As Mobile Phones Grow More Complex, Carriers Insist on Fewer Operating Systems

[Kris Kumar]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/technology/12wireless.html?ex=1331352000&en=47357e14b56068aa&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss' target='_blank'>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/technology/12wireless.html?ex=1331352000&en=47357e14b56068aa&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Two operating systems run more than 95 percent of the world’s computers, but dozens of systems are behind the 2.5 billion mobile phones in circulation, a situation that has hampered the growth of new services, industry executives and independent specialists say. “There are too many operating systems already and more are coming on stream, making things complicated for smaller software companies,” said Tony Cripps, a senior analyst with the telecommunications consulting firm Ovum in London. Mobile phone carriers are watching with more than passing interest because the new applications they are counting on to increase revenue and profit may make it to only a limited number of phones as software developers struggle to keep up with the different operating systems. Having multiple systems is also time-consuming and costly for the carriers, which must configure the phones they sell."</i><br /><br />New York Times has an interesting article [free subscription required] on how the carriers are trying to reduce the number of mobile operating systems they have to support on their networks. Vodafone has already narrowed it down to Microsoft’s Windows Mobile, Symbian Series 60 and Linux. The biggest benefit in doing so is the reduced support costs for the carriers, and the added advantage is that a fixed set of operating system choices encourages developers to add content and services. While I like the concept on paper, I am not so sure if the carriers will be able to pull it off. They may be able to accelerate the process of elimination of the weaklings, but don't you think that the operating systems need to fight it out in the market-space and get eliminated as part of the normal process of evolution of the mobile technology. I do not want the carriers to make the decision, I want the market to make the decision. What are your thoughts?

[dstrauss]

Your analysis is correct (let market forces decide) but your conclusion is wrong - they won't. As evidence, look at the strangulation of WiFi services by the various carriers; most prominently Verizon. I would bet market forces would still keep all available radio options on the table, but the carriers rarely miss an opportunity to choke off WiFi access.

Purely survival of the monopolistic fittest. :x

[Stinger]

They may be able to accelerate the process of elimination of the weaklings, but don't you think that the operating systems need to fight it out in the market-space and get eliminated as part of the normal process of evolution of the mobile technology. I do not want the carriers to make the decision, I want the market to make the decision. What are your thoughts?

The problem is that we're not the direct customers of the OS developers. The OS developers sell their wares to the handset manufacturers who then sell their devices to the operators. The average consumer actually has very little say it which operating system lives or dies.

For example, Palm OS is dead in Europe. Hardly any carriers released, let alone promoted, the Treo range. The consumer never got to decide whether they liked Palm OS because Palm OS phones were never offered to them.

Carriers often look to Japan, and especially NTT DoCoMo, as the ideal role model. Japanese carriers have a huge influence over the handset manufacturers and can dictate the features on new models. NTT DoCoMo standardized on just Linux and Symbian a long time ago and their strategy appears to be working. I'm sure that the Western carriers would like to do the same.

[Kris Kumar]

Purely survival of the monopolistic fittest. :x

Isn't that frustrating? :evil: The big corporations have the money to lobby not only the government but also other businesses.

[Kris Kumar]

The problem is that we're not the direct customers of the OS developers. The OS developers sell their wares to the handset manufacturers who then sell their devices to the operators. The average consumer actually has very little say it which operating system lives or dies.

You do have a good point. Our only say is in the form of the sales figures for the devices in the market. And as you mentioned, if an OS is not picked up then we have no say. :-(

Wonder how this carrier's plans to control/retrict the OSes affect future innovation. In the immediate future the iPhone with Mac OS and also possible Google phone?

And when the carriers say Linux, shouldn't they be specific? Aren't there way to many flavors of mobile Linux? :?

[Jerry Raia]

As long as the carriers sell the phones these issues will be complicated. They have a say in what they sell, what goes in it and usually how you can use it. It would much rather buy independently from the maker of the device, plug in the SIM card from my carrier and be on my way. Of course it isn't as simple for the CDMA carriers. I'd like to see this much more like it is for PC's. You can install whatever operating system you want.

[subzerohf]

It's the subsidies that choked the consumers. Who wouldn't like to pay $0 for a Samsung BlackJack? We cannot have the cake and eat it, too, you know. Until everyone pays list price for their phones, like the pc market, we won't have much choices other than those dictated by the carriers.

[Jerry Raia]

Exactly right.

[Stinger]

And when the carriers say Linux, shouldn't they be specific? Aren't there way to many flavors of mobile Linux? Confused

Agreed. Apparently no more than 30% of the code in a "Linux" phone is actually Linux. The rest is written by whoever provides the software. There's the chance for huge variation between different Linux phones - good for the manufacturers looking for differentiation in the market place but bad for carriers looking to simplify their support mechanism.