cell phones has a modem integrated with processor and still can’t guarantee that VoLTE will work on any network, just by snapping a sim card in the phone.
Here, carrier has a final say, regardless of the phone’s - modem’s capability.
I had developer edition Moto X and switching from Verizon to ATT (and vice versa) I had to change the firmware for modem (to VZW or ATT version) to get it to work. I’m not saying that this is necessary for all phones , but it just shows that phones on US market have to have certain things pre installed in order to work properly and have seamless transfer from 1 carrier to another.
Given that these m2 modems are designed with laptops in mind , VoLTE is probably not high on consumers and OEM’s list.
Look. I certainly cannot say that I know the underlying principles of a ISP provider’s proprietary functioning. I will note the following:
- The 3GPPP (https://www.3gpp.com) has set the Mobile Broadband Standards for 4G Long Term Evolution (i. e LTE) and is to perhaps follow in certifying final 5G implementations.
- In association with NGN (Next Generation Network) , it has set up IP Core Multimedia Subsystem functions, aka IMS and has implemented the MultiMedia Telephony Service (MMTel) as the global standard for IMS functioning. MMTel is a 3GPPP joint project with TISPAN (Telecoms & Internet converged Services & Protocols for Advanced Networks) which is the standardization body for ETSI (European Telephony Standards Institute -https://www.etsi.org/standards#Pre-defined%20Collections?jjj=1569779340379) with the 2008 third release of NGN functioning modified in 2011 by new specifications as CDN (Content Delivery Networks) as an overall framework and addressing commercial networking and home networking under these to allow conventional, conferencing and VOIP to all be held to common standards.
- Under this there is a standard SIP session to control all media and MMTel supplementary services and requirements for standard packets to be formed with standard measurements of content function under HSPA, High-Speed Packet Access measurement.
All of this is quite heavily regulated and is shared by all.
Whatever gateway that Verizon or ATT or another company might have to get to MMTel is truly beyond me, but there should be ample ability to easily bridge this small gap in the whole.
Most everything is set in stone until 5G and that will be set in stone as well. Companies cannot function out in the transmission world with differing standards.
They only set their proprietary bridges to get to the core functionalities which are firmly set. They can easily make this available to most any modem manufacturer. I imagine that even CDMA considerations as versus GSM have vanished as 4G LTE has undermined CDMA long-term viability. It behooves all companies to even have uniform standards of bridging though I cannot state that they see it this way. They own the towers (or rent them) and the modems are useless without them so that having the bridge from their functionality to the modems seems to be unnecessary to control access. In any case, if one purchases a supposedly legitimate modem, that is hardly a high threshold for the sake of either security or access protection, so what is the point of having different bridges to limit business when the whole purpose of an industry is to increase use and access so that you can increase volume of customers paying you for your services?
I still am confused.
So far as I know, the entire access limitation to any smartphone or other device accessing the MMTel is the Band availability and the formatting required by the MMTel standards. The only reason for regional variations then is the B13 LTE primary 4G LTE access in North America, overlapped by B17 and the associated frequencies of 3G and the original 4G prior to its evolution was generated or its basis. In Europe this is the E-UTRA (UTRA is UTMS Terrestrial Radio Access) standards by ETSI which set the standards for frequency, strength of base transmission as well as the number of Ax connectors with the Nc set as 1 for this, Nc being the number of antenna carriers). See: https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/ORI/001_099/00201/04.01.01_60/gs_ORI00201v040101p.pdf p8-11 for details if you desire to read this craziness.)
This is similar to the North American standards settings which I cannot remember as to the location derived in their settings.
I admit this is overkill for those who just want a phone that they can use.
What can I say? I am a ferret when it comes to trying to get to the heart of understanding things which is what has incensed me so much in regards to the obliquity of the M.2 card morass, first with the B-slot card SATA interface and then with the voice compatibility wall which seems an artificial and created gap to my ability to discern the matter.
Some few may actually find my deep delving known to them. A greater, yet still quite small number, may even find this interesting. I imagine most all do not care so long as their call goes through. I understand and respect that, but I just do not function along those lines.
I can tell that you are not from the states. Your assumptions are logical. Tech standards, business, etc.
Here is how the things work in US of A. Big business owns the government & Government serves the interest of the big business. They either straight out buy regulators and politicians (we legalized bribery-lobbying, donations, expenditures, etc) or they have their own people (CEOs , board members, lawyers, lobbyists) take the top positions in the govt or regulatory agencies. Also, there is another way - offer-guve the current politicians or regulators lucrative positions , after they serve out their terms, so they get the major [million+] prize later
There is a lot of talk about “free market” ideal. In reality, big business hates competition. Now , when it comes to telecommunication industry, it’s all monopolized. Actually, it’s rather a mix of duopolies in some areas and oligopoly in in others.
Carriers should be nothing more than dumb pipes. They are nor. They call all of the shots. They can play favorites - i.e. decide which phones to have on the shelves in stores and on top they can offer huge discounts on those they cut the best deal with. They are allowed to install whatever proprietory software they want on devices they decide to sell and make even more money. Then, they can also “make” (brand) their own devices and sell them at lowest possible prices. They can favor certain steaming media over others - i.e. won’t count the data against watching Netflix or listening Shazam or whatever. Same goes with what phones may or may not work on the network. Perfectly capable hardware with all or most LTE bands may not work properly. If it was just about standards , they should all work with no problems. I heard that’s. the case in Europe. If true , there is a simple explanation. Regulators answer to or act on behalf of the electorate not a few powerful greedy psychos.
Not familiar, but definitely interesting. I do care, even if my call goes through, but the VoLTE thing is making me think that is not necessarily a done deal.
I HATE REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY.
The USA is far from the worst place to live, as far as regulatory environment goes, but it does have its problems. Like national cuisine, people get fed, but it tastes different in other places. As far as the “taste” of USA telecom regulation, Tata doesn’t lie. Or as Cheech and Chong said, “Tastes like dog shit!”
I was hoping to get service from a virtual network provider over the Verizon network (best coverage in my area), but it may not be practical without VoLTE. If I remember correctly, L5 is GSM (not CDMA), so if I want to actually talk on the phone, I may have to go with the AT&T network (lame network, lame customer service).
Also, political favors for their family members. Spousal privilege in courts provides them with protection against prosecution.
Our government’s size and complexity cannot be held accountable by a 2 party system due to first-past-the-post vote counting. Imagine trying to run a business by swapping back and forth between 1 of 2 CEOs every 2 to 4 years, and not being able to hire anyone else but those 2.
I think that purism should be clearer at this point.
It is normal for these types of projects to have delays, but it is rare to occur when the shipment has been announced.
My impression is that the shipping announcement was to increase reservations.
@esfere the silence is loud and clear. I don’t think it could be any clearer . I really hope whatever it is Purism are focusing on over the last five days, they are able to figure out without needing to tell us anything scary. I prefer the silence, it means there is hope that whatever the issue is can still be resolved fairly promptly. I know how I deal with situations like this and it’s to shut out all the noise and just get the job done.
What I can find, currently known (meaning available … with software/firmware) Part Numbers from Quectel are:
• EM05CEFA-512-SGA (China/Thailand/India) and EM05EFA-512-SGAS (EMEA/APAC/Brazil) LTE Cat 4 M.2 Module 150Mbps 2.0 Hi-Speed Socket,
• EM06JLA-512-SGAD (Japan) and EM06ELA-512-SGAS (EMEA/APAC/Brazil) LTE Advanced Category 6 M.2 Module 300Mbps USB2.0/USB3.0 Socket Bulk,
• EM12GPA-512-SGAD (Global band) LTE Advanced Category 12 M.2 Module 600Mbps.