Nokia Takes Control of Symbian

jpatokal writes "CNN reports: Nokia has bought out Psion's share of Symbian, pushing its stake in the mobile phone OS to a dominant 63%. This means rivals like Siemens and Samsung may now pretty much be forced to choose between proprietary Nokia or Microsoft technology. Symbian may be the more open of the two, but GPL it ain't - does Linux now have an edge?" We reported on a rumor to this effect late last year.

Comments

No, not yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...does Linux now have an edge?"

No, No, No, NO! This has been discussed so many times it is unbelievable. Linux on your handheld is for people who want to run X apps remotely, ssh into their routers/servers etc. It is NOT (yet) for folk who want to simply write e-mail, update a calendar, play games and synchronise with a windows machine. Sorry, but it just isn't ready for this market area yet. Every year we hear how "200x is year of the Linux desktop" and every year we get excuses, lack of support from big vendors and API change problems which make porting apps a nightmare.

What "Linux on a PDA" needs is backing from a big vendor with plenty of cash to back it up. The only way this is going to become a reality in a fast moving sector such as PDAs is to play in the big arena with the giants (Microsoft and Nokia).

Consumers usually choose the phone design...etc

[wongqc]

Having used both types of handset before, I personally feel that the Symbian OS is more user friendly, and better. But ulimately, I believe consumers usually take more into consideration the phone design, weight, stylish factor....than the OS features. As much as I would love to buy a linux phone, it first has to appeal to me in terms of looks and design, and the easy availibility of third party apps.

Re:Open != effectiveness

[n()_cHIEFz]

I agree, PalmOS is superior in the handheld market and it's proprietary. OS X is another expample, not everything is open.

I think the point, us nerds would like to be able to hack our phones like we hack on our computer systems. One could do some interesting things with an open phone OS...

Re:Open != effectiveness

[Ami Ganguli]

Um, the idea of controlling quality and maintaining old code isn't what Open Source or Free Software have traditionally been about at all.

The original drivers were:

• The desire to share code (and with GPL-style licenses, the desire to have others return the favour by sharing back)
• "Free as in Freedom"
• Not getting locked-in to proprietary companies
• Doing something useful with software you would have written anyway, but don't want to commercialize

I'm sure there are more, but controlling quality and maintaining abandonware have never been very high on my list and I'm surprised you think they were ever what Open Source was about.

Re:Microsoft not a competitor to Samsung/Siemens

[tverbeek]

Samsung and Siemens are now essentially being asked to license an OS from, and pay fees to, their largest competitor.

They are still partial owners of Symbian. And they've been paying these licensing fees to Nokia, Psion, Ericsson, Panasonic, and each other, all along. Financially speaking the only change here is that that Psion's share is now Nokia's. That's signficant to the other licensee/owners, but it's not as if Nokia had just bought Symbian outright. Financially it makes more sense to license the software from a company you co-own than one you don't.

The main thing the other owners have lost here is the ability to (collectively) veto Nokia in the boardroom and determine the direction of development and licensing terms... also signficicant, but again not the same as a buyout.