Them's fight'n words

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.itmatters.com.ph/news/news_05022002j.html">http://www.itmatters.com.ph/news/news_05022002j.html</a><br /><br />Business is business and Microsoft is unquestionably very good at it - sometimes too good for their own good according to the justice department. ;-) They are going after the cell phone market in a huge way - Smartphones and Pocket PC phones. Right now, Symbian is in their crosshairs.<br /><br />"Recently, Microsoft's Juha Christensen invited the 20 biggest software developers allied to archrival Symbian to breakfast to try to win them over, much to the chagrin of Symbian executives when they found out. It is the latest stab below the belt in a battle that is developing nasty edges as the two companies fight to become the dominant software provider for hundreds of millions of future mobile phones and organizers that will be able to play games, music and video clips and receive multimedia messages."<br /><br />Mr. Christensen is relatively new at Microsoft. He was hired in 2001, and was a Symbian VP at the time. :-) "David Levin, Symbian's new chief executive, ... 'called to arms' 1,500 software engineers to write programs for mobile devices that will link consumers and businesses." 1,500 developers? Isn't that a few zero's shy of what Microsoft has?<br /><br />Let the war begin! The more they fight it out, the better the devices we'll get. Well, that assumes the North American cell phone system gets its act together, but that is another rant. :-(

[jpzr]

Let the war begin! The more they fight it out, the better the devices we'll get.


Not necessarily good for customers: Microsoft will start introducing its own standards in everything and interoperability will suffer.

There is only 1 way out: look, each symbian has Java virtual machine included. Microsoft and Symbian should make such agreement: Microsoft will add JVM to EVERY PocketPC and EVERY MS Smartphone and Symbian will add .NET Compact Framework to every Symbian based phone (it should be a part of OS as Java is now). In this way we could see real interoperability and competition on open terms...

Bad idea?

[Ed Hansberry]

Didn't MS try that with Sun and Java once?

[jpzr]

Didn't MS try that with Sun and Java once?


Sun is a puny, disgusting company. But Symbian has backing of super-corporations like major cell phone vendors. It is different...

Well, maybe after all Microsoft could kill Symbian just by releasing .NET Compact Framework for Symbian as an add-on! The problem is that Java is owned by a puny, sh*tty company (Sun) and that Symbian has nothing like .NET CF to offer to trade - so Java seems to be the only such thing...

By the way, it is a good startup idea: the company that would make .NET CF for Symbian would be bought by Microsoft by any price! Hah, hah, ...

[Andy Sjostrom]

Microsoft will start introducing its own standards in everything and interoperability will suffer.

If anything, Microsoft brings to this hurting, needing cell phone market OPEN standards: true Internet support in the shape of IP, HTTP, HTML, XML etc. Symbian, and the companies therein, has during all these years just brought us CLOSED, proprietary products that are not even compliant with each other let alone Internet standards.

In the mobile devices market, Microsoft means, brings and supports the Internet.[/quote]

[jpzr]

In the mobile devices market, Microsoft means, brings and supports the Internet.

I neither care nore I am interested in some abstract "Internet", I am interested in mobile execution environemnts connected to wireless networks. Internet is not everything, services like MMS, local based, etc could become more important.

Anyway: I am right now downloading .NET CF (94.7 MB total, 25.1 MB remaining) so I will see myself very soon how it looks like...

[Paragon]

Well, that assumes the North American cell phone system gets its act together, but that is another rant. :-(


That I think, Ed, is the most significant statement of your post. Man, what a mess the cellular systems are here in North America. Hopefully either GPRS/GSM or CDMA 1Xrtt will become the norm making a unified standard, and at a price that is exceptable.

Dave

[Andy Sjostrom]

Internet is not abstract. It is for real. The only players that try to turn the Internet into something abstract are mobile network operators (although some of them are re-positioning) and most cell phone manufacturers (read Symbian). The "Mobile Internet"-hype is going down the same tube WAP did.

MMS is a nice thought. I totally agree with the idea of being able to easily send multimedia content to and from mobile devices, even simple cell phones. But MMS will eventually die unless it sits on the Internet. Same with location based services.

I am glad, however, to see that some cell phone makers and mobile network operators are coming to senses. Clearly it is so that Microsoft's golden offering to all players in this market is mobile access to the Internet.

[jpzr]

The more they fight it out, the better the devices we'll get.


Oh, men, not the devices but SOFTWARE is most important.

I have just completed download of .NET Compact Framework SDK but it requires me to have Visual C# .NET to be installed - so I ordered it but it costs over 100 USD so is not for free.

For now result of the game is: ".NET CF" : "wireless Java" => 0 : 1.
Wireless Java SDK is for free and for .NET CF you need to spend at least 100 USD, guess which platform will have more developers?

Anybody already running/developing with .NET CF or I am first here?

[fundmgr90210]

The major handset manufacturers have circled the wagons around Symbian, effectively keeping Microsoft out (I think it's almost as much a cultural thing as a money issue).

They (MS) have been left with the crumbs of Sendo and Samsung (the latter maybe not so much a "crumb"). They've got some real work ahead of them. What's more, at least we know Symbian handsets work and are more or less rock solid stable. Who know's about Smartphone? Here's hoping it's a far cry better than PPC 2002.

[jeffmckean]

I think Microsoft's focus is on delivering as much of the Internet as possible to your mobile device. But I think another focus is to allow former Tier 3, or even non-phone makers, to leapfrog to Tier 1 (or at least render this classification irrelevant). With the reference software and chipset for Smartphone 2002 devices and Pocket PC Phone Edition, former non-phone makers can incorporate wireless functions into their devices. HTC with their PPC/PE device (the O2, or T-Mobile, or XDA) have become a maker of a very nice phone handset that is a full-on Pocket PC as well.

Remember that at one point, people debated the merits of various modems for their PCs as if the modem makers possessed some deep secret knowledge of how to build a modem. Now, well, we take them for granted and don't always care all that much who made it.
Right now, we look at Nokia, Sony Ericsson (still can't get used to that) and Motorola as if they have some inaccessible knowledge and wonder how Microsoft can presume to challenge them.

I think in a very few years we're not going to care who made the wireless guts inside our highly-functional mobile device. But the company that makes this functionality accessible to the greatest number of device manufacturers will win. And we're going to find out that this 'inaccessible knowledge' is in fact very accessible.

Ask yourself: is that the business model of Nokia, Sony Ericsson or Motorola? They have to sell their own devices; they have no interest in helping lower-tier makers with their wireless efforts; that's competition. But Microsoft wants to get this out to as many makers as possible. It may not be the top three at first, but someday it will be.

Even Sony had to start making VHS recorders at some point.

[werty]

What's more, at least we know Symbian handsets work and are more or less rock solid stable. Who know's about Smartphone? Here's hoping it's a far cry better than PPC 2002.


Mostly less solid. I have been using Nokia 9210 and is slow and crashes and memory ends daily. I would say that PPC is mutch more stable and lighter OS. With 9210 it takes more than 10s to open web browser. With mutch older device iPAQ it takes 1s to open web browser...

[PlayAgain?]

It's a shame that your experience isn't as pleasant as most of the others I've heard from, though you are sadly correct about the memory, there just isn't enough for most users (the 9290, available soon in the states - 9210i for Europe and the rest - will not be suffering from this).

A Symbian based smartphone (remember, the 9210 is a Communicator, not a smartphone) will, quite simply, be the best and only sensible choice for business and the individual, at least for the first few years. I expect that the Microsoft smartphone will catch up (just as WindowsCE did with Palm and Psion), but Symbian devices wins hands down in software and physical form.

I have coveted the 7650 since I first saw it and am now beginning to warm to the P800 (I didn't like it at first), now that I have read about the high quality and diversity of the connected applications it will offer the user thanks to the heavy investment of Sony-Ericsson.

The Betamax argument is very valid. It wasn't long before the whole world had to go VHS, but the whole world also accepts that Betamax was actually better. Would you settle for a lower quality smartphone just because everyone else wants to?

I was amused by the comment that Symbian has only a fraction of what Microsoft enjoys. How true that is, but the quality must be high enough for Microsoft to want to take them out to dinner, Don't you think, or maybe Bill Gates had some lunch vouchers burning a hole in his pocket? :D

Microsoft makes the best desktop OS, a sitting duck s[pread eagled on the floor server OS and a badly designed but very functional PDA OS. I'm not tempted by the Microsoft smartphone at all because if I want a PocketPC, I'll buy a PocketPC. If I want a smartphone, I'll buy a Symbian device which runs an OS designed for mobile devices.

But there again, you see, it's horses for courses. Some people will like the smartphone because it's what they're looking for, some will like it because it's Microsoft and others will be indifferent.

Finally (sorry to go on so);
I was Chubbergott but I've taken some leave and have calmed down.

[marlof]

For me, I can not state if I like the Symbian or Microsoft Smartphone better. I have had hands on experience with a Smartphone 2002, and I really liked what I saw. But... these were still pre-production units, and untill I have had experiences with a production unit, I won't give you my judgement on this. I've never had hands on experience with any of the Symbian smartphones other than the Ericsson R380 (which I disliked in the UI department).

I have had extensive experiences with the Communicator which is a brave concept, but not my cup of tea. I esp. disliked the keyboard, and as it's the only text entry possibility, to me the Communicator was not too good. My collegue really likes his though, so your mileage may vary.I agree with PlayAgain? that you shouldn't mistake the Communicator with a smartphone. It's too much of a PDA to be a real smartphone. But on the other hand, it is marketed as a phone by Nokia, and it's too much of a phone to be just a connected PDA so the mistake is easily made.

But one shouldn't try to sweep the Smartphone 2002 and the Pocket PC 2002 on one pile either. I've seen both OSes from real close, and I can tell you there's a world of difference. Of course Microsoft has used the Pocket PC experiences to build the Smartphone 2002 OS, but they're well aware that the nature of the beast requires a different approach in for instance User Interface. A phone needs a one handed operation. Period. That is the one thing I don't think I like about the P800, but also there, until I've actually seen one I will not go around telling people about the bad things of the product.

For both Symbian and Microsoft, the new releases 7650 and Smartphone 2002, will be their first real attempt at a next generation one handed operated operating system for a Smartphone. First releases sometimes can be great, but in many cases need some readjustments because no test lab can predict real life usage with any product. I would really like to see them both, and see which one I'd like better. At least I'm happy that there is not just Symbian, or jhust Microsoft. Competition is a good thing, as it brings out the best for both camps.

I see a market where people will use a connected PDA (Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition, Communicator, Palm OS) if their phone wishes are smaller then their connected full fledge expandable PDA wishes, a Smartphone (Smarthpone 2002, 7650/P800) if their phone wishes are bigger then their PDA wishes, or a combination from phone and PDA if they want the best from both worlds. Happily there is no one size fits all when it comes to technology!

[jeffmckean]

The closest thing that most people have used to Symbian are the Psion range of organizers. I will now reveal that I once was a Psion guy...I had two of them...and yes, I liked them, very much. But I once was a Mac guy too, and I liked those as well.

The reasons I don't use them anymore:

First, Apple got a little full of itself; expensive, low support, didn't really care about users. Products were unimaginative and their leadership was lost. A lot of that has turned around today, and Apple is doing well, but I've moved on and not likely to move back.

Psion: a lot of the same issues as Apple but maybe more so, plus an unwillingness or inability to tackle the North American marketplace. The product languished, no one knew about it...but also technologically, no real progress (the 5mx was the Zenith for most normal people, since the Series 7 and NetBook were all but unavailable). And accessories! Good Lord, you needed to finance those to buy them!

Now you have Psion reconstituted as Symbian with a very clear phone handset focus. But it's almost as if they are saying, "Well, I suppose we'll have to put the bloody organizer in the damn phone after all." They don't seem to want to or believe that users want that. The P800 (which I do have, albeit very little, hands-on experience with) is a bar of soap that was totally unappealing to me.

The difference here is sustained nurturing and leadership of the product and its user base. In my two cases above, this did not occur. Microsoft does keep plugging away and continues to improve their products. Other companies seem to make a splash, get complacent and walk away, probably without intending to do so. It's a difference in corporate culture.

Horses for courses, I agree. But in most horse races there's always a winner.

[PlayAgain?]

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments regarding complacency. It has brought so many great technologies to nowhere, fast.

I remember when the Amiga was miles ahead of the PC, and as the PC was catching up, the Amiga wasn't developed. When the PC overtook, the Amiga wasn't developed and again, as with early Psion devices, adding bits required more money than a person has on a day when even people with no money have too much money.

The difference here, however, is that the companies (Symbian is more than a reconstituted Psion) behind Symbian have learned from those errors. Part of this is that they have opened it up (despite what Andy said about it being closed, the actual truth is that it isn't closed, it is open).

This is why I am sure that professional and consumer customers can be confident that when they purchase a Symbian smartphone, they are purchasing a product that is designed for the device in which it is placed, not designed for a different form factor and squeezed into a phone.

I agree with your soap comment though. I haven't used a P800, but it does look a little odd (at least, not as sexy as the 7650). But the saving factor (as far as I am concerned) is the implementation of innovative technology that Sony-Ericsson plan to put behind the P800 (maybe they'll release a better looking model alongside the soap?).

In most horse races, there is indeed a winner, but not every horse can win on every circuit. Microsoft smartphones won't meet my needs so it won't win, but your circuit (ie, requirements and demands) may be different and a smartphone will be enough to meet them.

The human race is full if diversity, and as someone has already said, one size does not fit all. Enjoy the size that fits you, but please respect those of us who have a more demanding 'waistline' (I wasn't called Chubbergott because I'm all skin and bone y'know ;-) )

[Jason Dunn]

My only comment here is that I find it rather odd that people are criticizing the hardware and software of the Smartphone 2002 without any production-quality units shipping. As far as I'm concerned, you're making very ignorant statements. I got a little hands on time with the P800, and I liked some of what I saw, but I'm not presumptuous enough to make statements about stability without having really used it... 8)

[fundmgr90210]

My only comment here is that I find it rather odd that people are criticizing the hardware and software of the Smartphone 2002 without any production-quality units shipping. As far as I'm concerned, you're making very ignorant statements. I got a little hands on time with the P800, and I liked some of what I saw, but I'm not presumptuous enough to make statements about stability without having really used it... 8)


Can't necessarily speak for everyone else, but I wasn't criticizing Smartphone. Like I said, who knows? But having used a number of Epoc products (including Symbian smartphones) I'm not speaking from a position of ignorance in regards to stability.