Smartphone 2002 on PDA Avenue

[marlof]

<a href="http://www.pdaavenue.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=article;action=display;num=1023499415">http://www.pdaavenue.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=article;action=display;num=1023499415</a><br /><br />Marcus Bankuti of <a href="http://www.pdaavenue.com">PDA Avenue</a> has written an article about the future of the Smartphone 2002 platform. And he has high hopes about the future. Some quotes:<br /><br />"Smartphone 2002, as I said before, will be successful. I believe it will enjoy significantly more success than current PDAs do. Why? Well, as I mentioned earlier, many people do not yet realize the usefulness of a PDA. Lets face it; there is not a significant number of people using PDAs as of now."<br /><br />"People "need" cell phones. They are without a doubt in high demand, and there is definitely a lot of money to be made in that strand of the mobile industry. That is why Smartphone 2002 will succeed. People need cell phones, and a Smartphone 2002 device would be my choice if I was looking for a phone and had money to spend. I'm sure most of you would agree with me."<br /><br />"Convergence is the future. However, in order for this to happen the way I want it to, PDAs on their own have to prove themselves before wireless technology improves. If they do not, then the future will be Cell Phones that are assigned minor PDA capabilities."<br /><br />Marcus doesn't compare the Smartphone 2002 with Symbian or other phones. This article does not seem to be so much about Smartphone 2002 as much as it is about smartphones in general, and the idea of a phone with limited PDA functionality versus a full blown PDA. What do you think. Is he on the right track with his ideas?

[marcusbankuti]

I originally wanted to name it "Smartphone 2002: Why it will succeed and Why I don't want it to" but I ran out of room, and had to shorten the length of the title.

[Inaki C]

It seems to me a reasonable analysis of what MS Smartphone would be if it would be a successful project at any time. The problem I see is that Symbian is the choice of most European phone manufacturers and the mobile phone field is getting more difficult to enter for MS.

MS Smartphone is essentialy Windows CE and might grow and expand as soon as mobile phones grow in power. By now the existing prototypes like Z100 from Sendo look promising. However Sendo is second row manufacturer in Europe (except in UK). Asian manufacturers like Copalm and Samsung are interested if they see a demand, but I doubt they will see a demand of MS Smartphone except if some European mainstream vendors choose MS agains Symbian/Java solutions.

IMHO MS is not playing its cards well and by now it is losing the battle on mobile phones. By the way, I think Pocket PC Phones are an interesting experiment but not for the common people.

[jpzr]

article about the future of the Smartphone 2002 platform

...
"People need cell phones, and a Smartphone 2002 device would be my choice if I was looking for a phone and had money to spend. I'm sure most of you would agree with me."


Sorry, but this article is "too much oversimplifying" to express it mildly and politely. The author is not mentioning the fact that competition in terms of weeks is going to release to market smartphones with built-in digital camera and built-in bluetooth, while such smartphones with Microsoft's OS are not yet in sight. Also the main competitor (beginning with letter "S") has not been mentioned.... Also MMS has not been mentioned.

shortly speaking: author wholly misses the point. it will be free market and not a bunch PDA freaks, that will decide about success or failure and by free market I mean average cell phone users in combination with support from network operators...

so picture is much more complex than presented...

[jpzr]

This article does not seem to be so much about Smartphone 2002 as much as it is about smartphones in general, and the idea of a phone with limited PDA functionality versus a full blown PDA. What do you think. Is he on the right track with his ideas?

having built-in camera in cell phone with operating system (=smartphone) will RADICALLY change a way people LIVE,

... and perceive cell phones in general.

as an example of applications, not possible without built-in camera, see here:

http://www.wirelesssoftware.info/show1news.php/308.html

You CANNOT not-discuss built-in camera if you discuss smartphones. We have now 21st century, man!

Just imagine: when most people will have cell phones with digital cameras, with possibility to send immediately the pictures over internet, then it will be difficult to pick in the nose, sleep in the work or do other stuff that could be "taken as photo and sent to others" by our "friends"...


(I have seen [not publicly available] photos from certain Microsoft's conference where there was photo of certain smartphone with digital camera that is supposed to run MS Smartphone 2002 - but it looked like rip-off of Japanese models...)

[marcusbankuti]

article about the future of the Smartphone 2002 platform

...
"People need cell phones, and a Smartphone 2002 device would be my choice if I was looking for a phone and had money to spend. I'm sure most of you would agree with me."


Sorry, but this article is "too much oversimplifying" to express it mildly and politely. The author is not mentioning the fact that competition in terms of weeks is going to release to market smartphones with built-in digital camera and built-in bluetooth, while such smartphones with Microsoft's OS are not yet in sight. Also the main competitor (beginning with letter "S") has not been mentioned.... Also MMS has not been mentioned.

shortly speaking: author wholly misses the point. it will be free market and not a bunch PDA freaks, that will decide about success or failure and by free market I mean average cell phone users in combination with support from network operators...

so picture is much more complex than presented... I disagree

I did not miss the point.

I would summarize the purpose of the article but unfortunately I can not word what I want to say...

[jpzr]

[quote=jpzr]
I would summarize the purpose of the article but unfortunately I can not word what I want to say...

I had a feeling that you wanted to say that:

- smarpthones will be a big success,

and

- MS Smarpthone 2002 will be a big success,

... but apart from that I also don't know what you wanted to say...

[marcusbankuti]

[quote=jpzr]
I would summarize the purpose of the article but unfortunately I can not word what I want to say...

I had a feeling that you wanted to say that:

- smarpthones will be a big success,

and

- MS Smarpthone 2002 will be a big success,

... but apart from that I also don't know what you wanted to say... Nope.

I said that if Smartphones with PDA capabilities are successful, then I fear the PDA manufacturers, who's return could be better (for the reasons I mentioned in my article), will warp their PDAs to eventually have Cell Phones that have PDA capability, instead of the other way around, because if they could make more money doing that, they will.

If Smartphone 2002 which is a Phone operating system with minor PDA capabilities proves more promising than PDAs for the time being then Manufacturers may warp their products to make more money.

[Janak Parekh]

If Smartphone 2002 which is a Phone operating system with minor PDA capabilities proves more promising than PDAs for the time being then Manufacturers may warp their products to make more money.
I think it's far too speculative and early to say this; that's why Microsoft has come out with multiple implementations of WinCE to support different markets. While I don't see the mass cell-phone market being PDA phone users, this does not mean that "PDA phones" (or standalone PDA's) will cease to exist... PDA's are and probably will retain their status of a reasonably profitable niche market for some time now. Corporate entities, for one, see tremendous value in high-powered PDA's like the new XScale PPC devices.

Moreso, what I think jpzr is saying is that the definition of a "smartphone" vs. a "PDA phone" is being blurred with the appearance of units like the Nokia 7650 and, even more so, the Ericsson P800, both of which could be called PDA's in their own right. With applications like videophones and such, what end-users expect a phone to do will grow... and may very well approach functions we consider exclusive to a PDA today.

--bdj

[marlof]

This article does not seem to be so much about Smartphone 2002 as much as it is about smartphones in general, and the idea of a phone with limited PDA functionality versus a full blown PDA. What do you think. Is he on the right track with his ideas?

having built-in camera in cell phone with operating system (=smartphone) will RADICALLY change a way people LIVE,


You know that in my first draft I had written that the author did not speak about built in cameras, so that jpzr would be disappointed. I didn't want to mention you on the frontpage 'though....

Other than you, I don't care for a built in camera. I believe Smartphones that don't have a built in camera can be a success as well. I think a built in camera is like a CF camera for the Pocket PC: nice because it's a novelty, but that's about it. And yes, I've used one. And no, I didn't like it. Which does not mean that it is a bad concept. It's just something I personally don't like, and it would most certainly not radically change my life.

No one in here should think that their wishlist is the wish of the entire public. There are other people with other wishes out there too.

[jpzr]

I believe Smartphones that don't have a built in camera can be a success as well.


and what about Bluetooth ? Sendo Z100 does not have Bluetooth but competition from more than 1 vendor has it.


I think a built in camera is like a CF camera for the Pocket PC: nice because it's a novelty, but that's about it.

no, it is not "like a CF camera" because here you have possibility to send pictures not only infrared but also Bluetooth, GPRS (email attachment) and MMS (like SMS, directly to other phones)...

it is very much not so like CF camera...

[marlof]

jpzr: don't insult my intelligence. When I'm talking about a CF camera, I'm not talking about a non-connected device. I can take my cf camera, shoot pictures with my Pocket PC, and then with my link to my phone email them, or just beam them, Bluetooth them, whereever I want. So I think it is a similar feeeling, it's just one in stead of two devices. And it has the same limited image quality. So it is *very much* like a CF camera.

I know that Sendo and Smartphone 2002 to you jpzr, are like a red flag to a bull. So let's make a deal. Don't let this go into yet another "the Sendo Z100 is underqualified, my Nokia is far better" discussion. This is a general discussion about PDAs and Smartphones, apart from operating system ( I believe Smartphone 2002 is just an example, you can fill in your Symbian phone if you want ), and the question is if the smartphone will cut into the PDA market.

[isrjt]

It will succeed for a very simple reasons.

1.) The PDA is and will always be a geek tool. A very cool one, but none the less a geek tool. Everyone from the mansion to the trainer has a cell phone, even in little old Lincoln, Nebraska. When I go to work I grab my PDA when I go out anywhere else it is the Phone that comes with. I carry that thing everywhere, the gym, the pool, next to my bed (oncall). I can not count the number of times I wish I had my PIM on the phone.

2.) Phones are much sexier than PDA's

3.) Phones are smaller

They may sound stupid, but just wait.

...I can not wait for it to arrive.

[jpzr]

jpzr: don't insult my intelligence. When I'm talking about a CF camera, I'm not talking about a non-connected device.


Sure, you can attach camera also to Ericsson T68 or to Sendo Z100. The point is that when camera is built-in, integrated, then it changes everything.



I know that Sendo and Smartphone 2002 to you jpzr, are like a red flag to a bull.


This is not truth, I am programming now some applications in C# for .NET CF and I hope that .NET Compact Framework will be available also for Smartphone 2002 soon (it is now available only for PocketPC,WindowsCE and WindowsCE.NET).

And as far as Sendo Z100 is concerned: if it only would have built-in Bluetooth I would buy it, forget camera! It doesn not have it however... (I am already a bit spoiled and I am used to have Bluetooth in all devices and WiFi in all devices but cell phone).

[marcusbankuti]

BigDaddyJ: Who is Moreso?

JPZR: I did not mention Bluetooth in my article because I felt that Bluetooth was irrelevant to my articles point. This does not mean bluetooth is irrelevant, I am a fan of bluetooth technology, but I do not thing my article required mention of it.

I don't think that digital camera mention was important to my stories point either.

I used Smartphone 2002 as an example. You can replace its mentions with Brew, or Symbian or whatever. The only difference in the article would be Phone OS reference. I just used Smartphone 2002 because it is by the people who produced a successful PDA OS, and because it will likely be more popular (in my opinion).

[Marc Zimmermann]

IMHO MS is not playing its cards well and by now it is losing the battle on mobile phones. By the way, I think Pocket PC Phones are an interesting experiment but not for the common people.

Smartphone 2002 is entering field tests by major network operators as we speak. If they're doing fine, they'll be sold as high end branded devices in the carrier stores. I don't think that is a bad thing, do you?

[breaker]

I must say that I agree with the view point that smartphone products will succeed. Wireless mobile devices will naturally offer more and more capabilities for the average consumer, but why do you only suggest smartphone2002? Do you not realise there are established players in the market? e.g. Symbian???

M$ is a late entrant to this market, and there are many reasons why they may not succeed:

* The Japanese and Eupropean markets are the biggest and most established mobile phone markets. M$ must succeed in these markets before the bigger markets of the U.S., China and India become mature. Does M$ really have the knowledge, experience, and *relationships* to successfully enter these existing mobile aware markets?

* European markets are traditionally more M$ product averse, and in general more politically aware. e.g. do you know the proportion of Linux users in Europe?

* Traditionally, operators secure substantial mobile device discounts when they purchase and install network equipment from vendors such as Nokia and Ericsson. Both of these vendors are firmly tied to Symbian.

* Many operators and manufacturers don't like M$'s determination to control all content markets from production & delivery to presentation devices.

* Many operator's and manufacturers don't like like the M$ business modus operandi - can they really be trusted as a business partner?

* Many consumers do not trust M$ with their personal information. It's scary enough entrusting your personal details with M$ on your PC, but who would entrust them with their personal details for the wireless wallets of the future?

* The M$ development environment doesn't promote robust, power efficient or secure products. Imagine all those gumby MFC (or shock-horror, VB) programmers writing code for resource constrained devices!? How many of them check for error codes, or out of memory conditions, or worry about heap & stack memory usage???? How many worry about how many inter-process function calls they make???? Do we get a Ctrl+Alt+Delete option on our M$ phones?

That said, there's still the sad possibility that the M$ hype machine convinces the masses of the greatness of their platform. I for one, really hope this doesn't happen...

[jpzr]

Imagine all those gumby MFC (or shock-horror, VB) programmers writing code for resource constrained devices!? How many of them check for error codes, or out of memory conditions, or worry about heap & stack memory usage????

Hm, .NET Compact Framework delivers remedy to your concerns. It is like Java (automatic garbage collection, no memory problems at all!) but it is also unlike Java J2ME/MIDP (access to all features of the device, not just running in the "Sandbox" with no access even to the file system).

For now Microsoft has not YET released .NET CF for MS Smarpthone 2002, but if MS will do it: then C# here we go!!!

If Micrsoft will not release .NET CF for MS Smartphone 2002 this year then your concerns will realize... :wink:

[Inaki C]

Marc, some comments follow...

some months ago I was involved in an ambitious project to give a system software solution to iMode platforms in Japan. Of course the target was Japan, despite the rumors that some iMode areas might work in Europe in the coming months.
We were talking with Japanese experts on the field. They told us about the infrastructure, hardware, operating system, applications, users, market, etc,etc. used in Japan for mobile phones.
Japan is a very succesful market on mobile systems, much more mature than European and USA markets, and very different from these two, so it took us some time to understand the details and psychology of Japan in the mobile systems industry.
Eventually we had a plan of work and you know, it was a huge plan, almost unreal.
The reason was that to install a system software solution in a mobile phone market you need to stay well positioned in several locations at the same time: infrastructure, network providers (sometime same as infrastructure), terminal manufacturers, OS manufacturer, packet technology provider, contents providers, software producers, sellers,...

The operating system is only a part of this net but it is an important part because it influences the rest of the picture components. This has been shown clearly on iMode implementation in Japan, where this technology is moving million of users today, and of course a lot of money.
For example the size and structure of the data packet(that migh be at first glance invisible to the upper layers) is key for content providers, for network providers, for operating system designers and even for software developers, as Japanese guys were able to show us in the course of our conversations. Our initial thought was that it does not matter what OS we were using as far as a suitable transport layer exist for the underlaying protocol. Even we proposed to use TCP/IP as a layer on top of theirs.
They laugh at the idea of using TCP/IP at all to connect mobile terminals because that protocol does not fit the infrastructure (except on web bridges). Operating system is tailored to work with lower layers, it does not simply use it as separate network layer. Applications must be aware of the data packet type because of perfomance and cost reasons. The bottom rule here is that mobile phone market must accomodate millions of simultaneous calls with minimum use of resources, with reasonable costs for final users, and not least important, profitable for manufacturers, infrastructure providers, contents providers, etc. This requires a careful planification on many sides.

We are talking here about operating systems tailored to be embedded in mobile phones. MS Smartphone is essentialy Windows CE wich requires a fair powerful system to work (less than 30Mhz CPU, plus MMU, plus 8MB of RAM, plus 8MB of ROM is an unreal WCE system, but it is too much for today mobile phone standards; only high end phones have those features).

To have success as THE operating system for mobile phones you must work on many sides and be successful in all them.
In the terminal OS side are terminal manufacturers who have the real decision power. Microsoft is a mere terminal OS seller of a product that is not designed for current mobile phones. Best known European manufacturers like Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, and international Sony, Fujitsu and Matsu****a are looking out of the MS domain, mostly towards custom OSs and Java, and Symbian for high end terminals. By the way, I think Symbian is not a good candidate to be the future OS for mobile phones.

Japan manufacturers are using an infrastructure based on custom systems (there are several flavors of them), iMode and Java iApply based apps.

Perhaps mobile phone industry in the USA is going towards MS?
I don't know, but it is clear that worldwide industry is not moving towards MS Smartphone.

[marcusbankuti]

Marc, some comments follow...

some months ago I was involved in an ambitious project to give a system software solution to iMode platforms in Japan. Of course the target was Japan, despite the rumors that some iMode areas might work in Europe in the coming months.
We were talking with Japanese experts on the field. They told us about the infrastructure, hardware, operating system, applications, users, market, etc,etc. used in Japan for mobile phones.
Japan is a very succesful market on mobile systems, much more mature than European and USA markets, and very different from these two, so it took us some time to understand the details and psychology of Japan in the mobile systems industry.
Eventually we had a plan of work and you know, it was a huge plan, almost unreal.
The reason was that to install a system software solution in a mobile phone market you need to stay well positioned in several locations at the same time: infrastructure, network providers (sometime same as infrastructure), terminal manufacturers, OS manufacturer, packet technology provider, contents providers, software producers, sellers,...

The operating system is only a part of this net but it is an important part because it influences the rest of the picture components. This has been shown clearly on iMode implementation in Japan, where this technology is moving million of users today, and of course a lot of money.
For example the size and structure of the data packet(that migh be at first glance invisible to the upper layers) is key for content providers, for network providers, for operating system designers and even for software developers, as Japanese guys were able to show us in the course of our conversations. Our initial thought was that it does not matter what OS we were using as far as a suitable transport layer exist for the underlaying protocol. Even we proposed to use TCP/IP as a layer on top of theirs.
They laugh at the idea of using TCP/IP at all to connect mobile terminals because that protocol does not fit the infrastructure (except on web bridges). Operating system is tailored to work with lower layers, it does not simply use it as separate network layer. Applications must be aware of the data packet type because of perfomance and cost reasons. The bottom rule here is that mobile phone market must accomodate millions of simultaneous calls with minimum use of resources, with reasonable costs for final users, and not least important, profitable for manufacturers, infrastructure providers, contents providers, etc. This requires a careful planification on many sides.

We are talking here about operating systems tailored to be embedded in mobile phones. MS Smartphone is essentialy Windows CE wich requires a fair powerful system to work (less than 30Mhz CPU, plus MMU, plus 8MB of RAM, plus 8MB of ROM is an unreal WCE system, but it is too much for today mobile phone standards; only high end phones have those features).

To have success as THE operating system for mobile phones you must work on many sides and be successful in all them.
In the terminal OS side are terminal manufacturers who have the real decision power. Microsoft is a mere terminal OS seller of a product that is not designed for current mobile phones. Best known European manufacturers like Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens, and international Sony, Fujitsu and Matsu****a are looking out of the MS domain, mostly towards custom OSs and Java, and Symbian for high end terminals. By the way, I think Symbian is not a good candidate to be the future OS for mobile phones.

Japan manufacturers are using an infrastructure based on custom systems (there are several flavors of them), iMode and Java iApply based apps.

Perhaps mobile phone industry in the USA is going towards MS?
I don't know, but it is clear that worldwide industry is not moving towards MS Smartphone. MS Smartphone only spurred the article. You can replace mentions of MS Smartphone with Symbian, Brew, or a combination, and the article would not be much different.

Many phone operating systems are very new or are due shortly.

[Janak Parekh]

BigDaddyJ: Who is Moreso?
"Moreso" == "moreover".

--bdj