

Why isn't Canonical using Android? - JVIDEL

Now that Canonical is talking to OEMs and supporting other devices there's talk of Ubuntu for phones, but wouldn't it be better to create their own Android fork and keep compatibility with that OS' apps?<p>One of the first problems with a new OS is the ecosystem (see webOS) and Android already has more apps than you can shake a stick at, why not use that instead of trying to port Ubuntu apps to ARM?<p>Amazon has been very successful by forking Android for the Fire, why not do the same?
======
kiloaper
It's not "Ubuntu for phones", i.e. a replacement OS. It's "Ubuntu for
Android", an addition to Android.[1] Canonical enables Android phone users to
have the benefit of a full desktop, but also keep Android and its apps. If you
ask me it's a smart move. [1] <http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/android>

------
LaaT
Because Android's UI framework is quite behind that of iOS and even that of
Windows Phone's. Forking and fixing the UI framework is not doable.

Besides Ubuntu is in OS business, they would rather offer an alternative to
Android.

~~~
bmelton
All due respect, that seems like a knee-jerk answer to a knee-jerk question.

The mobile Ubuntu for Phones is actually entitled "Ubuntu for Android", and is
billed as "The full PC desktop for multi-core Android phones".

That seems to stand in stark contrast to literally everything you said.

~~~
LaaT
I was thinking more of tablets actually. It's not a secret that Ubuntu has
aspirations in this segment. Jumping from tablets to phones is much almost
trivial.

------
stewie2
because Android is slow and We need c++/Qt.

