State of Open Mobile OSes

[Ed Hansberry]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/25/the-state-of-open-mobile-oses/' target='_blank'>http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/2...en-mobile-oses/</a><br /><br /></div><em>&quot;Open operating systems, for most folks, means that the operating system is essentially free. The average computer user knows that Linux is free, as in beer, while Windows costs money. The case is the same for mobile OSes although, until very recently, the idea of purposely using an open OS has been a fairly nebulous concept.&quot;</em><br /><br /><img alt="?" border="0" src="http://www.ehansberry.com/ppct/2008/20080625-openoses.jpg" /><br /><br />Here you can see how Windows Mobile stacks up against some other mobile platforms in terms of openness. I've never understood the &quot;free, as in beer&quot; idiom. I don't drink beer, but I've been around people that do, and they always seem to be paying for it, both before and after drinking it. <img border="0" alt="" src="http://www.ehansberry.com/ppct/wink.gif" /><br /><br />

[jeisner]

Written by an Apple fanboy I think?

How is the iphone as open as you can get without being open-source?

Please thats a joke, I need Apple's approval to run my own code on the iphone, far more closed than even Microsoft.. And the source code for windows ce kernel is available under the MS shared source scheme.

The license for the 'free' Apple SDK even forbids open source development.

That article is a poor joke IMO..

[Stinger]

That's a truly awful article. I don't know where to start with it...

The best piece of analysis I saw was on who were the winners and losers from Nokia's announcement to take Symbian open source. The author said that the real winner was HTC. With Microsoft now the only company charging for their OS, HTC are in a position to get a much better licensing deal for Windows Mobile. If Microsoft won't budge then there's always Android and Symbian to turn to...

[burtcom]

Meh :)

Just because an OS has some open-source components, does not mean it's an open-source OS.

Android is not open-source -- Google has closed parts of the OS.

[dave_p_1]

Whether you realized it or not, this is a good example of "free as in beer".

The original (or, at least oldest famous) phrase was Richard Stallman's "free as in free speech, not free beer."

Software may be free in the sense that it doesn't cost anything (as in "free beer") but it can still have a whole set of restrictions on how you can use it or modify it. For example, it may not allow third party software to be installed; it may require that you view ads to use it; it may insist on tracking your actions; etc.

Software which is free (as in "free speech") doesn't have these restrictions. In fact, it has few restrictions at all. You can use it however you want. You can even change it if you want (especially if it is open source which means you can see the actual code).

This is what Android is selling. The ability to freely add or subtract applications that can interact with the core software (and other applications) without regard to whether or not they are on the approved list. The downside is that a poorly written application (or a combination of applications/events) could turn your phone into an expensive doorstop.

[virain]

If "Free as a beer" OS doesn't perform as you expect it to perform, it makes sense to spend some money on something that does. Besides, with open source OS's that available today, s.a. Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. you don't pay for it, but support, that is if you are not pro, will cost you an arm and a leg. Of course, you can post on a support blog, but not always will get an answer you need.(Personal Experience with Ubuntu) Paid support will get it to you. So here's dilemma - Free OS with paid support, or free support with Paid OS. And remember, "There's no such thing as a FREE lunch".

[txa1265]

Written by an Apple fanboy I think?

How is the iphone as open as you can get without being open-source?

Please thats a joke, I need Apple's approval to run my own code on the iphone, far more closed than even Microsoft.. And the source code for windows ce kernel is available under the MS shared source scheme.

The license for the 'free' Apple SDK even forbids open source development.

That article is a poor joke IMO..

I think it was written by someone with a poor grip on reality rather than a Apple Fanboy ... because IMO you can't really have a 'somewhat open' OS any more than you can be a little bit pregnant ;)

OS X might have some open source elements, but Apple has always been extremely tight about protecting its' OS and interface. The iPhone is a very closed architecture, regardless of the OS and SDK - and many see that as a strength. But regardless, it isn't open in any real way.

[Stinger]

So here's dilemma - Free OS with paid support, or free support with Paid OS. And remember, "There's no such thing as a FREE lunch".

Is support free for Windows Mobile? I can't imagine that it is totally free. If it was, there would be nothing to stop companies demanding an infinite amount of support from Microsoft.

Just say Microsoft does offer completely free support. I think the free support vs. free licensing argument comes down to economies of scale. If you're a small manufacturer, just starting on the path to smartphone-dom, you'll need a lot of support and probably won't ship many units. So you're better off going with the option that gives you free support.

However, if you're a big and experienced player then you're better off paying a few million for support (or build up a support team internally) and reaping the benefits of no license fees. The more experienced you are with the software, the less support you need. If Nokia moved its entire portfolio over to Symbian tomorrow, they would save around $5 million a day in licensing fees. That's a lot of money. I'm sure a lot more than having to fund most of the OS development themselves.

It's no surprise that all five of the biggest phone manufacturers are on the board of Symbian Foundation. Maybe the open source nature might attract a few of the smaller players to experiment with it too.

[Gerard]

When I was just starting out with a Pocket PC and had no prior computer experience of any sort, Casio's toll-free number got a bit of a workout from me. I probably called at least twenty times that summer of 2000. The old E-115 had me confused at times, especially over installing a dialup modem and getting it to connect, but also regarding various of the built-in softwares' weird (to me at the time) behaviors. Sometimes the device would lock up and require a soft reset, and this with little or at first no extra software added, so I was frustrated and would call and ask about it.

Casio were usually very patient and sometimes even useful in this. Of course much of the time they'd tell me to soft reset... then when that failed to remedy a problem to hard reset... and when that still showed the problem they'd often bump me up to a higher level tech who could actually help sort things out. I was more or less happy, though I'd later come across a lot of forum comments about Casio's tech support being the absolute worst.

When I got an EG-800, their industrial device (HAH! - anyone who knows some of my history with that beautiful blue Casio knows well how prodigiously prone to failue they actually were), I found tech support actually improved a bit. They bumped me up a level sooner, and quite early on I found myself speaking with the vice president for Casio Mobile Devices, US centre. He was most gracious, and the first replacement unit he sent me was a little-used one that had been sitting on his desk. Blah blah... anyway, 5 EG-800s later I moved on to an iPAQ.

Meanwhile, I put in a number of requests for assistance to Microsoft regarding problems which were obviously part of the OS, nothing to do with any third-party nor OEM applications nor my added accessories. I got no responses at all for months, but eventually did get a completely useless bit of help from a support worker in Delhi (I think) who was incredibly polite in his email, but utterly off the mark with his suggestions. I had resolved the problem by use of a third party software in the meantime. Still, my understanding at the time was that Microsoft supported the Pocket PC, in tandem with the manufacturers. As much seemed to be made clear on their website at the time.

[Ed Hansberry]

THis is some good discussion. WHen I saw it and saw Apple was sort of open, I was thinking of the kernel which has some roots in FreeBSD, but wasn't thinking of the absurd restrictions they are putting on developers.