Operating System Prisoners

[Jerry Raia]

Somebody has to explain to me why all these new phones coming out soon have an old operating system on them! What am I missing here? It's 2005. In 1969 we sent men to the moon with a computer the size of 2 shoe boxes on board the spacecraft and it was barely more than a four function calculator. Now here we are with these high tech phones and we are prisoners of what the carriers dictate we can have. I have been flashing computer BIOS for longer than I can remember and never turned a machine into a brick. Yet these phones are so fragile if you sneeze while you flash the ROM it is all over. The time has come for phones with a separate phone side so it can always work as a phone even with no operating system installed. A separate side we can install any OS we want so long as it knows how to interact with hooks on the phone side completes it. I haven't written code in years so someone tell me why this can't be done if it can't. We spend so much money on these devices and we are at the mercy of the carriers. Can you imagine if the computer industry started like this?

[Jerry Raia]

Somebody has to explain to me why all these new phones coming out soon have an old operating system on them! What am I missing here? It's 2005. In 1969 we sent men to the moon with a computer the size of 2 shoe boxes on board the spacecraft and it was barely more than a four function calculator. Now here we are with these high tech phones and we are prisoners of what the carriers dictate we can have. I have been flashing computer BIOS for longer than I can remember and never turned a machine into a brick. Yet these phones are so fragile if you sneeze while you flash the ROM it is all over. The time has come for phones with a separate phone side so it can always work as a phone even with no operating system installed. A separate side we can install any OS we want so long as it knows how to interact with hooks on the phone side completes it. I haven't written code in years so someone tell me why this can't be done if it can't. We spend so much money on these devices and we are at the mercy of the carriers. Can you imagine if the computer industry started like this?

[keni]

Originally Posted by Jerry Raia

Somebody has to explain to me why all these new phones coming out soon have an old operating system on them! What am I missing here? It's 2005.

Is it down to the fact .net 2 is out now along with VisStu2005 in November.

Or is it somthing to do with the fact that OEM's build a device with a released OS in mind. So even though we all knew it was coming out, WM2k5 wasn't actually released until just recently. I'm guessing we'll see devices soon. (I'm guessing HTC)

Originally Posted by Jerry Raia

The time has come for phones with a separate phone side so it can always work as a phone even with no operating system installed. .... I haven't written code in years so someone tell me why this can't be done if it can't.

Erm, then wouldn't that mean a seperate phone chip and OS chip? Now that's a good idea for size and battery!

Originally Posted by Jerry Raia

Can you imagine if the computer industry started like this?

It still is isn't it? :wink:

[cortez]

i know that some of my posts on this subject have a slight cynical spin...but i'm like Jerry: why can't we upgrade to the latest OS'? i can understand if the new OS is so radical that new hardware is required, but when i see a new OS running on a currently available device i think we should be given the option to use it - for a fee of course. which leads me to another question: are the new OS' not available as upgrades due to legal considerations?

[Patrick]

I agree. I'd like to see Microsoft use the same distribution model as desktops. I can walk in to a store and purchase XP to install on my PC (assuming it meets the minimum hardware requirements). Phones and Pocket PCs should be the same. It is ridiculous that we have to rely on the manufacturer or carrier to provide the new OS. They have no interest in doing so, because they want you to buy a new phone.

Also, I would love to be able to walk into a store and purchase any phone, and use it with any carrier. No locked phones, no contracts. I would like to see the carriers compete by providing fair prices and good service, instead of playing games and trying to lock us into contracts. Imagine if your TV was locked to a single cable provider!!

[Mike Temporale]

I can understand the carriers not wanting to go through all the testing and expense of rolling out a new OS. Then you need to support 2 different OSs for a given phone since not everyone will upgrade.

But what really bugs me about this is i-mate. Isn't that the whole purpose and reason for i-mate's existence? They aren't tied to any carriers. They should be pumping out updates faster than a Pez dispenser at a 4 year olds birthday party. :? Sure some phones might not have the memory or processor footprint for a newer OS, but surely they can release some OS upgrades for some of their models.

[Sven]

Originally Posted by Patrick

Also, I would love to be able to walk into a store and purchase any phone, and use it with any carrier. No locked phones, no contracts.

You can sort of do that today. Buy an unlocked phone, and walk into the carrier of your choice and sign up for service. You'll pay full price for the phone, and the level of support will be hampered by the help desk never having heard of your phone, but you can do it. (Actually that last part isn't all that different than supported phones :? )

These are not PCs. There are specific hardware builds that need to be created to function in the device. iMate is no different than Motorola or HTC. The OS is massaged to work in the hardware. That's no different than PCs either. The key on the PC is that you have so darned much storage, MS can put every conceivable hardware driver in the distribution, and the software to figure out what you have, and load/configure accordingly.

It's a vicious circle right now. MS can't just put the OS out there, they need hardware for it to run on...specific hardware. The phone OEMs can't just build a box and sell it to the public, if the Operators aren't going to officially support phones other than their own on their network. The operators aren't going to officially say, go get what you want, it's OK with us. The reality is that the money is in service, not hardware, so the Operator model is to get you locked into service. Yea it would be nice if they competed on service, but unfortunately IMHO, the American public shops on cost, not value. They complain about service, but they jump ship for <$ in a heartbeat. I can't speak to other countries.

Yes there are legal constraints. MS has agreements with the guys building the boxes, their customer, that they won't undercut their distribution. The OEMs I'm sure have deals with the operators, their customer. that they won't undercut their distribution. So the bottom line is the Operator, and you have to fundamentally change their concept of how to do business. I don't see that happening any time soon.

[Mike Temporale]

Originally Posted by sven

These are not PCs. There are specific hardware builds that need to be created to function in the device. iMate is no different than Motorola or HTC. The OS is massaged to work in the hardware.

While I agree that the OS is built around or "massaged" for hardware. However, i-mate has the distinct advantage that they do not sell their devices through the carrier. Moto, HTC, Samsung, Audiovox, etc.. all sell through the carrier. So an OS update has to be tested by the manufacturer on their hardware, and then by the carrier on their network. There is no reason i-mate can't pump out an updated OS. In fact, I would guess that HTC has done all the drivers. So there is only customization to be done to the handset - adding branding, 3rd party programs, start menu configuration and whatnot. For i-mate, this should be easy to do, and I would be willing to bet that people would pay a nominal fee for an OS update (not a patch). Thus negating any cost of creating it.

[Jerry Raia]

So far all I have read here are not good enough reasons. Not in 2005. The only reason things are this way is because they were designed to be this way. Not because of some "limitation". Trust me if MS and Motorola wanted to make a phone that we could control in the OS area we would have it in 6 months. Well maybe not Motorola but you see what I mean.

[Sven]

Originally Posted by Mike Temporale

For i-mate, this should be easy to do, and I would be willing to bet that people would pay a nominal fee for an OS update (not a patch). Thus negating any cost of creating it.

So why don't they. According to your assesment, it wouldn't be anything but extra revenue with minimal expense. They'd be silly not to, especially since they have no carrier to appease. Maybe they know more about it than we do. Maybe they have researched the investment and potential sales and found it to be a shaky ROI picture. Maybe they think sandwiching WM5 into a device whose memory suite wasn't designed with the WM5 memory architecture would result in a substandard user experience. Maybe they've spen't all their resources putting together a killer device we haven't even seen, rather than shoehorn a new OS into an old body.

Your point is good about iMate not having the operator constraints, but then you have to believe that it is just greed that keeps them from providing OS updates, and conceed that for some reason supplying an update doesn't feed the greed.

[Jerry Raia]

Originally Posted by sven

then you have to believe that it is just greed that keeps them from providing OS updates, and conceed that for some reason supplying an update doesn't feed the greed.

In a nutshell I think that is exactly what it is.