Log in

View Full Version : Hidden Complexity Of The Cell Phone Market


Ed Hansberry
08-08-2006, 12:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://blog.laridian.com/?p=17' target='_blank'>http://blog.laridian.com/?p=17</a><br /><br /></div><i>"In the latest PC Magazine, Michael Miller writes about the cool new things happening on mobile phones and opines that “consumers should be able to pick applications regardless of phone or carrier.” This is a wonderful idea, but is idealistic to such a degree as to be laughable. This fact doesn’t escape Miller’s attention. He adds: “There are multiple impediments: a bunch of different platforms that developers write for, a bunch of different phone makers, and four big national wireless carriers that want to control the applications on your phone.”</i><br /><br />The article goes on to discuss Nokia, which seems to have done a fantastic job of starting with a basic platform and then heavily fragmenting it, much the way Unix was fragmented beginning in the 1970's. Even Windows Mobile is seeing some fragmentation. At a minimum you have the Pocket PC and Smartphone, but beyond that, you have multiple resolutions on both platforms that cause problems with some software. Even Microsoft's own Voice Command doesn't work right on WM5 VGA devices. I think to some degree, the problem with Windows Mobile in this area is carrier/OEM freedom to innovate. Laridian has had some problems supporting the QWERTY keyboard in the <a href="http://blog.laridian.com/?p=12">Moto Q</a> the way they can on the Pocket PC because of it is difficult to even figure out what hardware the device has from the application.<br /><br />It seems we have a choice. We either get the really cool devices today that leave some developers pulling their hair out over particular devices implementing particular features, or we get the very uniform, if bland, set of devices like we had from 2000 to around 2004, right before screen resolution and keyboards became big differentiators. What is ironic is it is exactly this type of fragmentation that I claimed hurt the Palm platform with developers during those same years, with Palm, Handspring and Sony each modifying the platform so much that Textware Solutions threw up their hands in frustration and <a href="http://www.fitaly.com/board/palmfitaly/posts/5083.html">cease PalmOS development,</a> at least for the time being. I am sure they aren't the only one, but they are probably the most visible and vocal about it.<br /><br />Let's hope that the Mobile Device development group strikes a balance between encouraging/allowing innovation and ultimate compatibility that results in cookie cutter devices.

PDANEWBIE
08-08-2006, 01:16 PM
The problem is there isn't any cross compatibility in devices/software. Very few technologies/developers allow for a "workaround" to be implemented to allow the end user to accomplish what they want to on any device they want to. What is sad is it all comes down to "standards" which people just don't want to use they always want to think their implmentation is the best.

Imagine if there weren't standards in power plugs. In Cable TV to wall plugs? Imagine if you went out tomorrow and ofund 32 different types of gas?

Ugh make a standard stick to it and always if possible allow for workarounds.

This is what the end users want not some device/software they have to "settle" on.

whydidnt
08-08-2006, 07:09 PM
I don't think it's fair to compare where WM is headed to what has happened with the PALMOS. PalmSource allowed licensee's almost free reign when it came to modifications of key user interfaces such as the input panel. Many modified the OS like crazy and then never provided developers with API's or instructions on how to code to the modifications. In addition some licensee's seemed to change the rules with each new device released. Developers would no sooner finish fixing thier software to work with the Tungsten T and Palm would release the T2 with a whole new set of rules, despite the fact the OS was essentially the same.

As far as I know this has not/will not happen with WM devices. MS has provided tools and a solid set of "rules" to allow developers to code to a set of standards, while allowing for some device variety at the OEM level. If they hadn't done this, we would all still be using our Axim X30's with 3.5" screen and the umpteen clones that existed at that devices release. They HAD to open up the standards, because there was very little left for manufacturers to innovate or differentiate on otherwise.

crairdin
08-09-2006, 04:56 PM
I don't think it's fair to compare where WM is headed to what has happened with the PALMOS. PalmSource allowed licensee's almost free reign when it came to modifications of key user interfaces such as the input panel. ....
As far as I know this has not/will not happen with WM devices.

It has happened on the Motorola Q (http://blog.laridian.com/?p=12). It's impossible to tell that the number keys on the Q don't have letters like a phone number pad does, and that the user has a full keyboard. Motorola replaced the Microsoft code for keypad input.

To add insult to injury, they insist on saying that the Q runs WM5 when it doesn't.

Craig

Ed Hansberry
08-09-2006, 06:02 PM
To add insult to injury, they insist on saying that the Q runs WM5 when it doesn't.
It does. Windows Mobile 5 is a platform that comes in two flavors. Windows Mobile for Smartphone (the Q, the T-Mobile SDA, etc.) and Windows Mobile for Pocket PC. The Q is definitely running Windows Mobile 5. The only other thing it could be running is Windows Mobile 2003SE for Smartphone, and it definitely isn't running that.

crairdin
08-09-2006, 06:12 PM
To add insult to injury, they insist on saying that the Q runs WM5 when it doesn't.
It does. Windows Mobile 5 is a platform that comes in two flavors....

It's great that the experts like you and me and others in this forum can figure out the nuances of Microsoft's inane marketing department, but the average person can't. The Pocket PC and Smartphone run two different operating systems. Calling them the same is like saying that we've solved Mac vs. PC compatibility by calling them both Windows 2006. The fact of the matter is that the Q can't run many/most apps that were designed for Windows Mobile 5, and that Windows Mobile 5 Pocket PCs can't run many/most apps designed for Windows Mobile Smartphone. What they choose to call the two different OS's is irrelevant.

Craig

Ed Hansberry
08-09-2006, 06:25 PM
To add insult to injury, they insist on saying that the Q runs WM5 when it doesn't.
It does. Windows Mobile 5 is a platform that comes in two flavors....

It's great that the experts like you and me and others in this forum can figure out the nuances of Microsoft's inane marketing department, ...

Whoa... back up a second. I didn't say I figured it out. I simply memorized it. I still don't understand it, and get a chuckle every time I see Windows Mobile 2003 Second Edition for Pocket PC Phone Edition.

I have memorized "E=mc2" too, but I didn't figure it out nor do I understand it. I am a bit iffy on the E, m, c and maybe the equal's sign. I am all over that "2" though.

Same with Connection Manager. I have NO CLUE how that thing works or why it does what it does, but I've memorized the buttons to push to get it to do about 80% of what I want.

Sven Johannsen
08-09-2006, 10:44 PM
[The fact of the matter is that the Q can't run many/most apps that were designed for Windows Mobile 5, and that Windows Mobile 5 Pocket PCs can't run many/most apps designed for Windows Mobile Smartphone. What they choose to call the two different OS's is irrelevant.

So I guess we should have four distinctly different names for Windows XP Home, Pro, Tablet and Media Center. They are all built on the same basic base, just as WM5 is. So there is a version for PPCs and a version for Smarphones. I like to think the consumer that is interested enough to add functionality to his device is also smart enough to figure out what it is. What doesn't help is OEMs that can't figure it out. The Treo is not a Smartphone regardless of what Palm advertises...it's a PPCPE.

crairdin
08-09-2006, 11:13 PM
[The fact of the matter is that the Q can't run many/most apps that were designed for Windows Mobile 5, and that Windows Mobile 5 Pocket PCs can't run many/most apps designed for Windows Mobile Smartphone. What they choose to call the two different OS's is irrelevant.

So I guess we should have four distinctly different names for Windows XP Home, Pro, Tablet and Media Center. They are all built on the same basic base, just as WM5 is. So there is a version for PPCs and a version for Smarphones. I like to think the consumer that is interested enough to add functionality to his device is also smart enough to figure out what it is. What doesn't help is OEMs that can't figure it out. The Treo is not a Smartphone regardless of what Palm advertises...it's a PPCPE.

The difference with XP is that programs written for XP Home run on XP Pro, Tablent, and Media Center (assuming they don't take advantage of unique features of one platform, such as pen input or the TV tuner). With Windows Mobile Pocket PC vs. Windows Mobile Smartphone there are large issues that make it so that some/many/most apps can't just hop from one platform to the other.

This is fine as long as you call them "Windows Mobile Smartphone" and "Windows Mobile Pocket PC". There will be some confusion but it's not insurmountable. But when you label both "Windows Mobile 5" and leave off the qualifier, you absolutely guarantee confusion. Especially when you just kind of start calling the old Windows Mobile Smartphone OS "Windows Mobile 5" without making it clear what the differences are, and especially when there was already something called "Windows Mobile 5" that definitely didn't run on Windows Mobile Smartphones, which is what the Q is.

It seems obvious to me that it all goes back to Microsoft's inability to put themselves in the position of a customer and name their products appropriately. If you go back to the early days of Windows CE you had Handheld PC and Palm-size PC. They were both Windows CE but there were boundaries. Now that you have Pocket PC, Pocket PC Phone Edition, and Smartphone, Microsoft has created two semi-distinct platforms that overlap a lot.

The question is, why intentionally create the confusion? Of course it's a moot point now because it can't be fixed without introducing yet another naming convention!

Now.... this thread started with some examples from Nokia. Consider this boneheadedness: If you have an application that requires Nokia Series 60 Edition 3, there's nowhere on the phone that a customer can go to figure out if it will run on their phone. The phones don't have an About box that says "Series 60 Edition 3". The only solution is for every developer to maintain a list of all phone models on which their software might be compatible, and to keep that list up-to-date as new phones are introduced, which happens fairly frequently.

So it's not just a Microsoft problem.

Craig