Welcome Back Sendo [Archive] - Thoughts Media Forums

Andy Sjostrom

11-08-2002, 11:09 AM

It feels like we're already in the aftermath of <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=37906">yesterday's big news</a>. I am referring to Sendo bailing out on Smartphone 2002. I have for a long time enthusiastically waited for the Sendo Z100 phone to come out, and I am positive they would have done very well. It's sad to see them leave when the party just begun. Bottom line: this is a major mistake on Sendo's behalf, but perhaps it was unavoidable. From a hardware design reference and software platform point-of-view and regardless of whether we look at Symbian or Microsoft, it is obvious that phones are heading down the same path that PCs did in the late eighties: commoditization of hardware and fewer viable operating systems. Major drivers for this trend are demands for more efficient software development and Internet connectivity. This could become a long, long discussion... but let's head back to Sendo! It is not difficult to understand that a British, Swedish, Finnish or [insert-any-non-Asian-country-here] phone maker faces an enormous task to compete with efficient and high-quality factories in Asia. For a company like Sendo differentiation must and can happen at another level than pure hardware manufacturing and operating system development, and here is the heart of the issue: Sendo seems to believe that they can accomplish this differentation more successfully with a Symbian platform than with a Microsoft platform, which I fail to understand given the rich set of programming interfaces available to Smartphone developers. From a Microsoft point-of-view, I believe Sendo bailing out is a set back but not even a significant one. When giving this some thought, it would seem extremely strange if a paranoid software giant with mobile world-wide ambitions would place put that much weight in a British basket. Microsoft strategies and strategy execution is more clever than that. Back to the late eighties. Some companies placed their bets on Microsoft and some did not. We all know what happened. <!> The race is on and the race is long. I remember the year 2000 and the amount of media attention and discussions that different flavors of Symbian products and partnerships generated. I said then, as I do now, that Microsoft's main competitor in the mobile market is the Symbian consortium. Microsoft clearly needs to attract phone makers, carriers, get Smartphones to consumers and to the developer community to win. Although that must be this week's understatement, we know that the strategy is in place and has just begun to show results. The Orange SPV Smartphone, maybe one of the reasons why Sendo left, is extremely important but is just the first tangible result of a strategy with the following key elements: • An operating system known and mastered by millions of developers • State-of-the-art Software Development Kit and tool set based on principles known and mastered by millions of developers • Partnerships with phone/PDA making companies such as HTC leads to short time-to-market schedules for anyone looking to build phones (carriers) • A focus on a key player on the market (current state): carrier • In the mobile market, Microsoft is the only player with a proven ability to keep a platform together in all aspects. Yesterday's phones are what made the market today, and those phones are "dumb terminals". Moving forward it is the quality of much more complex phone platforms and software that will drive success. • The situation is familiar. Java, CORBA, IBM OS/2, UNIX, Linux, Netscape etc. Somehow, Microsoft performs at its best when perceived as the underdog and the main lesson learned is that dynamic persistence pays off. • Internet. None of the players in Symbian have shown that they have a clue what's going on in the connected world. As an example, Ericsson said just two years ago that Internet would die and that they were to build a "Futurenet" with their own switches. Cisco was discussed as a potential company to buy but quickly dismissed as an insignificant Internet startup... • Microsoft's massive resources that are patiently spent. Instead of partying on this strategy, Sendo chooses to fight it. In my opinion, Sendo blew it but is more than welcome back!

Philip Colmer

11-08-2002, 12:31 PM

It is interesting to compare the above view on what has happened, with this one:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/28000.html

--Philip

sponge

11-08-2002, 12:39 PM

Meh. Sorry, but I see this article as little more than MS FUD. There were legal, and programming issues (mostly concerned around customizability of the OS) around the relationship with Sendo's Smartphone, and Sendo didn't like that, so they took advantage of an open market and switched. Condeming a device just because it's not running MS, but in place, a proven OS for the task, which has a lot more capibilities than people give it credit for.

I'm all for rooting for MS products before it's released, but I'm not forr saying a device will be dead before anyone can use it, which is the impression I'm getting from this article.

I'd type more, but time is of the essence right now.

unxmully

11-08-2002, 12:41 PM

From the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2415603.stm

Leviathan

11-08-2002, 12:57 PM

It's a bit sad to see this site becoming an all around Microsoft campaigner. If it's not Microsoft than must be sh*t. Who said that MS development kit are polished etc etc has never really tried one. Before speaking it would be very nice that have some degree of experience with both OS, just looking at one screen and seeing "MS is prettier" just don't make sense. When you are not dealing with desktop pc, Microsoft, irrespective of their money, is just another player. It took three iterations to get a decent product called PocketPC, they pumped a lot of money into the professional version of the CE devices but apparently nobody bought one. The same applies to the tablet PC everybody is screaming about, seroiusly, how many people will buy at 3000$ portable because they can write with a pen on it? And the XBox? Any idea on how much money Microsoft is loosing on it? And please, wait for .Net, that will be a big blow. Ah, by the way, I guess that the millions of programmers you are referring to are for the Windows platform, because PocketPC is another story. It is good that not everybody gets paid by Microsoft to tell about how good they are, we still live in a free world! I wonder if I will be ever invited my MS at Seattle so I can change my idea as well.....

Cheers,
Lev

pete

11-08-2002, 01:09 PM

Unstrung writes: (http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=24014)
Meanwhile, analysts at Lehman Brothers say that the decision to "terminate a product on which it has invested most of its time and money over the past several years when it is just days from shipping it to customers, whatever issues there were between Microsoft and Sendo, must have been significant."

More comments:
Microsoft's Mobile Meltdown [Sendo tells MSFT to stick it] (http://www.siliconinvestor.com/stocktalk/msg.gsp?msgid=18209046) (This article is originally from www.thestreet.com)

jizmo

11-08-2002, 01:44 PM

Andy Sjostrom

11-08-2002, 02:11 PM

I never thought credibility would be brought up...

I lean on ten years of system architecture and development experience. My first encounters with Microsoft development tools took place in 1985, so one might conclude that I have "tried" "MS development kit". My system architecture efforts the last five years at a world wide IT services firm have given me insights and experiences in multiple platforms, so my opinions are based on a little more than "looking at one screen".

The Pocket PC and Smartphone is built on top of Windows CE 3.0 which is a sub set of Win32 APIs, known to millions of developers. The higher level of reuse of skill and code the better. Since Pocket PC and Smartphone application development is done using standards, tools and languages known to these developers there's a significant amount of leverage available to draw benefits from.

Let's stick to the subject and stay away from insults such as: "I wonder if I will be ever invited my MS at Seattle so I can change my idea as well....."

saquibk

11-08-2002, 02:12 PM

I second that, Leviathan.

I'm all pro-pocket pc, but I'm also conserned about this site becoming a place that just focuses on mindlessly promoting MS products and putting down all the others.

Whilst I realise that this site *is* a opinion site, I still feel that the overall credibility is at stake here if this site is just all about that. One-sided advertising, if noticed, tends to make people reject the rest of the text and even the smart observations by the writer, which is a shame.

I too have to agree. I can understand that many of the editors are now MS MVPs but please do not write such blatant MS propaganda. I have been a Windows developer all my life and have realised that though not everything bad said about MS is true, it certainly is no saint and neither are its tools flawless.

I have been a regular reader for a very long time and I think it would do a lot of good to this site to continue to provide opinions and not biased 'opinions'.

Leviathan

11-08-2002, 02:57 PM

I never thought credibility would be brought up...

cut....

Let's stick to the subject and stay away from insults such as: "I wonder if I will be ever invited my MS at Seattle so I can change my idea as well....."

I wasn't the one questioning your or this site credibility, but for sure there is lot more than just PocketPC bias around here. I didn't know that you have been to Seattle, a lot of people do and for sure is not an insult, maybe a secret wish of mine. I've been developing for Windows CE first then PocketPC not to mention the Windows platform that I've been programming since it was shipping bundled with certain applications, so I think even if I'm not a MVP (which, BTW do not qualifies for anything, sometime less than air miles collecting cards) I know my stuff pretty well. The fact that the same API, to say, to open a window in the desktop version of the OS is the same in the PPC do not mean anything to the vast majority of developers, developing and optimizing for a small screen with lesser memory, no keyboard etc it's something challenging even for die hard developers, so the API naming is just a small advantage. Even more, the model of the Desktop Windows API transported to PocketPC and SmartPhones it is not that appropriate. Symbian for example allows you to create threads (like WinCE) but even somwething much more powerful, the so called ActiveObjects, which allows you to work in OO manner all time without having to set callbacks, allow for event based programming (no messages) etc. There are other extremely useful things like cleanup stacks that help to keep track of unreleased memory, leakages etc which are so important to track in embedded hardware. None of these things and many other exists in the WinCE counterparts. Also, the OS eats so many cycles that the performance of a 206MHz ARM CPU running WinCE deliver the same performance of 106 Mhz ARM CPU running Symbian (this comparing a Compaq IPAQ 3630 and a Nokia 7650). What I like of PPC are the tools, which are not perfect, but show some degrees of interaction with the physical device and allow things like remote debugging, something that, at the moment, is not present in the Symbian SDK. These discussion based on "my computer is longer than yours" (replace "computer" with anything you like) reminds me when I was younger and we used to fight over the best computer being Commodore 64 or ZX Spectrum. Remember: telephones are NOT computers nor PocketPCs. This "use in your phone the software you already know [in the desktop]" is just low profile campaign. Telephones are used even and more by people that don't work with a computer and maybe don't even want to. Companies, like mine, that are not paid by a software producer to use a specific platform, just go where the market is: for desktop the clear winner is Windows and we are there, for palm devices the battle is still unclear but we prefer PocketPC for a number of reasons, for the telephones, sorry to Microsoft, better luck next time.

Cheers,
Lev

PhatCohiba

11-08-2002, 02:59 PM

This site is based on "Pocket PC" not UNIX PDA or PROPRIATORY PDA.

Of course it has a bias. People come here because the love their Pocket PC OS, think that ppc is a richer OS compared to the alternatives.

Its faster, sleeker, more programs, cooler programs, and and is backed by the best software company in the world.

I just bought a Sanyo 4900 PCS Vision phone which is a US 3g - CDMA based phone. I'm anoyed the the Pocket PC phones are $600 still while this phone with a color is only $100. I'd be all over a $300 smart phone. I'm frustrated by my new phone's email client, web browsing, and expandability. All of these are vastly better on the Pocket PC platform and I'd expect comparable performance on a ms smartphone.

Did you know that today there are NO high speed data phones from sprint or verizon (besides the pocket pc phones) that do either Bluetooth or IRDA?

I think the market is primed for a MS Smartphone. If I thought one was going to be available for under $400 in the US before next fall, I'd have waited before buying my current phone.

-John

ps. I really am disappointed by theattacks on Andy, go read his posts and you'll see he's very straight forward: http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/search.php?search_author=Andy+Sjostrom

Marc Zimmermann

11-08-2002, 03:00 PM

I too have to agree. I can understand that many of the editors are now MS MVPs but please do not write such blatant MS propaganda.
Actually, possibly putting things into perspective, Andy was working for Microsoft before he became a consultant for CGEY: http://www.cgey.com/focus/authors/AndreasSjostrom.shtml

Every MVP, though, has the right to have his own opinion. You can agree or disagree, but this is a place where Andy can post his.

I'd also like to point out that MVPs have a long history of being vocal critics of Microsoft, all across the product range. MVPs are respected for being independent minds and primarily recommend solutions that work, even if they're not from Microsoft. Especially in our internal discussions with Microsoft, the MVPs are tough lovers, providing customer feedback (and frustrations) to the development team.

Being both a software developer and MVP, too, I do agree that Microsoft stuff can simply be great and it also can be utterly painful. There are things that I absolutely love and others that I detest. All in all, I still think that with many products Microsoft still gets it right and their products are often better than those from the competition. Like all my fellow MVPs, I'm costantly giveing solid feedback to Microsoft in order to help shaping the "future product" with the real world customer in mind.

Kevin Daly

11-08-2002, 03:01 PM

Actually I didn't find it unduly biased.

I'm personally wary of taking the purported reasons for the Sendo pullout at face value. They seem to have been "coming real soon now" for an awfully long time, which suggested to me that they had hit technical problems. Changing horses at this late stage means that a great deal of time and money simply has to be written off, which is pretty drastic.
There seems to be a degree of inconsistency between invoking the software base available with Java and so on, and arguing that the Smartphone 2002 platform doesn't offer enough customisability...if your operators are insisting on a degree of differentiation that Smartphone 2002 doesn't offer (presumably in the operation of the user interface?), that's going to mean an awful lot of extra time and effort for developers trying to produce applications that work with multiple phones.
That might appeal to operators who dream of having the killer app that only runs on their own hardware, but we all know what killer app dreams are worth.
As a developer I will be attacted by a consistent user interface and execution environment that leads to porting code between phone makes involving as little trouble as possible (especially when and if the Compact Framework makes it to this form factor). The analogy with the initial spread of MS-DOS is hard to resist (when it appeared it was a mediocre operating system for a mediocre hardware platform, but it let people write applications for lots and lots and lots of boxes).
So when it comes to excessive constraints on differentiation, my personal belief is that either the operators are living in dreamland and failing to learn from the lessons of the past, or Sendo are perhaps being somewhat less than candid with us.
I suspect that either they made a complete botch up of their side of the development effort (and I'd be surprised if it was that bad), or (more likely) they decided that the Orange SPV release left them in an uncompetitive position and decided to cut their losses.
Or maybe they went to a party, had too much to drink, things were said...

Leviathan

11-08-2002, 04:19 PM

This site is based on "Pocket PC" not UNIX PDA or PROPRIATORY PDA.

I guess we all know that, so that's the reason why we come here, read and comment when possible. What I stated was that, in my humble opinion, I see a not so slight tendency in being agreable with anything that is Microsoft based and a general bashing of the rest of world. It is getting more and more a religious site on the lines of JavaLobby. I believe that sticking to PocketPC and Smartphone is a good idea, especially when this thing is done with some objectivity and by leaving the rest (Xbox, .NET, Magic Puppets etc etc) out would give more a focused idea of what PocketPCThoughts.com is all about, otherwise it will be labeled as another MicrosoftThoughts.com we don't really need of.

Cheers,
Lev

kennyg

11-08-2002, 04:21 PM

Who of you know anything other than what was published in either CNET or the Inquirer (about as acurate as the grocery store rag). Have any of you idiots talking about these devices used one for any length of time?

I've been dealing with both HTC and Sendo's smartphones for several months, and while Sendo had a huge lead in hardware design, HTC caught up easily, Sendo had HUGE problems getting a stable device put together, they just had no clue how to build something beyond a very simple B/W LCD handset.

Sendo was just out classed and they see the writting on the wall with other OEMs with more manufacturing experience entering the fray. I've talked to several others WHO ACTUALLY USE THE DEVICES and their opinions of Sendo are not good, hell, every other time I dock the Sendo device it re-sets itself. They are likely going back to a simpler device design that they can actually design and manufacture.

tamanaco

11-08-2002, 04:28 PM

This article tickled me a little bit too, but not because of the technical aspects of the platform. The technical aspects are sometimes biased by the familiarity of the developers with the specific SDK. I've been in the industry for over 25 years and have attended many meeting where "Brand Dilution" not software platform breaks a deal with MS. Let me just say that whenever you buy a Nokia phone you buy a NOKIA phone, when you buy a Sony Clie you buy a" SONY CLIE" not Symbian or Palm OS device. In the both of these cases the OS platform becomes irrelevant when it comes to branding the products. This, "most times", is not the case when it comes to products that use MS Windows or its derivatives as its software platform. MS insists on having one of their coined phrases used to identify any product that uses its platform. This allows MS to promote its brand using someone else’s product. Look at your computer... even is is made by IBM you'll probably find a little sticker that says "Designed for Windows". Maybe Sendo wants its phone to be identified as a Sendo Z100 "period"... not the SmartPhone 2002 "by" Sendo. There are many manufacturers that make mobile devices, but lately we refer to those that use the Windows platform Pocket PCs and those that use Plam OS... Palm based devices. The hardware manufacturer's name is not predominant... as in IBM PC. When you want to build your brand name as a manufacturer of a specific product, using someone else’s branding slogans dilutes your brand. I might be wrong here, but I don't know by name which mobile devices or phones use Symbian as a platform, but I can sure tell you which ones use a windows based platform. This is just my two cents; this argument might not have anything to do with what actually happened with Sendo/MS deal.

Leviathan

11-08-2002, 04:36 PM

Steven Cedrone

11-08-2002, 05:03 PM

Please take a moment to step away from your computers and relax. We don't have to turn this discussion into a war....

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

peterawest

11-08-2002, 05:21 PM

...I think it would do a lot of good to this site to continue to provide opinions and not biased 'opinions'.

Hmm. I thought it was a given that if someone expresses their opinion, it's automatically going to be biased. My thesaurus list 'View' as a synonym of 'opinion'. That being the case, it's clear that each of us is entitled to our view, including Andy. :D

Thanks for sharing your educated 'view' Andy. I appreciate that you took the time.

TrojanUO

11-08-2002, 05:38 PM

avoglio

11-08-2002, 05:46 PM

There are two types of phones in the near future:

1) Phones with basic PDA function
2) PDA with basic (or improved basic) phone function

While 1) has its focus on the phone part (yes, there are still people who use their phone to make just boring calls ... :wink: 2) enables its user to get all the data handled and provides mobile access via datacalls. Phone is secondary here.

The first option is dominated by Symbian OS. The second is the playfield, which MS tries to get a foothold. Palm is somewhere in between with tendency to the second goup. Actually the current battle will decide between wether people prefer group one or two. Thats it.

If MS wants to establish its SmartphoneEdition, it needs more devices like the XDA. Even better with a keyboard. So they might take a big step not to deal with phone manufacturers but with PocketPC manufacturers like Toshiba, HP and others. They have great marketpower as well and they might want to add functionality to their devices. Believe it, a combination of those players will overrun the phone manufacturers in mid-term.
Handspring showed it works. Treo is a Handspring with some phone support.

Go for it MS ! (and if you are successful, I wouldn't mind to get payed for that idea worth millions of dollars... 8) )

kennyg

11-08-2002, 05:50 PM

Have any of you idiots talking about these devices used one for any length of time?

....uhm I see the level of discussion getting hotter and more meaningful,

but thank you anyway for coming here and getting our miserable lives colorful again.

Oh, please next time don't forget to apply the latest patches and updates to your language and AI simulation engine, sometime they may help realize who is the real one.

Cheers,
Lev

I suppose I deserve that for the one unrational piece of diatribe included in my response. I suppose I should have said, you who are ripping the devices or the companies without any clue as to what you are talking about (e.g., Microsoft Smartphone software or the OEM devices or the actual facts of the case). But most like to point out these types of things and avoid the meaningful bits.

Kenny.

PhatCohiba

11-08-2002, 05:52 PM

Please take a moment to step away from your computers and relax. We don't have to turn this discussion into a war....

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

What are you talking about? Bud out Propeller boy :bad-words: !!! :lol: :wink:

Just kidding.... I actually enjoy a little spirited debate about this stuff, its not like 99% of my friends and family even understand or want to hear it.

I appriate KennyG's factual content, and Lev's attempts to keep us from "drinking the Kool-Aid" even if I don't like being called an idiot :twisted:

-John

ps. How many youngsters reading this have no idea what "drinking the Kool-aid" means :?:

Steven Cedrone

11-08-2002, 06:21 PM

What are you talking about? Bud out Propeller boy :bad-words: !!! :lol: :wink:

You mean butt out!! :wink: Actually, it's past 12:00 - I think I will have a Bud :beer:

Just kidding.... I actually enjoy a little spirited debate

Just trying to make sure the debate does not turn ugly...

Debate = good :way to go:
Flamewar = bad :devilboy:

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator

danmanmayer

11-08-2002, 07:30 PM

scottmag

11-08-2002, 07:44 PM

ps. How many youngsters reading this have no idea what "drinking the Kool-aid" means :?:

I use that expression a lot, but I wonder if it's getting a little dated.

Believe it or not I actually sold Kool-Aid for many years. Not at a road-side stand, the actual powdered product direct to grocery stores as a Kraft foods sales rep. We measured our sales in thousands of pounds by the way.

.... Now back to your regularly scheduled "spirited debate."

And for the record, I am Switzerland on this one. Just ship some fricken smartphones already.

Scott

TinMan

11-08-2002, 07:45 PM

Although I'm no longer a Pocket PC owner (moved back to Palm, at least for now), I am still interested in smartphones. However, this article, which I did not read much of due to IMHO a misleading lead-in, has me concerned that this Web site is not the place to go for smartphone information. I don't expect unbiased opinions at an enthusiasm site, but blind enthusiasm is not very good either.

Right from the subject, it is off base (unless there was something in the body of the article that makes "Welcome Back Sendo" seem appropriate--shouldn't it have been "Goodbye Sendo?"). I assumed the article had news that Sendo was back with MS's SmartPhone.

I hope this is taken as friendly criticism, but I do think this one was over-the-top. :)

-Mike

Wiggin

11-08-2002, 08:10 PM

I don't expect unbiased opinions at an enthusiasm site, but blind enthusiasm is not very good either.

umm, excuse me Mike... would you please explain the paper-thin difference between:
1) "a biased opinion" ("I don't expect unbiased..."?? you really should avoid double negatives ... looks bad on ya :splat: )
2) "blind enthusiam"
:?:
This is an enthusiast's site... whatya say we cheer the enthusiasm when offered! :way to go:

PhatCohiba

11-08-2002, 08:22 PM

NO company even wants microsoft in the cell phone market. Those that have gone along are basically doing it because they think that microsoft will take over.

If the current trends continue it could be years before there are more than a few smart phones... Microsoft is entering markets that they are not wanted in.

Who cares what the cell phone companies want! Isn't it what the consumer whants?

Is compaq or other PPC hardware vendors really that disappointed that they are making 40% margin on hardware without having to write the OS. Some hardware company (like HTC) would be happy to make a smart phone with microsoft owning the lions share of the phone os.

Those that do lean on microsoft may have some unsucessfull products, but eventually they will hit the lottery. I have no doubt that MS will end up owning a sizeable piece of phone OS business, if for no other reason that with the execption of linix, none of the other cell phones have the ability to provide a rich web browsing, email client, and streaming media.

Now if these other Phone OS's decided to build on a Open ended Linix core, allowing users to load Linix Software and customizations, that would be worth looking at.

sponge

11-08-2002, 08:22 PM

Meh. Sorry, but I see this article as little more than MS FUD.

I always find it funny that when someone says anything positive about Microsoft, it's MS FUD, but when you say something positive about anyone else, it's clear, honest, unbiased reporting.

Have I ever done that? No. Then don't quote me, then proceed to generalize stuff about me that's false. I went on to say that MS have done many right things in the past, but SmartPhone OS, from my impressions, hasn't been. And the fact the Sendo phone has been doomed to hell because it's running the largest OS for it's platform (as of now)

TinMan

11-08-2002, 08:28 PM

Ed Hansberry

11-08-2002, 09:07 PM

1) "a biased opinion" ("I don't expect unbiased..."?? you really should avoid double negatives ... looks bad on ya :splat: )
There is actually a difference between:
• I don't expect unbiased....
• I expect biased....
:)

someppcuser

11-08-2002, 09:30 PM

Microsoft doesn't seem to care:
http://www.wirelesssoftware.info/show1news.php/691.html

But hey! It's just PR bull***t, not really answering the question.

JonnoB

11-08-2002, 10:37 PM

I want an MS smartphone based device... I don't care who makes it. It is for this reason and the reported technical problems that I think Sendo got out. Eventually, if MS succeeds, I will get my MS phone and care less about who built it. I want an MS phone because I know it will most likely work with data that I use every day.

sweetpete

11-08-2002, 11:39 PM

I think your missing the fact that. NO company even wants microsoft in the cell phone market. Those that have gone along are basically doing it because they think that microsoft will take over. Not a setback.... Microsoft is small and nothing in the cell phone industry there entry has taken much longer than expected. If the current trends continue it could be years before there are more than a few smart phones... Microsoft is entering markets that they are not wanted in. They will make it in some lose in others. But with 40 billion in cash they can aford to loose... I mean mircosoft could spend tons and have nothing adopt it and just keep it going for no reason like sony did with beta max which they official stopped making like 2 years ago. No one used it but they pushed it anyway and they could afford to. You seem so brainwashed by microsoft to realize that they are pissing people and companies off. I don't want my XP to have microsoft access. I don't want them to know what computer i am on. I don't want them to know my hardware and software install. I just wanted a nice OS besides that i don't want there damn media player i don't want IE, i don't want messanger which i can't seem to get rid of. I know this is a microsoft propaghandi page (which i don't mind in the pocket pc world since they are by far the best) but just look around once and awhile.

This is so funny, I'm not sure where to start. I don't know why you say they are not wanted in the cell phone industry? If it's because Nokia, Ericsson, etc. don't want them ... no kidding. Who would want a competitor like Microsoft with a great success record in eventually getting things right in almost everything they do, and with $40 bil war chest?
On the other hand, what you seem to ignore is the consumer and the enterprise. When I worked for a software company that created enterprise software for phones and PDA's our customers screamed for better compatibility with Windows apps and more powerful devices. Also, as a consumer and an ex-salesperson of cell phones, I can tell you that my customers would constantly ask for better phones. Some people use phones as just that ... phones. Others want the information to be synched with the PC, PDA, etc. and to be able to play games and access the net with them. Microsoft is continuing on a long term strategy of convergence and providing compelling solutions across the board and the Smartphone is just another piece of puzzle ... it will succeed to have a good market and probably where it counts the most $$ wise, the enterprise and business markets. If nothing else, it will light a fire under Symbian's/Nokia/Ericsson et al. a$$' to give us the features and devices we want. I loved Nokia phones and design for a long time, but quite honestly, they have been stagnant in terms of providing new features for YEARS. Finally, in the last 6-12 months, they have started to come up with some innovative new ideas in their upcoming phones.
As a final parting point, you should get your facts straight about BetaMax. I'm pretty sure the reason Sony continued support for so long is not because they like to waste money and tens of years promoting something that is supposedly useless (yes, I know they lost they VCR standard wars) but because it was THE standard for years in professional and broadcast video (Jason, feel free to correct me here). This changed with the introduction of DV which is why they finally discontinued it 2 years ago.

Wiggin

11-08-2002, 11:50 PM

There is actually a difference between:
• I don't expect unbiased....
• I expect biased....
:)

...it was a trick question, you pass the test :way to go:

Cornerstone

11-08-2002, 11:54 PM

:?: Mike the TinMan went back to Palm? I have been following the PocketPC forums since the good 'ol days at Brighthand before the fallout, and that caught me by surprise!

Landis

11-09-2002, 12:20 AM

Also, the OS eats so many cycles that the performance of a 206MHz ARM CPU running WinCE deliver the same performance of 106 Mhz ARM CPU running Symbian (this comparing a Compaq IPAQ 3630 and a Nokia 7650).

This often spouted claim of the relative inefficiency of WinCE is just so much BS and shows YOUR bias on this issue. Dan East (father of Pocket Quake) has measured the processing draw of the OS (message handling, etc.) at 2-4 percent clock cycles.

I haven't seen anything that would suggest that the Nokia 7650 is performing comparably to an Ipaq 36xx. Arguably, the most impressive games on the 7650 use the Magic Game Station engine. They are good compared to other Symbian and Palm games, but they really can't compare to the best games on the Pocket PC like Interstellar Flames or Argentum. It's not just an issue of limited memory on the 7650 either since graphics quality is compromised in games with a fairly small footprint.

The games I've seen on the Smartphone2002 have looked far better than the best of the 7650 games. How could this be possible if, as you claim, the OS is half as efficient using it's 133 Mhz cycles?

Jason Dunn

11-09-2002, 12:22 AM

Guys, reality check time:

OPINIONS are BIASED. Period.

There's no such thing as an "un-biased opinion". There are INFORMED opinions, and UNINFORMED OPINIONS. If you know more about Symbian than we do, tell us how we're wrong. If you have a Series 60 phone and love it, tell us. :D

But do NOT harp on Andy, myself, or anyone else on this for site expressing our opinion, pro-Microsoft or otherwise. The site exists as a platform for opinion sharing (hence the name), and because we're pro-Pocket PC we obviously are pro-Microsoft to varying degrees. It just so happens that all of us really like what we've seen of the Smartphone 2002 platform, and we think highly of it. So what?

Get over it or don't come back - but don't complain that we're "biased". :roll:

Jonathon Watkins

11-09-2002, 12:38 AM

Who of you know anything other than what was published in either CNET or the Inquirer (about as acurate as the grocery store rag).

Come on - that's unfair to the Inq. They are usually right. OK - so they miss-call a few stories - but they have been right on the money in areas that are important to me. 8) They and the Register are VERY good for keeping up with what's going on in the IT world. 80% accuracy, 15% speculation, 4% humour and 1% wrong stories isn't doing too bad. :wink:

ThomasC22

11-09-2002, 04:35 AM

This is so funny, I'm not sure where to start. I don't know why you say they are not wanted in the cell phone industry?

Who cares what the cell phone companies want! Isn't it what the consumer whants?

I think your both missing the point. The cell. phone manufacturers are in bed with the carriers. Both of those companies don't want Microsoft turning the Cell. Phone market into the PC business where neither of those groups are relevant (and Microsoft Software is the only thing that is).

So, they block the consumer from getting it. Regardless of what the consumer or enterprise thinks. Then, even if Samsung makes a Smartphone2k2 phone, the benefits won't be enough (it isn't THAT much better) and the platform fails (they hope).

ThomasC22

11-09-2002, 04:53 AM

Well Andy, good article, but I'm going to have to disagree in a few places (if I might be permitted to ignore the 4 pages spent on bias and actually discuss what you said)...

From a hardware design reference and software platform point-of-view and regardless of whether we look at Symbian or Microsoft, it is obvious that phones are heading down the same path that PCs did in the late eighties: commoditization of hardware and fewer viable operating systems.

I don't really buy your contention that the Cell. Phone industry must follow the same path as the PC did. The PC is far less dependent on hardware design (does it really matter what size/shape your pc is?) than a cell. phone. This makes the hardware manufacturers much more important. Further, everyone has a difference preference as far as Cell. phone arrangement goes (key placement, color, etc...) where as PCs can pretty much be built from the same mold.

I believe Sendo bailing out is a set back but not even a significant one.

OK, here I actually agree with you I just wanted to, again, make the point that Microsoft's fortunes have been on the shoulders of Samsung and Orange since before Sendo took a hike.

The race is on and the race is long. I remember the year 2000 and the amount of media attention and discussions that different flavors of Symbian products and partnerships generated. I said then, as I do now, that Microsoft's main competitor in the mobile market is the Symbian consortium.

Well, Yes and No. I think, having viewed the White Paper, Nokia's Series 60 Platform (https://secure.forum.nokia.com/html_reader/main/1,32611,2471,00.html) will be Microsoft's main competitor. Based on the symbian OS but an entity in it's own.

Microsoft clearly needs to attract phone makers, carriers, get Smartphones to consumers and to the developer community to win.

That will be the problem, Cell. phone manufacturers don't want MS to win because they don't want their hardware being a commodity. Carriers don't want Microsoft to win because they lose their lucrative WAP deals (since IE is installed on the Smartphone2k2 platform).

• A focus on a key player on the market (current state): carrier

But for the reasons above, I think the carriers see it another way. I think the carriers see Microsoft taking money away from them.

• The situation is familiar. Java, CORBA, IBM OS/2, UNIX, Linux, Netscape etc. Somehow, Microsoft performs at its best when perceived as the underdog and the main lesson learned is that dynamic persistence pays off.

But keep in mind Microsoft is working against companies that have a similar list of kills and have been doing it for longer. Don't think that Nokia isn't just as competent as MS.

• Internet. None of the players in Symbian have shown that they have a clue what's going on in the connected world. As an example, Ericsson said just two years ago that Internet would die and that they were to build a "Futurenet" with their own switches. Cisco was discussed as a potential company to buy but quickly dismissed as an insignificant Internet startup...

It's still really undecided how the Internet will morph onto the Cell. phone screen. It certainly won't work in it's current state (viewing Web Pages on a tiny screen is not pleasant). The truth is something like WAP, not WAP, but something like it will probably still be the way to go. But the truth is, the internet on a cell. phone is not necessarily a foregone conclusion as it is. Internet on a cell. phone has never worked, the only time it's come close is DoCoMo and most people using that use it to play stupid little games.

So, my 2 cents...

Ed Hansberry

11-09-2002, 05:08 AM

...it was a trick question, you pass the test :way to go:
Cool. 8)
So, what do I win? :bday:

Ed Hansberry

11-09-2002, 05:11 AM

I heard today in the NY Times (Audible) that Sendo was now planning to release their Nokia series 60 based phone in the 2nd half of 2003! They spent all that time and money then jumped ship weeks before getting revenues from carriers. Are they publicly traded in the UK? I'd be curious to see what their stock did this week if they are.

Andy Sjostrom

11-09-2002, 09:08 AM

Thanks, ThomasC22, for bringing this on-topic again! :wink:
Excellent points but I see things differently:

I don't really buy your contention that the Cell. Phone industry must follow the same path as the PC did. The PC is far less dependent on hardware design (does it really matter what size/shape your pc is?) than a cell. phone. This makes the hardware manufacturers much more important. Further, everyone has a difference preference as far as Cell. phone arrangement goes (key placement, color, etc...) where as PCs can pretty much be built from the same mold.

I agree that people generally feel that cell phone hardware design is more important than PC hardware design. But that doesn't mean that cell phone hardware design and manufacturing can't change in how it's done today. Maybe commoditization is a misleading word for what I am looking for. I believe consumers will start to pay more attention to the software in the cell phones, and as software developers are being attracted to this market they need to know what they're programming for. A standardized set of hardware controls for the majority of phones will have to happen. The Smartphone 2002 standard does not state how the hardware should be designed, but it specifies what hardware controls that need to be in place (not where and how). This is one form of commoditization and as margins continue to go down and standards start to develop, manufacturing will become more cost efficient. Innovation, design excellence, and diversity will still prevail but standardization is a must.

Well, Yes and No. I think, having viewed the White Paper, Nokia's Series 60 Platform (https://secure.forum.nokia.com/html_reader/main/1,32611,2471,00.html) will be Microsoft's main competitor. Based on the symbian OS but an entity in it's own.

Well, Nokia Series 60 Platform is a Microsoft Smartphone 2002 competitor. We expect to see many more competing products/standards from both companies. The competition is on operating system level so in essence I believe that it's Symbian vs Microsoft.

That will be the problem, Cell. phone manufacturers don't want MS to win because they don't want their hardware being a commodity. Carriers don't want Microsoft to win because they lose their lucrative WAP deals (since IE is installed on the Smartphone2k2 platform).

I am not sure. Money rules. If a cell phone manufacturer can sell more phones with a Microsoft platform, and thereby make more money, I believe only an idealist would say no. With regards to carriers, I was right there with you a while back ago. But having met carrier reps and studied their view on where to get future revenues I don't agree. A carrier wants to make money. All carriers today understand that the majority of future revenues will come from data traffic. So, the phones that drive more data traffic are better. Being a premium Internet citizen, the Smartphone is to any carrier's liking. In fact, at the Swedish Smartphone launch all three major carriers in Sweden gave Microsoft thumbs up and referred to getting more data traffic.

But keep in mind Microsoft is working against companies that have a similar list of kills and have been doing it for longer. Don't think that Nokia isn't just as competent as MS.

Correct. Not only are they competent. They have got massive cash to throw around as well.

It's still really undecided how the Internet will morph onto the Cell. phone screen. It certainly won't work in it's current state (viewing Web Pages on a tiny screen is not pleasant). The truth is something like WAP, not WAP, but something like it will probably still be the way to go. But the truth is, the internet on a cell. phone is not necessarily a foregone conclusion as it is. Internet on a cell. phone has never worked, the only time it's come close is DoCoMo and most people using that use it to play stupid little games.

To most people Internet is IP, but they don't know that. :wink:
Users will want to be able to, somehow, use the Internet services they know and have come to rely on (e-mail, web, banking, chatting, etc) using their smart device. Service providers and developers are looking for ways to leverage on investments made in HTTP, XML, HTML etc. This is a long and interesting discussion by its own, but my conclusion is that there is only one Internet and it is the Internet. It is this ONE Internet that users want to connect to from anywhere.

Mark (NL)

11-09-2002, 04:58 PM

In my opinion the mobile market is not ruled by OS at all, but by the providers and their decision in supporting an OS or not (meaning will they sell the phones with their contracts), and there it is significant different from the PC or Pocket PC market. Now the key to those carriers is $, plain and simple! All European providers have had to make major investments in the 3G network frequencies, and are not seeing any money from that for quite some time to come… So I think there is the big opportunity for Microsoft to muscle themselves into the market. So don’t be too hasty with writing of Microsoft in the mobile market, they want in and have the money to back that desire!

As a former Psion user I wouldn’t mind to see Symbian prevail though <g> I loved their stable platform, just missed Multi Media support (but they got that covered now…) Will be an interesting fight to follow… Sony-Ericsson and Nokia vs Microsoft and drones <lol>

ThomasC22

11-10-2002, 01:57 AM

Before I begin, may I just say I would have replied sooner, but the e-mail notifications don't appear to working again. And in regards to that I would just like to say...

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Very Frustrating...

This is one form of commoditization and as margins continue to go down and standards start to develop, manufacturing will become more cost efficient. Innovation, design excellence, and diversity will still prevail but standardization is a must.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I see what your saying and certainly think standardization is a good idea but I don't know that it's a necessary one. It all boils down to the Cell. phone becoming a mini-PC and that isn't guaranteed in my opinion...as a matter of fact, right now it seems unlikely being no one seems to have any interest in using data services and at the same time providers don't seem to be able to find a way to finance these services. So it comes to the theory of "because we can do it we eventually will" which isn't always the case. We have the technology to keep cars from crashing into each other but no one has put the effort into implementing it because it's just too costly.

Well, Nokia Series 60 Platform is a Microsoft Smartphone 2002 competitor. We expect to see many more competing products/standards from both companies. The competition is on operating system level so in essence I believe that it's Symbian vs Microsoft.

I don't know, it's a po-tat-o/po-ta-to thing. I see the Nokia Series 60 platform being the competition...because the consumer won't know that SymbianOS or WindowsCE is below either of them and in the end this battle will be won and lost in name recognition.

I am not sure. Money rules. If a cell phone manufacturer can sell more phones with a Microsoft platform, and thereby make more money, I believe only an idealist would say no. With regards to carriers, I was right there with you a while back ago. But having met carrier reps and studied their view on where to get future revenues I don't agree. A carrier wants to make money. All carriers today understand that the majority of future revenues will come from data traffic. So, the phones that drive more data traffic are better. Being a premium Internet citizen, the Smartphone is to any carrier's liking. In fact, at the Swedish Smartphone launch all three major carriers in Sweden gave Microsoft thumbs up and referred to getting more data traffic.

The problem I see with this logic is that Microsoft doesn't really provide any revolutionary means of of accessing the internet quicker on a Cell. phone. Their relying on developers to use future technology (XML, et al) to make the web page resize and adjust to the device that is viewing it. But for now their only option is to access the full page on you're cell phone.

This is a problem because it is both (A) a bad user experience and (B) costly for the user unless the provider is offering unlimited data. But if the provider offers unlimited data then data services isn't that great a business. Hence the carriers don't win.

This, in my opinion, leaves Microsoft only one option and that is to appeal to the consumer. But on that note, the Smartphone 2k2 platform isn't THAT much better than other platforms so the question is what is the incentive for the consumer?

Andy Sjostrom

11-10-2002, 02:00 PM

The problem I see with this logic is that Microsoft doesn't really provide any revolutionary means of of accessing the internet quicker on a Cell. phone. Their relying on developers to use future technology (XML, et al) to make the web page resize and adjust to the device that is viewing it. But for now their only option is to access the full page on you're cell phone.

This is so fun! :D

The Internet is the same thing as the web to most people. So, when we talk about making the Internet mobile we should include web surfing. Personally, I am convinced that users will eventually make use of the web from mobile devices. But we shouldn't forget that the Internet more than the web. Data traffic drivers on the Internet today include online multiplayer games, chat, e-mail, and so on. I am sure that once the user start to expect Internet connectivity through mobile devices, the demand will come to reach their game profiles, chat rooms, e-mail and so on from anywhere. Data traffic is web surfing and a whole lot more. Carriers love data traffic as they have realized long time ago that voice traffic won't come near in financing their 3G investments. The track record of Nokia phones in terms of Internet connectivity is... sorely lacking. The first released cell phone with a Microsoft OS has most of its feature set evolved around Internet connectivity. This speaks volume to carriers.

Leviathan

11-10-2002, 03:34 PM

Carriers love data traffic as they have realized long time ago that voice traffic won't come near in financing their 3G investments. The track record of Nokia phones in terms of Internet connectivity is... sorely lacking. The first released cell phone with a Microsoft OS has most of its feature set evolved around Internet connectivity. This speaks volume to carriers.

Well at this point I don't really understand where do you get this sensations from. My company develops services specifically for carriers and when last month, together with two of the biggest carriers in Europe, we sat down to understand where the market was going, their reports and forecasts for the next two years didn't show a single figure that would sustain what you say. The carriers are investing in voice traffic because, exciting or not, this is what they make money from, and a lot of it. They expect the market of the so called SmartPhones to reach the 2% (two percent...) in 2003, that means that the vast majority of people would opt for a simple cellular than a smartphone. They are very cautios after being burned with WAP and even the MMS received a not so warm welcome in the past 4 months. Almost none of them is actually interested in deploying UMTS based services with the single exception of H3G, but this is really a new comer respect to the others and has to bet on a different market. As a tendency they prefer to have services developed for PocketPCs and Palms that eventually make use of a GPRS connection with a simpler telephone for the data but none of them seems to be heavily interested in SmartPhone bundles. Regarding Nokia being without Internet, I'm sure you have heard of the Communicator series, even if bulky and not nice as the actual offer, had internet based services far before Microsoft was thinking about doing one. Seriously, have a look at the Symbian OS a bit beyond than the icons it draws on the screen, you'll be surprised how nicer the implementation it is.

Cheers,
Lev

ThomasC22

11-10-2002, 09:11 PM

The Internet is the same thing as the web to most people. So, when we talk about making the Internet mobile we should include web surfing. Personally, I am convinced that users will eventually make use of the web from mobile devices. But we shouldn't forget that the Internet more than the web. Data traffic drivers on the Internet today include online multiplayer games, chat, e-mail, and so on. I am sure that once the user start to expect Internet connectivity through mobile devices, the demand will come to reach their game profiles, chat rooms, e-mail and so on from anywhere. Data traffic is web surfing and a whole lot more. Carriers love data traffic as they have realized long time ago that voice traffic won't come near in financing their 3G investments. The track record of Nokia phones in terms of Internet connectivity is... sorely lacking. The first released cell phone with a Microsoft OS has most of its feature set evolved around Internet connectivity. This speaks volume to carriers.

Well, but see this is where the problem lies. For data services to generate significant income they must (A) be used by the consumer and (B) be billed by the minute (or Kb). But data services are not mature enough to justify the money the consumer would spend being billed by the minute (because customers become outraged by slow web sites, etc...) and consumers don't embrace per Kb programs because most don't even know what a Kb is and people don't like being billed on a basis that is an intangible concept to them.

Corporations may buy into the idea of needing data servicse but what corporations probably don't see the point of is neat color screens and cool games so if I'm a corporate manager I'm looking at page networks and devices like the blackberry because it's both a better user experience for simple messaging (by sheer virtue of the keyboard) and cheaper.

So what Microsoft is doing is aiming for a bunch of targets and not quite hitting any of them. (which is not to say I won't end up buying one ;))

ThomasC22

11-10-2002, 09:14 PM

Regarding Nokia being without Internet, I'm sure you have heard of the Communicator series, even if bulky and not nice as the actual offer, had internet based services far before Microsoft was thinking about doing one. Seriously, have a look at the Symbian OS a bit beyond than the icons it draws on the screen, you'll be surprised how nicer the implementation it is.

I really am no big fan of the SymbianOS but I do have to agree with you in that, sadly, Nokia is very good at targeting their devices for what the carriers seem to want (Even if that conflicts with what consumers want).

Actually, now that you have me thinking about it, it seems to me Nokia seems to maintain their balance by targeting their software for the carriers and their hardware for the consumer (e.g. very small, built in camera, etc...) Probably a gross over simplification but interesting to me at least...

Leviathan

11-10-2002, 09:51 PM

Actually, now that you have me thinking about it, it seems to me Nokia seems to maintain their balance by targeting their software for the carriers and their hardware for the consumer (e.g. very small, built in camera, etc...) Probably a gross over simplification but interesting to me at least...

Actually Nokia makes a lot of hardware and software for the carriers themselves and that defitively will have some plus when they need to muscle somebody else out (i.e.: MS). As MS, they need to do lot a of work to convince the carriers to accept the telephone powered by their OS. Then, sorry, but I don't really understand why, in your opinion, anybody else except Microsoft makes the things that the user wants and the rest of the companies work against the user?

Cheers,
Lev

ThomasC22

11-11-2002, 09:49 PM

Then, sorry, but I don't really understand why, in your opinion, anybody else except Microsoft makes the things that the user wants and the rest of the companies work against the user?

Well, I didn't necessarily mean that but the truth is I do think Nokia is more closely aligned with TelCo's then consumers. Hence their focus on cell. phone technologies (MMS, WAP, etc..) and less on IP technology.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Nokia doesn't build great devices I'm simply saying they are a very focused on cell. phones and are in a lot of ways ignoring the rest of the Internet EVEN IF it would provide a better solution.

Leviathan

11-11-2002, 10:19 PM

Well, I didn't necessarily mean that but the truth is I do think Nokia is more closely aligned with TelCo's then consumers. Hence their focus on cell. phone technologies (MMS, WAP, etc..) and less on IP technology.

I don't think that MMS or WAP really constitutes a different choice over IP. MMS is built over WAP and WAP is built over IP. Technically MMS are sent using WAP Push which is based on IP (it returns an URL, the telephone connect to that URL and download the message, this can be done with any IP capable terminal). So in the end they are just protocols over IP. The only exception are SMS, the rest is IP based. Most of the terminals are capable of handling GPRS connections and this opens the doors to free IP connections (in terms that you can connect to any IP service available on the net, not just to the carrier's portals). I think it's more the carriers that are not pushing for data, in GPRS a megabyte costs about 60$ to download, some carriers like Wind provide a flat rate at 18$ but the largest one are still very expensive. When rates will be cheaper, I wait for the day where somebody will create a sort of VOip software for handset, that will make carriers very upset.

Cheers,
Lev

ThomasC22

11-13-2002, 01:31 AM

Well, I didn't necessarily mean that but the truth is I do think Nokia is more closely aligned with TelCo's then consumers. Hence their focus on cell. phone technologies (MMS, WAP, etc..) and less on IP technology.

I don't think that MMS or WAP really constitutes a different choice over IP. MMS is built over WAP and WAP is built over IP. Technically MMS are sent using WAP Push which is based on IP (it returns an URL, the telephone connect to that URL and download the message, this can be done with any IP capable terminal). So in the end they are just protocols over IP. The only exception are SMS, the rest is IP based. Most of the terminals are capable of handling GPRS connections and this opens the doors to free IP connections (in terms that you can connect to any IP service available on the net, not just to the carrier's portals).

Actually I meant SMS not MMS, as for WAP (and I shouldn't have said it wasn't IP which it is) I simply don't think it's very consumer centric. It was an attempt on the carriers part to dominate the mobile internet and it wasn't designed very well.

Then again, Microsoft's way requires the user to enter a URL on a cell. phone which is just as bad...

Well, there's always the Ignition companies(http://www.ignitionpartners.com/home.asp), in Brad Silverberg I trust :)