I see lots of people on #Jolla blog complaining that Jolla is announcing stuff too early, then has to step back because reasons and by doing that it hurts its own credibility. I say that's the very spirit of being open instead, and I'd hate to lose this aspect of Jolla. Closed companies take all decisions behind closed doors and piles of NDAs that sometimes prevent even employees from talking to each other (I'm looking at you #Microsoft), then after several internal failed iterations you get presented to the final product and all you can do is open your wallet or shut up. More often than not they just scrap products midway and you'll never even hear about those.
Imo, that's not how it works in the #OpenSource world. Failed iterations are part of the development of the final product, and I believe that getting feedback from the wide public at that stage is the brave thing that Jolla is trying to do. Yet years of closed development spoiled users into thinking that either a company (or person, like myself with my home projects) gets something right immediately or they suck, no matter how much you try to explain that's an early release. Version 0.1? Who cares, it's glitchy, u suck. Prototype? Omg so slow u suck plz refund. Early access? But play mode XYZ is missing, u suck scammer!
The very same people criticizing Jolla for "not keeping promises" are also seen complaining about Jolla not being more open. To that, I say WTF. Stand back a second and ask yourself what being open even means. Is the codebase of 2mil bug-free lines of code magically appearing overnight what you'd call open development? Or is it you being involved in chats and being presented with options at early stages of development?
