The Future of Mobility is... Say What?

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008610.html' target='_blank'>http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008610.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"let me say that my original thoughts on Symbian have pretty much come to pass. The OS had huge backing from Nokia and other major manufacturers, and has over the past few years completely demolished its competition in terms of raw numbers, selling roughly 30 million phones. A lot less than I would have thought, but more than any other smart phone OS. But years pass, and its time to re-look at the mobile landscape and try to guess what’s going to happen over the next few years, and my gut feeling is that Linux will be the big winner."</i><br /><br />Russell Beattie has posted his thoughts on the future of the Mobile device market, and he thinks that future is all about Linux. Russell used to be a supporter of Symbian but he has come to the realization that Symbian lacks developer support. That Symbian has been <i>"difficult to impossible to understand, let alone develop for."</i> And for this reason, they will not last. If this is a reason to write off a platform, then you would expect the platform with the best developer support to be his choice for the future. Well, that's not the case. While Russell agrees that Microsoft has the best developer experience out there, he seems to think that Microsoft is the devil, and that nobody likes to make deals with the devil. :roll: Good argument there! As of May 2005, there was 40 device-makers and 68 mobile operators in 48 countries that are shipping Windows Mobile based products. Even if Microosft is the devil, it sure sounds like other companies want to make a deal with them. ;) <br /><br />So what are you're thoughts on the future? Do you think Russell has a good understanding of the market and what direction it will take?

[Rocco Augusto]

linux might be the next big thing for smartphones but i doubt it will be the best solution, especially where development is concerned. ive played around with all sorts of smartphones (symbian, palm, rim, and linux) and the best ones ive played with have always been the windows mobile phones... minus the mpx220 ;)

sure microsoft has a ways to go before its the ultimate solution. there are things i would like to see on smartphones such as pocket office (for editing and viewing files) and of course wifi (which we will be getting soon) but to knock it because its the devil is just plain retarded.

[Mark Larson]

I don't get the Linux comments - they're completely out of left field. Linux has no presence in the phone market at all. Not even in the PDA phone market. Its all between Symbian and Windows, and half the people buy Symbian phones because "its a Nokia!"

[Kris Kumar]

Okay here my take: lame article.

Linux is cool, has lots of developers rallying behind it. It is easy to develop. Light foot print. Solid kernel. It is FREE.

But Mobile version of Linux has the same problem as its desktop cousin. It is not maintained and supported by a single company. Mobile Linux used by Motorola is different from the one used by Nokia and so on. Unless these manufacturers team up and form another Symbian. :roll: What I am trying to get at is that these companies are trying to do the same thing independently. And since their versions are different, they will have to provide their own sets of applications and support and carriers would also have to train themselves for each variation.

Now let's look at Windows Mobile. Has been in existence for quite some time. Getting better and better with each version. ;-) More out of the box applications (Inbox, Media Player, Camera etc). Good developer support. Now the key advantage. The OS is supported by Microsoft. They are committed to it. Cell phone manufacturers have to just develop hardware around it. Add customization skins and some custom apps. But with Windows Mobile they can get their products quicker to market. Carriers should/will love it. They have to train their support staff on one OS, and they are familiar with other devices.

Case Study: HTC. HTC has been delivering products after products. Pocket PCs and Smartphones. With ease. They innovate on hardware and form factor. They spend time on testing. They keep their development costs down.

In todays day and age, where outsourcing is the name of the game. With Windows Mobile the manufacturers can outsource one big piece of the cell phone. Cut costs. Speed development. And bring newer and cooler products to market quicker.

[Mike Temporale]

It is FREE.

Ah, but it isn't free. The companies that are building mobile versions of linux are charging about $7 per head. Which is around $1 less than Windows Mobile. So, it is free if the OEM makes their own. (Not counting developer time of course.) However, if they go with an off the shelf version, it costs the same as Windows Mobile (or close enough that there is no reasonable difference)

Now, I don't know if the mobile version of Linux comes with a UI. I don't think it does. It's my understanding that it's about the equivalent of getting Windows CE. You get the core, but that's it. You'll still have to come up with an interface for it. :?

[Rebecca]

Russell Beattie is nuts.

[Kris Kumar]

Russell Beattie is nuts.

:rotfl:

[Kris Kumar]

Ah, but it isn't free. The companies that are building mobile versions of linux are charging about $7 per head. Which is around $1 less than Windows Mobile. So, it is free if the OEM makes their own.

Good point. The development costs include not only $$$ but also time that has to be spent to make a robust, feature rich mobile OS. Look at HTC, it is able to channel the funds and time on designing and bringing to market cool phones.

Now, I don't know if the mobile version of Linux comes with a UI.

Maybe we should ask Russell? :lol:

[Lorenzo]

As far as I'm concerned I think that Beattie's opinion (or any opinion on the subject of "X vs Y" for instance) is nothing but smalltalk. I mean that chatting about how Linux is better than Symbian is as funny as talking about why Manchester United is better than [your choice here] while drinking a pint of stout at the pub. :lol:

I myself enjoy this kind of chitchat a lot but the fact that a well known columnist channels his own two cents on the matter by means of the internet doesn't make such opinion a more authoritative one; it's just more widespread than mine.

That said I don't think that Linux is better than Symbian or Windows Mobile. the question just boils down to the fact that I prefer one gadget to another because this gadget makes what I want it to the way I (should) intend it to.
So if Beattie finds that a Linux-powered smartphone is gonna make his day this does not mean that I'll be as happy as him while toting the same machine.

Some friends of mine are perfectly happy with their Series 60-powered phones, I would not know what to do with such a gizmo. I find my Wm2003-powered smartphone the best buy I ever did, some other persons I know keep on asking me when will I get rid of that piece of crap in order to get a REAL phone like (according to them) a Sony Ericsson K750 (wich in turn is absolutely useless in my opinion).

All the above just to say that if I should start a conversation with 100 persons on the subject of which OS is best I'd probably get 100 different answers so I just stick to what I need and find useful and (reasonably easy) to use.

[Graffiti]

That's just personal preference talk from Beattie, which really what the article is - a personal comment. I wouldn't give the article much weight as far as the future of mobile devices' operating systems are concerned.

[pachi]

Russell Beattie is wrong. Everyone wants to conquer the world, Sony,Nokia,Microsoft...There is nothing wrong with MS cause he browsing through Windows xp or what ever os he has..Hes just jealous...