Mobile Carriers Cry "Less Operating Systems"

A NYTimes story says "Multiple systems have hampered the growth of new services, mobile phone executives say. " The story does a good job of capturing some of the changing dynamics in the mobile OS market — but rightly raises the point that given the sheer size of the mobile market, it's unlikely we're going to see the homogenization we have in the desktop market.

Comments

Shome mishtake shurely?

[Vollernurd]

"FEWER" systems! "FEWER"!

I know they have trouble adding-up, but jeez...

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Apple Acolyte]

How in the hell was this post marked redundant? And did the Times really make such an awful grammatical mistake?

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[scumdamn]

I logged in JUST to type the same thing. That grated on my eyes something fierce. I thought "Might they mean 'less operating system' as in a smaller one?"

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[doggkruse]

THANK YOU!

For those who don't get it, fewer is for things you can count, less is for things you can't.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[antoinjapan]

$ less operating systems
operating: No such file or directory
systems: No such file or directory

Cygwin doesn't like it either.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a perceptual problem: The carriers regard operating systems as something of which you pour varying quantities into a phone so that it works just well enough to produce a maximum amount of revenue for the carrier. Note how some mobile phones come with many useful functions disabled? Sometimes you can't upload ringtones from the computer, for example. Well, that is "less operating system".

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[HTH NE1]

And did the Times really make such an awful grammatical mistake?

If they did, they have since corrected it in the linked story. The title here may have been an accurate quote from the linked story's headline before making it to the front page. If true, I recommend Slashdot not fix it to "fewer" but rather adding "[sic]" to the headline here.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was modded redundant because there was three posts all saying the same thing when I got here.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Zelos]

Maybe they only count PalmOS as half an OS?

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

So you're saying theres so many OS's around that you can't count them?

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[PMuse]

And did the Times really make such an awful grammatical mistake?

I don't know about "awful", but it is wrong. "Operating systems" is a count noun, not a non-count noun. To be sure, fewer people will recognize that it's wrong (and fewer still will know its name) than if the Times had made a common error, like substituting a possessive for a contraction, but that doesn't make it right.

Instead of less mistakes, we should strive for fewer.

--not-your-friendly-neighborhood-grammar-snob
(That'd be my sweetie.)

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[rbunker]

Thank you for this. "Less" vs. "Fewer" errors have become my bete noir (circumflex implied) lately.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[ColdWetDog]

It's like this right?

Slashdot would be less annoying if there were fewer grammar Nazi's.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[alisson]

Perhaps they're counting 'operating systems' a single entity, like 'hair' or 'grass' or 'cocaine!' So when they say less, they don't even necesarilly mean smaller, just less data total. So you could shave off a palm OS here, half of windows ME there. It all works out perfectly, because if there's just no windows at all, how can it have gaping holes? :D

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

try

Slashdot would be less annoying if there were fewer grammar Nazis.

Apostrophe Nazi and proud!

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[bonefry]

Article demands a new tag: monopolywanted

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[mr_walrus]

less is more! :)

didnt realize /bin/less required its own operating system...

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is ludicrous. What? I mean, decide on that operating system your gonna use in the company for your products, or offer a choice. How hard can it be when your reeling in millions to make this decision. Just silly.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[1u3hr]

did the Times really make such an awful grammatical mistake?

of course not. The Times' headline is "As Mobile Phones Grow More Complex, Carriers Insist on Fewer Operating Systems". Typos happen, but never like that in a newspaper headline. The blame is 100% on the illiterate Slashdot editor (regardless of what was submitted, editors are supposed to be quality control).

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fool (and a dick) if you get worked up about such a minor 'error'. Let me guess, you are a fan of Elements of style?

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archive s/004147.html

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[dankrabach]

...and don't call me Shurely.

Sorry, had to do it.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Futaba-chan]

If they did commit such a solecism, they've corrected it by now: "As Mobile Phones Grow More Complex, Carriers Insist on Fewer Operating Systems" is what appears in TFA at the moment.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Hoi Polloi]

I'm a real stickler. I still insist that all of my scientific papers be written in Latin.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[anothy]

no, you're confused. the article is about the growing momentum behind Windows Mobile. the mobile operators are searching for a solution to their desire for a system which operates less.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolute hilarity.

I love watching the legion of armchair linguists crawl out of the woodwork every time an article includes what is erroneously believed to be a grammatical error. It's just pure comedy.

Here's an idea... Burn your copy of Strunk & White. Why? It's a steaming pile of crap. Reading that book does not make you a master of english grammar, from whose high throne you can look down on the snarling masses of illiterate philistines, laughing. No. Reading that book actually tends to turn people into blithering idiots who get their panties in a bunch over utter bullshit. That's what happens when you read the work of hypocrits... men who thoroughly failed to even consider their own advice.

God forbid anyone do any research. No, no, no. It's far better to parrot the same incorrect, wholly invented rules that were parroted to you. If you actually did some research on the matter, you might find that the use of "less" with countable items dates back at least a thousand years. God fucking forbid.

For those who would like to read something cogent on the matter instead of parroting falsehoods in holier-than-thou voices, this subject is occasionally covered at Language Log. Take a gander at this article for a start.

That's all. We now return you to your regularly scheduled feeding frenzy.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Ruvim]

Nope, they just want the phone systems not to operate so much!

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

In contemporary English, less is for uncountables, fewer is for countables. People who use these words differently will be met with ridicule. Nobody can force you to use them the "right" way, but you're still an idiot for not knowing or not respecting the rules of the language as it is spoken by your fellow citizens.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[treeves]

. . .like the sign in the grocery store checkout that reads: "10 items or less". Aaaaaaagh!

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[don_bear_wilkinson]

That is more correct, grammatically.

However, my actual sentiments are along the lines of "Slashdot [the World] would be a better place if more people bothered to use language well." :)

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[don_bear_wilkinson]

FYI - you can fairly easily represent extended ASCII characters in HTML.

Format: & # 123 ; (without spaces: ampersand, hash, numeral, numeral, numeral, semicolon)

A quick lookup of an ASCII Table shows that _ _ ('e' with a circumflex) is ASCII 136.

EDIT: Looks like /. does not allow use of the the extended character syntax in the "HTML Formatted" template. Between the two underscores above I put in the necessary char code, but I'm not seeing the character in the post preview. Oh well. Nevermind.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[sydb]

I believe it's usually "more cocaine!", never "less".

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[Anonymous Coward]

No silly, the mobile carriers are not crying `less operating systems`
... they are crying "less operating systems"

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[doggkruse]

no, the opposite

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[cgenman]

I'd make fewer generalizations, but I have less time to address this than I would like.

It must be because I have less money in my pocket and fewer scruples, but I'll just leave it at this.

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[baeksu]

To be sure, fewer people will recognize that it's wrong (and fewer still will know its name)

Don't you mean "less people"?

Re:Shome mishtake shurely?

[PMuse]

Don't you mean "less people"?

No, actually. Because we can speak about "two people" or "thirty-seven people," it qualifies as a count noun. "People" is just a non-standard plural. Of course, it's not uncommon to hear some one say, informally, "less people", but the rule says that it should be "fewer people."

Like many rules, this one is a good candidate for bending (unless you happen to be a major news periodical). YMMV.

Well, I wish...

[Anonymous Coward]

...they were crying "fewer operating systems."

Extremely basic language usage

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be "Fewer", not "Less".

I like the way the admins like to call themselves "Editors", when they wouldn't stand a chance in any kind of real publication. Pathetic!

Re:Extremely basic language usage

[Anonymous Coward]

It is slashdot, after all. Foul language, that, they know.

Answer

[pubjames]

The answer is simple and obvious but unfortunately unlikely to happen: The mobile companies should collaboratively work on a single OSS operating system, which they can all use as a base, and then build their own stuff on top of that. It would be better for everyone (apart from the companies that make operating systems of course).

Re:Answer

[Erwos]

This sounds great on paper, but I'm reminded of J2ME - all the apps get coded down to the lowest common denominator, rather than actually getting something that takes advantage of your phone. For instance, compare the J2ME and Windows Mobile versions of Google Maps - the latter is just far better, even though the J2ME version could conceivably run on the exact same platform.

However: I do think that non-smartphones will see a common Linux variant as their base in the future, with J2ME on top. I just don't think it'll happen in the higher end of the market, where SymbianOS and Windows Mobile will continue to fight it out.

Re:Answer

[CockMonster]

They do. It's called Symbian OS.

Re:Answer

[Tet]

The mobile companies should collaboratively work on a single OSS operating system, which they can all use as a base, and then build their own stuff on top of that.

Perhaps. But despite what the article claims, the problem is not a proliferation of operating systems. The problem is a proliferation of userland APIs. If the phone presents a consistent API to userland programs, then the underlying OS is irrelevant. To an extent, the mobile world has a standard API in the form of J2ME. But it's far from universal, and support is patchy, so an app written for one phone may or may not work on another phone. And of course, J2ME isn't necessarily the best choice of API in the first place. But your single OS solution could still potentially suffer from the problem of multiple APIs, so that in itself isn't a complete solution. I'll admit that it would probably help the situation, though, and agree with you that it's unlikely to happen.

Re:Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

What REALLY makes me LMAO with this thread is that this is EXACTLY what you all rail against on the desktop, where y'all get a glowy feeling imagining a world with hundreds (or thousands) of different desktop operating systems.

Here the cellphone operators are telling you that this is a bad thing, and, ironically, you're by and large agreeing with them... Why not tell them that every vendor should pick their own linux distro that they can customize and install and be unique? Afterall, it's EXACTLY what you'd all do if the platform in this article were PC's instead of mobile phones...

-AC

Re:Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

GG you just owned half of Slashdot readers.

Re:Answer

[iguana]

And it's terrible.

"Inside Symbian: the Platform Nokia Secretly Hates"
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/0 2/05/139207

I used to work for a company (Extended Systems, now iAnywhere) that developed on Symbian. It's a horrible development platform from what I was told.

Re:Answer

[pubjames]

What REALLY makes me LMAO with this thread is that this is EXACTLY what you all rail against on the desktop, where y'all get a glowy feeling imagining a world with hundreds (or thousands) of different desktop operating systems.

No, I don't. In my perfect word there would be one or two core OS, and they would be OPEN SOURCE. So, there is nothing ironic about my viewpoint.

Re:Answer

[illegalcortex]

Turns out a mobile phone is not a desktop. Pretty shocking, I know.

Re:Answer

[saikou]

So do you want J2ME for MIDP 2.0? Or MIDP 1.0? Or do you want BREW from Qualcomm? 1.x or 2.x or 3.x?
No matter what you choose your APIs will multiply like rabbits. Because people want something better, something that was not thought about during development of previous revision/version/variant of API, something that cause a giant in-fight leading to exclusion from current standard etc.
While it would be lovely to have one standard platform I doubt industry would agree to restrictions that come with it. You have people running around with old phones, do you think they'd agree to give up their "precccioussss" for a new model, even if it's better and runs standard API (whichever that may be?) I don't think so.
So, it'll remain in "Oh wouldn't it be nice to have NNN" folder, unless some extra-hyper successful platform/API wins them all at once.

Re:Answer

[jadavis]

The problem is a proliferation of userland APIs.

Right. The root of the problem is a lack of standardization. Each company wants it's own proprietary interfaces to everything, and that practice made them some extra money in the short term. Now they're whining because customers are expecting more and they have no standards upon which to build.

Take any major engineering achievement and you will see lots of open standards beneath it. The carriers want the lock-in without the inherent engineering limitations; big surprise.

Re:Answer

[CockMonster]

It's different sure, it could be better but horrible no. That article about Nokia hating it was written by a guy fired from Nokia and who has a grudge against Symbian. Take it with a pinch of salt

Re:Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Odd. Look at my post modded -1 despite being the same message but with more information backing it.

Re:Answer

[jacksonj04]

The mobile *carriers* shouldn't care what OS the phones run on. If it runs Symbian, OS X or Windows Mobile they need to carry the same data. GSM is a standard, as is EDGE and GPRS.

Phone *providers* I can understand, because they need to have standards for things like image exchange.

Re:Answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, no...

There should be, perhaps, four or five different operating systems, competing with each other. If they'd all be viable enough, there would be a push toward inter-OS standardization, and they would come up with a compatible API supported by all of the operating systems, so that third party software vendors would not have to choose a single operating system to support, and people could choose their operating system based on true merit rather than established market share - and thus, by extension, established third-party support.

This would also fix the problem complained about in the article.

Re:Answer

[dgatwood]

In the computer world, we pretty much have that. It's called POSIX/SUS. Too bad Microsoft didn't get the memo... and it's too bad that there's still not a decent cross-platform standard for GUIs....

Re:Answer

[6]

When has there ever been a single OSS variant of anything?
Linux: There is no single OSS Linux OS instead dozens of distros with no two people meaning quite the same thing when they say, "Linux". Heck some won't even say it preferring instead to run, "gnu/linux."

Editors: Emacs vs Vi, and don't even get me started about ed man, "it's the standard editor."

Even the term OSS is fraught with peril. To some OSS is fighting words. They believe in Free software and will fight to their last breath for it.

Speaking as a mobile developer, www.mywaves.com I would love to see a truly open platform for phone development. So far though most of the ,"Linux", based phones I have seen have been locked up pretty tight by the carriers. While I guess it is a moral victory that the locked down inaccessible one of ROM in that phone is build on the Linux kernel instead of say Motorola's latest it is a pyrrhic victory at best and has little impact on me the developer.

Strange as it sounds, "Windows Mobile", may be the most open platform out there for phone development and that is a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the mobile world if ever there was one.

Re:Answer

[renoX]

That depends how you define OS, but being 'Open Source' and only having 'one or two' versions is incompatible: look at the mess of Linux distribution with different packaging, frameworks, etc.

well

[mastershake_phd]

If/when there is one mobile OS they will be crying MORE, MORE!

Re:well

[rtb61]

I don't get it either. As the service providers, you would think there only concern should be protocols and they should be operating system agnostic beyond that.

Sounds to me like they are trying to ensure only they should be able provide services for mobile phones connected to their systems.

It also hints at pressure being applied by one particular OS (whose name I wont mention, easy guess) supplier to keep out a new OS supplier, Apple, whom the not to be mentioned supplier considers an extreme threat in the consumer market.

Especially after the IPod vs the Zune (or was that Edsel) music player, debacle, and which the Iphone seems likely to turn into an even more one sided slaughter.

Good!

[Tony Hoyle]

it's unlikely we're going to see the homogenization we have in the desktop market.

I sincerely hope so. More competition -> better products.

Right now if a mobile phone gets popular it's because it has features that more people want, not because 'everyone else uses that one'. That's the way it should be.

Now if only we could get the desktop market to behave that way.

Re:Good!

[fireboy1919]

Except the razr, which looks pretty but has almost no features to speak of and breaks easily.

That ones popular because they've made a dozen pretty version of it. That phone is being treated like an accessory to an outfit rather than something to talk to people with.

If that trend continues, we'll end up with phones that you can't actually use with a plan...because they don't actually do anything except make cool noises (i.e. you can't communicate to other people with 'em).

Re:Good!

[penp]

If that trend continues, we'll end up with phones that you can't actually use with a plan...because they don't actually do anything except make cool noises (i.e. you can't communicate to other people with 'em). Like boost mobile?

Re:Good!

[Dan Slotman]

Similarly telling is the fact that many cell phones don't let you upload your own software, and cell phone companies tend to regard the idea with skepticism. And who can blame them really—I won't pay for a tetris program I could easily write myself.

Re:Good!

[teh_chrizzle]

Right now if a mobile phone gets popular it's because it has features that more people want, not because 'everyone else uses that one'.

a mobile phone gets popular because it's "pretty". case in point: the razr which is functionally worthless, hella expensive, and in the purses or pockets of nearly every human in the continental united states.

Re:Good!

[eln]

I bought the razr because I could keep it in my pocket and not even feel that it's there most of the time. It works out very well in that regard.

On the other hand, it does crash a lot more often than you would expect from such a feature-poor phone. However, from a physical standpoint it's hard to get it to break.

Personally, I'm thinking of trading it in for something a little more feature rich. I figure, if my phone is going to freak out and reboot itself in the middle of a conversation once or twice a month anyway, it might as well have more features.

Re:Good!

[L0rdJedi]

Ours (my wife and I) did this. Or should I say mine did this when we first got it. Turned out to be a bad battery. We basically swapped batteries for a few weeks. She thought I was nuts until it happened to her. I use my phone a lot and she uses hers very little. Once it happened on her phone, we knew it was the battery. Took forever to get a replacement. It was such an odd problem that customer service kept wanting us to swap the batteries and see if it happened again. Yeah, it happens rarely, so of course it'll do it while you're on the phone with customer service. Anyway, we ended up having to talk directly to Motorola (our service is through T-Mobile) and they sent us a replacement battery.

Aside from the phone being slow (I don't pay attention to what the screen says most of the time, it catches up eventually), we haven't had any other problems. Of course, since it's slow, you have to be careful when dialing numbers, otherwise it sometimes misses a digit.

Re:Good!

[Thaelon]

You're full of it. I've had a Razr for over a year and as a phone it works really well. It fits nicely in my pocket, has no external antenna and gets fantastic reception. What features are you looking for? It runs java apps, supports bluetooth headsets AND file transfers, takes pictures, has a built in calendar, address book, and can text msg. As for breaking easily, mine has survived being wet to the point that all the internal got-wet indicators have been tripped and I've dropped it several times and it still works.

My only complaints with it are that the screen gets full of pocket lint, the OS sucks and the phonebook is essentially a flat file.

I'll admit it's probably over accessorized, but as a phone, it works better than most.

Re:Good!

[Angostura]

In the UK the Razr is just about the cheapest tri-band phone with bluetooth - the two features I need. Which is why I bought it.

Re:Good!

[Kardall]

I support this thread... almost

The Razr is one of the best phones on the market today. Just because a small amount of phones are defective and the seller/dealer/provider will only repair a phone that has a blatant manufacturing defect in it, doesn't mean that all phones are like this.

Out of every 20 grey Razr's I sell on Telus, there is about 1 bad one, and it's a problem one. For every 10 Pink Razr's I sell there's a bad one. I don't know what they did to the pink ones but... meh.

I bought one myself, and to the person who said it has no features, you cannot compare all Razr's across all providers. It cannot be done.

Every provider does things differently. Now as I say that here's what the Razr on Telus has.

Digit Dial (by number/contact)
Picture and Video recording/messaging
Text Messaging
Sends and Recieves Phone Calls
Bluetooth
MP3's with use of a datacable
Java built in

What it doesn't do:

Television/XM Radio/Mobile Music
Amp'd
no expandable memory (but that's what the Krzr is for)

It is extremely durable, it has a metal casing which is more than the other models Telus sells. It has the best reception out of any Dual Digital phone Telus currently provides in my opinion. I have gone into areas that every other phone either has no service or switches to Analog, and it gets service with no bars or 1 bar.

The only other phone Telus offers that is almost as good is the LG 8500 (Chocolate). Similar reception, but is easy destroyed (plastic). I have had more problems with Telus' 8500 than I care to mention. However, I still have my Razr and I worship the ground Motorola walks on. They make quality goods, and I will always stand by Motorola.

Re:Good!

[Tony Hoyle]

The razr is small (you hardly know it's in your pocket), cheap (can be bought off contract for £100 now), works well, and is popular for just that reason.

It fulfils a market need - therefore it's popular.

Slashdot geeks that want bricks that run linux and have every feature under the sun are a *very* tiny minority of phone users.

Re:Good!

[orielbean]

My last razr came with candy inside! I haven't heard anything from my bill collectors in weeks, so that's a win-win for me! Candy & no calls!

Re:Good!

[drinkypoo]

Except the razr, which looks pretty but has almost no features to speak of and breaks easily.

Hello! You do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

I have a RAZR V3i. I've made some pretty major drops to it, some on the corners and some flat. It's barely even been scratched. I'd say the RAZR is at least twice as scratch-resistant as the V555, my last phone. The only thing that's ever happened to it when I've dropped it is the battery cover flies off.

Also, it has all the features I need in a cellphone, and is missing only two I am at all upset about. There's no MMAPI camera support, which means I can't use semacode etc. And there's no GPS. But in a phone this size, who does that surprise? The camera API support is the only bummer to me.

The phone has the usual Motorola office tools, and it has software to support all of the hardware (mp3 player with tag support, camera with some silly filters, and video camera which I have tweaked to allow me to record long video clips, about two hours.) What more am I supposed to need?

Re:Good!

[PitaBred]

When did a 5-10% un-recognized manufacturing defect rate become acceptable? Is it ok for 5% of stoves to spontaneously catch fire? Even something more benign, would you be ok with 5-10% of your pieces of paper being unable to work in your printer?

I don't have a Razr, nor have I ever owned one, but damn, that sounds like a hell of a lot of customers being ripped off...

Re:Good!

[gEvil (beta)]

Sends and Recieves Phone Calls

I'm amused that this is listed as a "feature" of a telephone.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

He may have been familiar with earlier revisions of the RAZR. I was working at a mobile gaming company and I remember when we got our first RAZR, shortly before they started shipping. We found out in short order that the hinge on it was critically weak.

The operating system was also critically weak -- but when talking about Motorola in the mobile space, that's pretty much a given anyway.

Re:Good!

[drinkypoo]

The operating system was also critically weak -- but when talking about Motorola in the mobile space, that's pretty much a given anyway.

Sure, it doesn't do much. Motorola is evaluating Linux for the purpose of replacing their crap OS by putting Linux on a few phones and releasing them to the public, so I suspect that's the answer. I plan for my next phone to be a Motorola Linux-based phone, because honestly I think Motorola does the best job designing the hardware. I bought the RAZR because I remember the original StarTAC and I have not been disappointed.

Re:Good!

[teh_chrizzle]

i guess phones are like text editors. i think texting on a moto (of any kind) is frustration incarnate. nokias are my first choice, and my LG is decent now that i have been using it for over a year.

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

When you have accepted that phones need feature lists, anything goes.

Re:Good!

[Kardall]

I put that in there because someone was saying they just wanted a phone that makes phone calls. :P

Re:Good!

[Kardall]

Actually, Failure Rates or acceptable defect rates are scary. Today's world has throwaway technology out the yin yang. If you cannot see that they want a product to basically outlive it's cost to produce by as small a margin as possible, so you can feel you got your money's worth and go buy another one... well wake up please. The company's figure out how long it takes for a product to die, or how many out of their production line (quality testing) are defective. Then they design their return policy and/or repair policy based on those figures. If you buy a Razr, and it dies in 2 months, and Motorola's value for producing that phone was worth 1 to 1.5 months of service, they will not feel bad for you at all. You will have to get another phone. Now that is harsh, but it's probably more along the lines of 2 years of life span out of a cellphone with normal usage excluding physical damage or liquid damage. I don't know, ya it may be pretty hardcore mean of a company to do it, but it's the business and society we live in today. Throw away technology reigns. I know i've sold a lot of phones, but trust me when I say, that it's very hard to take that number of broken phones and put them into a manufacturers defect, and how many of them were actually caused by the user, and it slipped by. You can drop a phone and jar the port on the bottom, and fix it yourself. Then bring it into a store and say "my plugin won't go in." and we send it off for repair. They may fix it thinking a pin may have been bent, causing you to not be able to plug it in, and you forced it in causeing the damage. Therefore their minds go "Manufacturers defect of a $0.05 part ... ya we'll fix it. Not worth making the customer mad saying they have to buy a new phone."

But what is good

[physicsboy500]

We need to look at the desktop market and ask ourselves "what degree of unity is good?" In the desktop market Microsoft has taken over to a degree that they can release software that will just barely get people by and overcharge for it. There is some competition but Microsoft has a dominating market share.

On the other hand we have a cell phone OS market which has no unity and is therefore much harder to develop for. While a move towards unity is good, we must keep in mind that a complete monopolization would still be bad

Re:But what is good

[MightyYar]

But as a consumer, why should I care about how hard a market is to develop for? Are the prices a little higher? Maybe, but nothing like what they are under a monopoly. Price out Microsoft Office or Vista and then price out the most expensive thing you've ever purchased for your cell phone.

Say what you will about Windows

[morgan_greywolf]

Say what you will about Windows on the desktop, but the homogenization of the desktop OS is one of the main things that accelerated the growth of the PC. I'm not saying that it would be good for the mobile market by any stretch of the imagination -- one of the reasons we have so many OSes is that we have so many devices, each targeted at different tasks.

However, in my mind only one OS could possibly fill the bill for all mobile devices, and that's Linux. Linux is easily and readily modifiable, not just by license, but by the way it's grown into a modular kernel that's fairly platform agnostic these days, one that can be stripped down to the tiniest sizes if necessary.

If I had one mobile OS to choose from -- well, Linux would be it. And it's not just because I'm a Linux-using geek, but because it really is the best tool for the job.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[Vexorian]

err, under that logic, wouldn't Apple have had an even bigger advantage?

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[queazocotal]

I feel the same way.

I've been reluctant to buy a new MP3 player, because there was no supported linux (native) one.

Now, I'm getting a http://wiki.openmoko.org/ Neo1973 phone, come late march, when they go on sale.

Completely open-source, though not ready for end-users at the moment. GPS (the GPS bit needs reverse engineered to remove a tiny bit of closed code), quadband GSM, nice dispay.

MP3 player, phone, trip computer, guitar tuner, games platform, ...

You're only limted by your imagination. (and the hardware).

http://rapidshare.com/files/18781887/rect.avi A one hour talk by one of the creators of the OS, OpenMoko.

The reason a phone maker - FIC - is interested in this is simple.

At the moment, they are one of several firms asked to bid to make a new phone from Nokia et al.

This makes little money.

If they can get into selling phones directly to end users, then they make _far_ more profit. Even if other people start releasing OpenMoko phones.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That still doesn't address the architecture issue, both software and hardware. I'm almost certain that ARM is the thing to use, but there are so many variations on it that I don't know if testing them all is feasible.

There isn't a good standardization system under Linux to provide anything that looks like the homogenization that you suggest. Every distribution does a lot of things a little differently than the next, and if every carrier makes their own, I can see that the flexibility is a double-edged sword.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[Aim Here]

"Say what you will about Windows on the desktop, but the homogenization of the desktop OS is one of the main things that accelerated the growth of the PC."

Do you mean the growth of the PC in the 1980s, with all those DOS clones that have since died, or the growth of the PC in the 1990s, with about 4 flavours of Windows to choose from, not to mention all the x86 unices that were being born around that time? The PC was about the only major desktop machine in those days with a choice of OS, and the hardware itself was even more heterogenous.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[mnmn]

How do you know it's the best tool for the job?

Linux takes way too much space for an embedded OS and REQUIRES a 32-bit cpu. It's also quite complex and therefore better suited to larger and more featureful devices. Even there, the numerous distributions lack of standards and standardized packaging and nonstandard GUI hampers it.

That's the reason why PalmOS, Symbian, QNX and wxworks exist. Not to mention eCos, uOS, FreeRTOS etc. Linux is not simply the best tool for the job. Linux is the best tool for certain jobs, the rest will require you to choose. The mobile market is just too diverse to standardize.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[L0rdJedi]

4 flavors of Windows that were all mostly compatible with each other or at least looked the same (if we count from Win95, NT, and 98). You could throw Windows 2000 in there too since it was technically released in 1999.

Anytime before that and there was only 1 version of Windows. Windows 3.1 and later 3.11 for Workgroups. Those were essentially the same version of Windows though.

The growth of the PC market can be attributed to that and the fact that PC prices plummeted during that time.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[vertinox]

Say what you will about Windows on the desktop, but the homogenization of the desktop OS is one of the main things that accelerated the growth of the PC.

Umm... No, it wasn't the ubiquity of Windows, but rather the fact that it ran on almost all common (cheap) hardware. The reason the Mac failed in the 90s was because they didn't allow anyone to make clones, but Windows ran on cheap generic hardware (Intel, AMD, and even Cyrix... remember them) and anything could usually run on it.

So it was decentralization that helped it along with the likes of Dell, HP, Compac, and even crap systems like eMachines and Packard Bell.

Actually, I'd argue the flaws surrounding the Windows OS actually created a support and repair market to the likes humanity has never seen.

I'm not saying this is a bad or good thing, but it created jobs for thousands if not millions of computer technicians around the world.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[dfghjk]

"However, in my mind only one OS could possibly fill the bill for all mobile devices, and that's Linux."

In order to arrive at the right answer you have to be considering the right question. It's clear, and the market proves it, that you aren't.

Linux may desire to scale optimally to the smallest devices but that doesn't mean it's optimal at doing so. Furthermore, many manufacturers won't consider the GPL. Linux is only a kernel as well and UI is critical to mobile devices.

There are plenty of platforms as good or better at configurability for small devices than Linux and they don't carry the burden of the GPL. Linux is free on the front end but manufacturers may not be willing to pay its back end costs.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[falcon5768]

No they were not. Same base? Yeah, but they all had their quirks and where all not compatible at all.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[semiotec]

since when does Apple allow others to poke under its drawers to have a look around and fiddle with?

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[ArsonSmith]

"...not compatible at all."

Come on now. I am as much a Linux zealot as the next Slashdot'er, but even I have to say that most versions of Windows were better then 90% compatible with each other. Incompatibilities were the exception not the rule.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[bjourne]

Linux is a kernel! Talking about it in the context of mobile devices as an Operating System makes no sense whatsoever. Just as it makes no sense in a desktop context either. What distro? Ubuntu? RedHat? Suse? What desktop environment? KDE? GNOME? XFCE? Mobile devices work exactly the same way. Closest to the hardware you have the kernel. On top of that you have different low-level API:s, such as the telephony API, memory API, solid state memory API, bluetooth API etc. On top of that you have the more userlandish API:s such as PIM, addressbook file system and (*shiver*) DRM. But for application programmers all these details are hidden away behind a more or less standards compliant implementation of J2ME with a Java Virtual Machine.

That is what carriers are whining about. The huge fragmentation in J2ME makes it very, very hard for them to distribute and support multi-platform Java applications.

Linux is just one piece of a gigantic puzzle. It is definitely not the most important piece. Mobile manufacturers, for obvious reasons, do not have to support gazillions of different pieces hardware like a normal PC does so the kernel can be kept relatively simple. Rumors has it that some manufacturers are already planning on using Linux. But do not expect that to make any difference whatsoever. Your phone will continue to be the carrier-frozen, locked-down DRM beast it is today.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[DrSkwid]

lol, you are amusing.

How did you evaluated all the other alternatives, for instance Inferno or Plan 9 ?

Lucent use RT plan9 in their Cellphone base stations so I'm pretty sure it can cope with being on a handset.

How did the two comapre to Lunix ?

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[drinkypoo]

Linux takes way too much space for an embedded OS and REQUIRES a 32-bit cpu.

If you're not using all the features of the kernel you can strip it down (2.6 is even more modular than previous) and get it under a megabyte. You can use fbui and for another ~50kB get a gui with a window mangler in the kernel. uClinux runs on more limited systems (including those without MMUs). It runs on several 16 bit platforms, for example H8 300S.

It's also quite complex and therefore better suited to larger and more featureful devices. Even there, the numerous distributions lack of standards and standardized packaging and nonstandard GUI hampers it.

There is no support for your argument that it is better suited to larger and more featureful devices, because again, you can strip portions out of it.

Since these aren't desktop devices, your complaints about desktop linux are utterly irrelevant.

That's the reason why PalmOS, Symbian, QNX and wxworks exist. Not to mention eCos, uOS, FreeRTOS etc. Linux is not simply the best tool for the job. Linux is the best tool for certain jobs, the rest will require you to choose. The mobile market is just too diverse to standardize.

All of those exist because Linux was not ready to do those jobs (or didn't exist) when they were created. Many of them have no reason to exist now, except that they are better-supported than Linux (a correctable problem) or that they are FAR smaller, in which case they are not really suitable for a mobile phone either because you will have to develop too much of the software. Which is why we use operating systems and don't just write one big program.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[drinkypoo]

Lucent use RT plan9 in their Cellphone base stations so I'm pretty sure it can cope with being on a handset.

And Microsoft uses Windows Server 200x to run Exchange which Windows Mobile devices cunnect to, so I'm pretty sure you could put Windows Server 200x on a cellphone.

Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever either.

Are you talking about reliability? Linux is used, well, everywhere.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[DrSkwid]

I meant the RT part, it's the same codebase.
I'm pretty sure that Windows Mobile doesn't share much source code with Vista.

Whereas I know that plan9 and plan9 RT are virtually the same. I watched Sape Mullender do a talk on it.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[drinkypoo]

Gotcha. All has become clear. There's not much difference between linux with and without realtime, is there? (Not that rtlinux is, from what I hear, the equal of other rtos packages. But I could be misled there too.)

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[DrSkwid]

as far as I can tell it's all down the the scheduler.

The guys at Bell Labs were pleasantly surprised to find that adding hard timing limits to plan9 was quite painless.

As they were desiged from the outset to be distributed plan9 / inferno would make ideal handset OSes.

Never gonna happen. We're stuck with Symbian and WinCE for a while yet.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[rjstanford]

Actually, I'd argue the flaws surrounding the Windows OS actually created a support and repair market to the likes humanity has never seen.

This is actually a good thing for an industry, I believe. Look at Oracle (I'm thinking specifically of the DBMS). In many ways it was far inferior to its competitors, like DB2 and (especially) Informix. Hell, it didn't even come with a hot backup program for many years, and it still needs a ton of nursemaiding (comparitively). However, those flaws created a consultant pool, and those consultants, when asked, didn't hesitate to recommend Oracle to everyone. Fast-forward, and most people in the Enterprise space use Oracle. Go figure.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Homogenization of the desktop OS has crippled the growth of the PC and ensured inferior products.

The carriers are whining because they want the power to customize the OS so they can charge fees to unlock built in features and make phones less portable across carriers. More operating systems means that the have to spend more money to squeeze their customers.

Re:Say what you will about Windows

[RobertM1968]

Say what you will about Windows on the desktop, but the homogenization of the desktop OS is one of the main things that accelerated the growth of the PC.

You mean because each new version forced on people requires 2-4 times the hardware for a negligible gain in security and functionality? I dont see that as accelerating the growth of the PC market. The price drops as MS obsoletes relatively new hardware allowing people to buy entry level systems is what accelerates the growth of the PC (market).

I'm not saying that it would be good for the mobile market by any stretch of the imagination -- one of the reasons we have so many OSes is that we have so many devices, each targeted at different tasks.

No - that is not the reason, I personally prefer stability, ease of use, decent utilization of my hardware (ie: P100 or better), security and configurability - unless you categorize those as "devices"... "tasks" - but I dont... eComStation, Linux or MacOSX fit those bills (for me) - but not Windows Anything. Now, in one respect, you are correct (IMHO), which is gaming... then I (almost exclusively) run an XP machine.

However, in my mind only one OS could possibly fill the bill for all mobile devices, and that's Linux. Linux is easily and readily modifiable, not just by license, but by the way it's grown into a modular kernel that's fairly platform agnostic these days, one that can be stripped down to the tiniest sizes if necessary.

If I had one mobile OS to choose from -- well, Linux would be it. And it's not just because I'm a Linux-using geek, but because it really is the best tool for the job.

Perhaps, but you havent cited enough reasons why - yes modifiability, open source nature and so on may make it seem like a great platform for it, but phone manufacturers and wireless carriers are in this to make money... which you cant off the apps, extensions and OS derived from Open Source. Gotta cover some of those production costs in whatever way you can. AND... non-Linux solutions allow the developer (ie: company) to protect their intellectual rights on the software they developed - unless they are using entirely closed source tools and libraries to write the stuff - which would add to the development time - and thus the cost. Having a universal mobile API is one thing, but writing the newest and best widget/applet/whatever to run on my phone, and then having to release it to my competition isnt good business practice if I am in business to make as much money as possible by charging a reasonable cost for what my products do. Keep in mind, that income, those profits, go towards future R&D as well as future design.

Just my 1.7 cents.
-Robert

Our needs

[daemonenwind]

What we need here is a good, old-fashioned monopoly.

You know, something we can praise for setting standards and reducing overall expense now, and hate for existing later on.

Re:Our needs

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah. another monoculture is exactly what we need. and throw in some drm for good measure.

I bet it wouldn't be such a problem...

[RootWind]

I bet it wouldn't be such a problem if they just left out the crippleware in order to nickel and dime us.

cell phone companies have hampered the growth more

[Joe The Dragon]

Will all of the lock down, lock in, and prison sentences (aka 1-2 year cell phone contacts)
I once tried to get a windows mobile phone and they said that you must pay for 2 years for data + voice to get it at the deal price.
T-mobile is cutting off data / internet to non T-mobile apps on some of there phones.
others lock down Bluetooth to force you to use there network, and some have internet data limits.
The I-phone is cool but they only want you to use payed for apps on it.

Ah-diddums.

[MROD]

You have to feel for the poor mobile telcos.. They have to work so hard supporting a number of operating systems on phones so that they can hobble them and make sure that their customers are wrung of every penny they can be.

Now, instead of crying about possible missed new lock-ins because it's too much effort to write the shackling software they should just shut-up and let the phone makers produce phones that the public want rather than those designed purely for the mobile telco's mean, narrow minded, penny pinching marketing departments.

Re:Ah-diddums.

[Danse]

You have to feel for the poor mobile telcos.. They have to work so hard supporting a number of operating systems on phones so that they can hobble them and make sure that their customers are wrung of every penny they can be.

QFT. I mean, where would they be if they couldn't charge me 10 bucks a month for an extra feature that costs them essentially nothing? What we really need is for cell companies to get the hell out of the phone business.

Re:Ah-diddums.

[krbvroc1]

You hit the nail on the head. The Cellular carriers are being slowed because of the extra customization required to disable all the useful features that cut into their profits. It takes 10 times longer to disable the capability for the owner of the phone to load their own local ringtones, use their own Wifi or Bluetooth on 10 different phones rather than 1. They've got to test all those crippled permutations which slow time to market.

Re:Ah-diddums.

[Rolgar]

I wonder how much of their hand wringing/whining is due to number portability. Now that people can change more easily from one carrier to another, is this a result of them trying to retain the customers they now have to compete for, but don't want to.

I'm torn, as a non-cell phone user about the way that the government allows large conglomerates to bid up the price of the spectrum with two ill effects. One, it prohibits small carriers from competing well with larger ones, and it keeps the prices of plans up, since the carriers have to charge a high enough price to get back the money they've paid to the government, which basically works as a large, expensive tax on cell phone users. Too bad there isn't another way to go about allocating bandwidth that the government didn't decide to earn billions of dollars on.

Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

These companies refusal to reuse existing standards and use of proprietary tech has hampered progress. Good thing that the PDA/Phone and portable A/V unit are converging.

Less != Fewer

[RugRat]

Mobile Carriers Cry "Fewer Operating Systems" not "Less Operating Systems". RTFA or pay attention to grammar in your next life.

Waaaaah!

[turnipsatemybaby]

Oh poor carriers! Boo hoo hoo!

They're just upset because they put a lot of research and development into stripping the features out of phones that they find inconvenient, and having multiple systems means they need to spend that much more in tech so that they can hamper the new devices similarly.

I mean, they CAN'T just let the phones be, can they? If they did, then the phones would have the out-of-the-box capability to transfer ringtones and wallpapers 'n whatnot directly from people's PCs, or from web sites OTHER than the carriers!

New OSes have *nothing* to do with the fact that adoption is being hampered. It's the greed of the telcos that are hampering things, because they demand that phones be completely locked down so users are ONLY allowed to do what the telcos want, like paying 4 bucks for crappy renditions of Madonna songs.

Re:Waaaaah!

[tomstdenis]

Bingo. Well put.

Phones follow standards [like GSM or CDMA]. All the carrier needs is your ID (ESN, SIM number, etc). The rest doesn't matter. Unless you want to lock your "users" into half-usable phones.

Tom

Re:Waaaaah!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The carrier doesn't directly have to spend any money or research time to cripple a phone. They just have to demand that the phone maker turn off the features they don't like, and provide them the key information needed to re-enable said features once they've gotten more money from the customer.

Re:Waaaaah!

[turnipsatemybaby]

Perfect example is a phone I had. Samsung a650. This thing could do marvelous things. You could even synchronize your outlook contacts with it!

At least, you COULD, if you looked at the raw capabilities from Samsung's site. After Telus was done with the phone, you could do NONE of that. They reduced it to a basic phone with no expandability other than what you could download from telus itself. They hacked it up so heavily, that even samsung's own manufacturers tools couldn't read the file system on the phone.

I was more than a little pissed at this, because I wanted to play around with BREW and J2ME development. But if I can't even upload my own programs to my own damn phone, why bother?

Re:Waaaaah!

[Jasin Natael]

... And this has the following effect: NO MATTER how much you pay for a phone, you can't get any of the features you really want. The only way you can get the features you want, is by forgoing the carrier's subsidy (which you STILL have to pay as part of your mandatory contract) and getting an unlocked phone directly from the manufacturer.

Which means that, in order to get out of paying for $4.00 MP3 ringtones and wallpapers, or $29.99 for a terminal/ssh client, you have to spend about $200.00 upfront -- plus, in some cases, currency conversion fees. And then there's the moral question that, since the carrier has actually made about $200.00 extra because you chose to get an un-crippled phone, it provides them with FURTHER incentive to cripple subsequent ones.

So, even if one operating system is a standout success, who gives a crap? You'll still have to pay so much for the privilege to own and use an unlocked phone, and run the risk of the carrier cutting off access to the applications you really want (it's an "unsupported" phone, after all; This recently happened to me). So many people just get free phones and give up any aspirations of doing useful things with their phone other than simple calling -- it just isn't economical when you look at the big picture.

Re:Waaaaah!

[CodeBuster]

The Motorola phones on the T-Mobile plans seem to be fairly open as per the factory spec from Motorola. I was able to upload a collection of MP3 ringtones that I cut myself directly from my PC to the handset via the included micro USB cable as soon as I got home with it. I just plugged the phone in and copied the files directly to the memory card (Windows XP sees it as a removable disk drive). In fact that was part of the reason why I chose to go with T-Mobile rather than Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T because the majors are usually the ones that are playing the feature stripping, lockdown, $4 per ringtone which expires in 2 weeks games that drive consumers nuts (because most people don't think about such things when they purchase their phone and realize only later that there are these "gotchas" and that they are locked in to a two year agreement with a hefty termination fee).

Re:Waaaaah!

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. This is why I only buy the absolute cheapest phone offered. Even the $10 phones include the basics: making/receiving calls, contact list, etc. (plus a few extras like a calendar and calculator), it just isn't worth it to pay a penny more for an "upgraded" model. What does the $100 model do that the $10 model can't? Nothing, unless you pay huge fees to the carrier for access to these features.

I made the mistake of buying an upgraded phone when I got my first mobile phone. Never again.

the real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

"The barrier to innovation is higher in the mobile world."

And are you sure that's b/c there are so many OS's out there? And has nothing to do with the limits/restrictions carriers place on nearly all phones?

Add this to my list of reasons for wanting an iPhone. Someone other than the carrier appears to have majority control over my device. I'd rather Apple decide what I can and can't do with my phone than a Carrier who wants to lock me into certain service and apps. Of course, if Apple ends up tightening the clamps, it could turn into the same problem, but I'll take my chances for now.

Re:the real reason

[dfghjk]

Hate to break it to you, but Apple has the clamps on full tighten already. In the case of the iPhone, the device will only do what both Apple and Cingular approve. 3rd parties aren't allowed to develop for it. Apple isn't your savior here...given the chance it will be the greatest offender. By all means though, take your chances for now. When Jobs says he has your best interests at heart you believe him, right?

Re:the real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, so you're also partly wrong there. It's not that 3rd parties are locked out... Apple just has to approve any apps that will be allowed. So 3rd parties will still develop and then likely submit to Apple for approval and to be sure it won't break anything.

I know nobody wants to admit it...

[HerculesMO]

But this is why Microsoft is actually a good thing on the desktop market. I'm all for using different OSes, but the sheer number of applications available for a single OS (And in this case it happens to be Windows) is staggering compared to how bad it COULD have been had we had multiple OSes that were popular. It's expensive to develop cross platform support, which is why most companies will aim for the market that makes them the most money.

I'm still looking forward to Linux and Click and Run technology -- that is the first step of many needed to start surpassing Windows on the desktop.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Trelane]

It's expensive to develop cross platform support,

It is not that expensive if done from the initial stages (Yes, MFC->wxWindows or whatever will be, of course). It'd be much cheaper if Windows weren't superdominant.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[sheldon]

I think he meant... It's expensive to develop cross platform apps that don't look like Ass.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[tomstdenis]

You're kidding right?

You can click and run most common GUI applications in both Gnome and KDE (and others) out of the box. In fact, this firefox browser was brought up through a menu. Weee. Whomever modded your post up, hey it's not 1994 anymore.

As for portability ... if the application was written to be portable in the first place [as another pointed out] the costs of supporting multiple platforms is not that high. Especially if the application doesn't do a lot of non-portable things [e.g. use assembler, depend on int == 32-bits, etc].

What OSS really could benefit from is not having people like you spreading bogons about how OSS can't do this and can't do that.

Tom

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Hal_Porter]

But I can knock up a tiny (<100KB) SDK or WTL application much quicker than a wxWindows one. It's smaller and it looks native. And most of the time 100% of the people that are going to use it use nothing but Windows.

At a pinch they'll run on Wine anyway.

Why pull in all the bloat of wxWindows when you can do something smaller, slicker and quicker.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But this is why Microsoft is actually a good thing on the desktop market.

Operating system advancement has been slow as molasses and almost always driven by someone other than MS. To argue that MS is a good thing for the desktop market is so wrongheaded it makes me want to send Gary Coleman to your home or business with orders to bitchslap.

'm all for using different OSes, but the sheer number of applications available for a single OS (And in this case it happens to be Windows) is staggering compared to how bad it COULD have been had we had multiple OSes that were popular.

I think your cause and effect are completely backwards. Because there is one dominant OS, most software is not designed to be cross platform and MS has the power to encourage that trend. Because there is one dominant platform, there is less value in cross platform toolsets so they are not developed as much. If there were four major desktop OS's each with 25% of the market, do you truly think cross platform development would not have advanced to fill the demand? As it is, some cross platform tools like Java VM based software is very popular among developers, and that is despite the fact that MS has repeatedly broken the law in an attempt to stop it.

It's expensive to develop cross platform support, which is why most companies will aim for the market that makes them the most money.

It is moderately expensive to develop cross platform because we have a single dominant OS and the vendor that produces that OS has gone out of their way to try and make sure cross platform development that works with their OS is hard. Even with that being the case, developers target all the markets that are profitable, not just the most profitable one. How many of the successful PC games never get ported to the Mac? Maybe 10%.

I'm still looking forward to Linux and Click and Run technology -- that is the first step of many needed to start surpassing Windows on the desktop.

Linux already surpasses Windows on the desktop in many ways. The main thing holding it back is MS's monopoly, not the fact that it is not as good. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of ways Linux could improve, but the data to date does not indicate that Linux becoming a much better OS would significantly increase its market share compared to Windows. The whole reason monopolies are so dangerous to capitalism is because they allow a monopolist to gain or maintain market share, even when their offering is inferior to the competition.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's expensive to develop cross platform support

The only expensive part is for the cell companies to have to figure out how to strip all the features out of the phones.

I'm still looking forward to Linux and Click and Run technology -- that is the first step of many needed to start surpassing Windows on the desktop.

So that granny can click on HappyTimes.exe and just run the latest in trojans? There are far better ways of dealing with software distribution and installation than just "grip it and click it".

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Trelane]

But I can knock up a tiny ( Sure, but you could also do the same with XUL or Mono or other technologies. You see, wxWindows was an example, not the full set of cross-platform solutions.

and most of the time 100% of the people that are going to use it use nothing but Windows.

Thank you for making my point then.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Trelane]

It's expensive to develop cross platform apps that don't look like Ass.

I humbly disagree with your assertion.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Penguinisto]

Dunno ab't mobile programming per se, but it wasn't expensive at all (and still isn't) to keep a Win32 and OSX port of a full 3D compositing app whose UI is consistent and sharp-looking across both platforms, with the only variations being OS-specific. OTOH, it weas designed for multiple platforms from the ground up, and uses a UI toolkit (Qt) made for multiple platforms. (The app is a free download for OSX and Windows - grab both and compare if you'd like).

All it really takes is for the dev team to use their heads when they design and spec the thing.

/P

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Hal_Porter]

Sure, but you could also do the same with XUL or Mono or other technologies. You see, wxWindows was an example, not the full set of cross-platform solutions

What produces Windows applications that are as small as WTL/SDK, and don't "look like Ass" to quote another poster?

Mono is like a third rate knock off of .Net, which seems pointless to me since the original produces bloated applications. XUL seems to be some Mozilla internal XML handwaving used by Firefox, and not be much to do with developing small GUI applications.

Thank you for making my point then.

If portable GUI class libraries didn't suck so much, people would use them instead of the non portable Microsoft solutions. These days, I think if Microsoft hadn't invented Win32, we just wouldn't have as many GUI applications distributed as binaries.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Trelane]

What produces Windows applications that are as small as WTL/SDK, and don't "look like Ass" to quote another poster?

Good question, given that "look like ass" is highly variable from person to person. I think Windows apps look like ass. YMMV.

Mono is like a third rate knock off of .Net, which seems pointless to me since the original produces bloated applications.

"Third rate knock off" ignorance aside, it's a cross-platform development framework. Just one more example. I can't vouch for how bloated or not the applications it produces are.

XUL seems to be some Mozilla internal XML handwaving used by Firefox, and not be much to do with developing small GUI applications.

For your reading pleasure, a book on programming with XUL. If you know XAML, XUL is what Microsoft was ripping off to create XAML.

If portable GUI class libraries didn't suck so much, people would use them instead of the non portable Microsoft solutions

But, if Microsoft didn't have a stranglehold on the market, there'd be even better cross-platform solutions than there are now! You're taking current market conditions and extrapolating out from there which isn't a valid assumption (even if existing cross-platform tookits actually did suck!)

Looking more at WTL (links here), I am so very glad I'm learning gtkmm instead of it.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[kripkenstein]

I know nobody wants to admit it... but this is why Microsoft is actually a good thing on the desktop market.

I disagree completely. Ignoring the question of whether the 'one OS is simpler to develop for' argument was ever true, it certainly isn't anymore. Develop once in a cross-platform tool - say, Java or Python, using GTK+ or Qt - and basically you can run anywhere. Yes, yes, you do need to test on lots of platforms, and yes, there will be problems. But then there are also problems running Windows 2000-age apps on Vista (possibly more, even).

There is no need for a single OS to make life simple for developers. What developers need are universal platforms - and not necessarily just one! Choice is a good thing to have. One can write in any of the 'bytecode languages/platforms' (Java, Python, .Net), using any of the GUI toolkits that is available for all platforms (GTK+, Qt, WxWidgets), and life is pretty good.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[NDPTAL85]

Click and Run refers to Linspire's installation technology for its Linux distro, not as a way to simply activate programs.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[tomstdenis]

I wouldn't want users installing applications anywhere but in their own directories. That's what makes Windows so damn insecure in the first place.

There already quite a few random GUI installers for Linux though. UT2K4 [the game] uses one. So do Samsung laser printer drivers.

Tom

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Hal_Porter]

Good question, given that "look like ass" is highly variable from person to person. I think Windows apps look like ass. YMMV.

Wow, zealot much? I want stuff to look like native. That rules out out most of the cross platform stuff.

But I can see if you consider XML 'programming', WTL's assembly language HWND to CWnd* converter is a bit hard to understand. It's a pity for you that the world is full of Indians and Chinese who are smart enough to figure out stuff like this if that's what it takes to produce an efficient end result.

Just one more example. I can't vouch for how bloated or not the applications it produces are.

http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/mono-devel -list/2005-October/015136.html

9MB Hello World applications. I've worked on phones that managed a GSM stack, GUI, TCP/IP in less than that.

Re:I know nobody wants to admit it...

[Trelane]

Wow, zealot much?

Of course. If I disagree with your position, it logically follows that I'm a zealot.

I want stuff to look like native. That rules out out most of the cross platform stuff.

Unless you use Swing, or gtk+ with the wimp (windows impersonator) theme. Don't let me catch you using Office 2k7 or WinAmp or Windows Media Player or anything else that doesn't use stock Windows widgets either, then, if the native look is critical to you.

But I can see if you consider XML 'programming',

Except that it's not. XUL is XML + JavaScript, which is arguably a programming language.

It's a pity for you that the world is full of Indians and Chinese who are smart enough to figure out stuff like this if that's what it takes to produce an efficient end result.

If you say that I have no experience with C and C++, it must be true. Of course, it's not, but that hasn't stopped your opining yet.

MB Hello World applications.

Sounds bloated to me, sure. OTOH, BeagleDaemon.exe (the GNOME data indexing daemon) takes up 23552 bytes.

Owww, poor providers havin' trouble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Porting their crapware to multiple operating systems, that is.

I'm soo awwwfully sorry for them. If you can't take the heat (hire good developers), better stay out of the kitchen: after all, most phones come with PERFECTLY GOOD systems already, no need to put any more software on them!

Thank god

[Billly Gates]

I do not know about you guys but I prefer more competition and less vendor os lock in.

Java is huge in the mobile market as a result.

The problem I have is all the oses are dictated by the monopolies of the carriers. Even the menu's must work all the same and all applications except java applets need to be signed so they can be the gatekeepers aka the carriers.

Re:Thank god

[Coffee.RF]

While you may want a dozen different 'artistic interpretations' of what the UI, err "menue's" should look like, for a carrier, that would be a nightmare.

Just imagine being a large carrier's customer care agent, and walking 100 Grandmas a day through how to send a picture to their grand kids... That's why they dictate the UI.

And as for signing apps; that's so the masses don't accidentally go to Jim's Java Joint and download a nefarious application that uploads their entire contact list to the internet, etc, etc....

OpenMoko fanboi

[Tony]

Okay, I know I'm just a raving OpenMoko shill, but if you think the iPhone is open, you have another think coming.

Do *you* want control over your phone the same way you have control over your desktop (assuming you run Linux)? Check out OpenMoko, and the FIC Neo 1973. It's essentially a palm-top computer that also happens to be a GPS-enabled phone, all running Free software.

The iPhone will restrict software just as much as current offerings do.

Mobile Carriers Cry "Less Batteries"

[Anonymous Coward]

In a follow-up press conference, mobile carriers also complained about having too many battery choices.

Alkaline, zinc-carbon, silver-oxide, lithium-ion, lithium-thionyl, lithium-sulfur dioxide, lithium-manganese, nickel cadmium, ...
Rechargeable, disposable, ...
AA, AAA, button, square, 3 cylinder, ...
4V, 5V, 9V, 12V, ...

It's too much!

"Multiple systems have hampered the growth of new services," mobile phone executives say

article contradicts itself

[burnin1965]

Two operating systems run more than 95 percent of the world's computers, but dozens of systems are behind the 2.5 billion mobile phones in circulation ...

Last year, two-thirds of smart phones sold ran on Symbian's operating system, an increase of about four percentage points from 2005, according to Canalys, a consultant and market research firm based near London. Microsoft was second last year with a 14 percent market share, slightly less than the year before, followed by Research in Motion, which makes the BlackBerry, with 7 percent, and Linux, with 6 percent...

So 89% of the cell phones in the world run one of two operating systems. Throw in RIM and you have 96% of the phones covered with three operating systems, not dozens. It doesn't sound too disimilar from the desktop market.

In reading the article it sounds more like somebody wants to push out any new entrants to the market, sounds something like the desktop market, sounds like a bad idea, sounds like anti-competitive, sounds like monopoly speak, sounds like somebody in management is tired of paying all those high paid engineers and wants to force everyone into the same phone so they can pay for a smaller development crew to cover everyone who has a phone and increase their profit margins so they can pay the CEO even more than he is worth.

Let the market decide, if the companies developing cant hack it, fold.

burnin

Re:article contradicts itself

[dfghjk]

Your math is wrong. 2/3 is 67% so Symbian plus WM would be 81% according to their numbers. Furthermore, there are many Symbian platforms that make up that total, so while 81% run one of two operating systems, there are many unique platforms to develop for to get 4/5 coverage. It is disimilar to the desktop market.

Of course, no one is forcing these providers to support all phones nor is it the case that any of them do it.

Re:article contradicts itself

[Coffee.RF]

Actually, it doesn't, it just isn't very clear about it.

The 'gotcha' is the comment "two-thirds of smart phones"; Smart Phones make up a smaller percentage of the global handset population say 10 to 20% globally. The remaining 80 to 90% are regular old phones like the Razor, or Chocolate, Pebl, etc...

Technically each has a different OS, and trying to support every vendor, and each phone model is a nightmare for content developers and providers. You end up with different MIDP support, different screen sizes, and different network access API's. (we won't even bring up Brew vs. Java :-)

The Apple approach

[Midnight Thunder]

The other approach that Apple seems to be encouraging, is to let the hardware manufactures support their own devices. Sure it means the mobile carriers lose some control, but in doing so they also offload some of the headaches. Mobile carriers want to control so much, that they are causing their own problems.

Re:The Apple approach

[moofo]

Exactly.

Let mobile services provider do their job, that is sell Wireless voice and data service. The actual phones should be sold by specialized stores or the phone manufacturers themselves.

It's a bit more troublesome for non-GSM phone, but it would still make perfect sense. You can sorta alreay do that with GSM phones, provided they are unlocked. Switch the SIM and you're done. No support for your phone from the provider though.

No ISP is selling you the computer to go on the Internet.

Re:The Apple approach

[dfghjk]

So you are saying that denying the carriers the ability to modify the products they resell and subsidize, something they clearly want to do, is somehow doing those carriers a favor? Is this another example of "Apple innovation"?

Apple denies SDKs to the iPhone for its own, selfish reasons but you can be sure that Cingular is not excluded from the process. Cingular isn't simply going to "let" Apple make the decisions you suggest. You think it's Apple that doesn't want a VoIP app on its device?

Re:The Apple approach

[toleraen]

This is nothing new from Apple, at least in the area of smartphones / pdas (which the iPhone definitely falls under). I receive software updates from HTC, not from Cingular. Cingular's own support page points directly to HTC's. Microsoft provides the OS to HTC, HTC gets it to work on their devices, and Cingular creates their own customizations to be added seperately from the OS. Cingular's customizations can easily be removed from the update too, so you can pick and chopse what to add.

Nokia smartphones / pdas operate in a similar manner. I would guess Treo and others are the same. The only ground Apple is breaking with their iPhone is that it's completely closed to 3rd party development.

Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Rogerborg]

On today's build list:

• Symbian UIQ
• Symbian Series 60
• Symbian Series 60 v2.0
• Symbian Series 60 v2.2
• Symbian Series 60 v3.0
• Symbian Series 80
• Symbian Series 80 v2
• BREW 2.10
• BREW 3.12
• BREW 3.14
• Palm 5.4
• Palm 6
• WinCE 4 SP 2003
• WinCE 5 SP
• WinCE 5 PPC
• J2ME CLDC
• J2ME CDC
• J2ME JSR-184
• J2ME M3G

And that's just the ones that I can remember off the top of my head. Some of these are legacy builds, but there are still customers who want them. A large part of our product family is platform abstraction code; if you want to support multiple mobile platforms, you either bloat your code with abstractions, or drown it in #ifdefs. In either case, you have to write to the lowest common denominator, and avoid anything that's even remotely platform dependent, which does engender decent coding discipline but at the result of reducing productivity. That's mostly a C issue, but even J2ME isn't immune, particularly when you have to deal with extensions like OpenGL ES or M3G.

If I never had to work in anything but (e.g.) J2MD CDC OpenGL ES or (gasps of outrage!) WinCE SP2005 again, I'd be a very happy bunny indeed.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Rakshasa Taisab]

A large part of our product family is platform abstraction code; if you want to support multiple mobile platforms, you either bloat your code with abstractions, or drown it in #ifdefs.

That thing you call "bloat" some call good coding practices. And it's not like it will bloat your binary if you code it correctly, which is all that really matters.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Stevecrox]

I think that list is a little unfair, Symbian series 60 version 1 software works fine on Symbian Series 60 version 3 it doesn't take much to convert this over to UIQ (admitting i've only run this in simulation) MS Mobile 2002-2003ppc all will run each others software and most 2002 software i have will run happily on 2005. The only time thats going ot be different is when your locking specific features down from the OS's, in the UK no phone carrier I've been with (Tmobile, Orange, O2) locks down any phone feature. The companies do like to modify and stick in their own awfull awfull applications. Orange have taken this so far I don't want their future phones (They build in this really stupid sidebar) most of the O2 and originally Orange applications aren't complicated and could work on multiple versions of CE.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Torne]

I think that list is a little unfair, Symbian series 60 version 1 software works fine on Symbian Series 60 version 3 it doesn't take much to convert this over to UIQ (admitting i've only run this in simulation)

Nope, S60 3.x is binary and source incompatible with older S60 versions. UIQ is a totally different UI layer and requires that all UI-related parts of your code be more or less totally rewritten. UIQ 3.x is also binary and source incompatible with older UIQ versions - it's likely not included on the grandparent poster's list as UIQ 3 is not a very popular platform yet :)

Both S60 version 3 and UIQ version 3 are based on a new underlying version of Symbian (9.1 and later) which uses a new kernel and is absolutely not binary compatible.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[bjourne]

• J2ME CLDC
• J2ME CDC
• J2ME JSR-184
• J2ME M3G

Err... Do you realize that M3G and JSR-184 is the same API? And that CDC is an extension of CLDC?

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[lpontiac]

• Palm 6

Palm OS Cobalt was stillborn and buried quite a while ago now. Unless you're talking about whatever Access' forthcoming offering is called?

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Anonymous Coward]

It iss quite a pain indeed but...

In either case, you have to write to the lowest common denominator...

No you don't. Period.

I work for a startup (still in semi-stealth mode) that received millions and millions of dollars in funding. We've already got lots of customers. Big customers. Our business is precisely that we're developping applications allowing to easily port cell phones applications (games and others) to hundreds of devices... Without forcing to settle to the lowest common denominator! Customers are loving it...

I won't name the company, but I just wanted to tell that while your company (and so many others) settle for the "lowest common denominator" approach, others don't.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Rogerborg]

Beats me, all I know is that its on our build list. Keeping up to date with all of the available (and unavailable) platforms is part of the problem.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Rogerborg]

Sounds likely. I mostly do BREW and WinCE (and the Windows and Linux builds that I didn't even bother mentioning). Just keeping up to date with what's hot and what's dropped is a task that I'd rather skip.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Rogerborg]

I did call it good coding practices, but you were probably so busy whacking off while trying to prove how superior you are that you had an aneurism and missed it.

Re:Mobile developers cry it too (well, "fewer")

[Torne]

Sounds likely. I mostly do BREW and WinCE (and the Windows and Linux builds that I didn't even bother mentioning). Just keeping up to date with what's hot and what's dropped is a task that I'd rather skip.

I'm a Symbian kernel developer, so I'm pretty familiar with what's compatible with what there whether I want to be or not :)

Crying

[jlebrech]

They are crying because they have to Port crippleware, and have Symbian, Palm, Windows Mobile and now iPhone developers to remove all the features that could be used to bypass the extortionate user services that they offer.

It's the platform which matters, not the kernel

[jodonoghue]

Hmm... not sure whether the parent has really worked on a mobile phone platform. I've worked extensively on several: many proprietary RTOS platforms, Linux and Windows Mobile, with a little Symbian thrown in.

Linux is a kernel. A pretty good one, I grant, but it only provides kernel services. The key to a mobile device is what sits on top of the kernel, and Linux has less of a good story to tell. Look at Windows mobile or Symbian and you'll notice that they each provide a well-defined set of telephony oriented services and APIs and a set of applications which use these.

If you want to build a product based on Symbian or Windows Mobile, you basically just have to implement a set of well-defined APIs and device drivers for your platform and you're good to go. While this is far from being a trivial undertaking, it provides a stable environment for 3rd party application developers, who stand a reasonable chance that their application will work as expected on any device supporting the OS.

The Linux situation is fast-developing, but there's no question that the rich telephony middleware layer isn't really there yet. There are a variety of different consortia, all of which have websites with "white papers" and some of which have formal API documents. To my knowledge, however, none has anything close to a complete, commercial quality implementation of a reasonably full suite of telephony middleware and user applications. I don't doubt that this will eventually arrive (there's a lot of pressure in that direction), but there's no 'standard' that I can see.

Let's just look at UI and application framework: there are at least two common options and a rich variety of more-or-less unsupported options: QTopia (which is probably the most mature right now, but costs $$$) and GTK+ (which is free but less mature on embedded platforms). If I'm an application developer, which do I target. Unlike Linux desktop machines, most of which resolve the problem by installing most of the libraries for both, space is at a premium on mobile devices - so QTopia devices require QT for the UI (and lock out GTK+ applications) and GTK+ devices do the converse. This is important to operators as a QTopia based phone is sufficiently different to a GTK+ based phone that they would really need to treated as separate platforms even though the kernel is the same.

At least the UI frameworks exist and work pretty well. What about the code to do things like:
* Manage a SIM-based phonebook
* Interface with a CDMA or UMTS modem (which needs to be specified
    in an abstract way to support the many different chipsets out there)
* Implement the SIM toolkit
* Implement all of the user notifications required for SMS, supplementary
    services, SIM and so on.
* Gracefully manage multiple network connections in a seamless manner
    (upmarket device probably has cellular packet service, Bluetooth,
    WiFi, possibly tethered connection to desktop machine, IrDA, ...)
* Secure update of the software images on the device
* Over the air provisioning of connections and services

I could go on, but I guess the point is made.

Sadly, Linux for embedded mobile devices risks becoming marginalized by a repeat of the 'desktop wars': several incompatible implementations of some pretty basic services which end up fragmenting the market because none achieves critical mass. Success means reducing the number of 'initiatives' (probably to one) and showing us the code. Enough of the white papers...

Re:It's the platform which matters, not the kernel

[morgan_greywolf]

There's actually a wealth of mobile telephony and PDA APIs and applications available for Linux. Check out the software page on TuxMobil -- this kind of software is still somewhat in its infancy, but if you're interested in Linux on embedded devices -- heck, why not join in the development process and help out?

Giant load of crap....

[ivan256]

That isn't the problem at all. The vendor of each OS has to deal with that problem, not the carrier.

The problem is that carriers want to develop features they can charge for on a recurring revenue (pay-per-use) basis. In a multiple OS, high flexibility world, features exist on the handset, not on the network. That means the customer gets to use music, video, voice dialing, games, photos, VNC, SSH, instant messaging, e-mail, etc, and it all looks like data to the network, or doesn't even use the network. This stops them from charging you per message/photo/song/minute of video, because messages become tiny bits of inexpensive data, photos get transferred to the user's PC via a memory card reader or data cable instead of through the high priced photo service (or as a message that is indistinguishable from a tiny amount of data), etc...

Developers don't write for mobile platforms because they aren't welcome there, not because there are too many OSs. When the carriers say that the number of OSs limits new applications, what they really mean is that it limits their ability to lock down applications as a service.

ROFL -- so true :D

[HerculesMO]

no text :)

Mobile Users Cry, "Less Phone Executives"

[shog9]

"Mobile phone executives have hampered the growth of new services", mobile phone users say...

Re:cell phone companies have hampered the growth m

[nasch]

I once tried to get a windows mobile phone and they said that you must pay for 2 years for data + voice to get it at the deal price.

You're complaining that you have to sign a contract in order to get a huge discount on your phone? If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign it. Pay full retail, or buy a different phone. I don't like that BMWs are so expensive, but I don't begrudge them the right to set their prices. Sorry, had to get a car analogy in there.

Easy Fix

[bill_mcgonigle]

The fix for this is easy, and I understand already implemented in Finland and a few other countries - phone manufacturers can't sell service plans and network companies can't sell phones.

Open access, open API's, competition in the phone market, competition in the rate plan market.

This appears to be the sweet spot for government regulation in this market because it increases competition, not decreases it.

I imagine it also drives towards Internet-based services as a means to avoid redundant negotiations with multiple carriers for every new feature a phone manufacturer wants to implement.

Re:Easy Fix

[Wisconsingod]

The One issue in the US is that phones would have to be cross network compatable. This was simple to do in Finland, because all cellular telcos use GSM. However, with the US coverage separated out into GSA, CDMA, Triband, etc, it has forced the telco's to work with the manufacturers to sell phones compatable with their network.
When it comes to telco's in the US, you can never compare what the rest of the world is doing and think it is simple to do in the US. It's exponentially more difficult as the land size/population increases.

Re:Easy Fix

[joto]

When it comes to telco's in the US, you can never compare what the rest of the world is doing and think it is simple to do in the US. It's exponentially more difficult as the land size/population increases.

Arguably, the rest of the world has more land size/population than the US. So your argument fails right there. Then again, I've never had any trouble using my GSM phone when I've travelled to USA. On the other hand, I don't know what all these other TLAs you write about mean either.

Brew == Braindamage

[Anonymous Coward]

I develop with Brew. It was designed and written by lawyers. The API is stupid. The security and licensing requirements are asinine.

Re:Brew == Braindamage

[cpeterso]

I develop with Brew. It was designed and written by lawyers. The API is stupid. The security and licensing requirements are asinine.

But have developed for Symbian? It is far more braindamaged than BREW. At least BREW's APIs are fairly well-documented and make sense.

Its the file format, stupid

[MountainLogic]

Standardizing the OS is unimportant. Even the web is OS neutral, r.g., HTML, PDF, MP3, etc. The industry just need to define open file/transport protocols and let the handset makers innovate all that they want.

the hell with that!

[Anonymous Coward]

After the 20-year nightmare with computers, the last thing the cell phone market needs is another operating system monopoly. Follow the money and you'll find Microsoft in a shizzle because there's several phones on the market with Linux in them. Case closed.

No, NOT thank god.

[NDPTAL85]

Competition is pointless and useless if it doesn't produce anything of value. I'd very much like to be locked into something that works REALLY WELL which is why I can't wait for Apple's iPhone.

Java on mobile devices sucks. I have a Treo 700p and Opera Mini for it just doesn't work as well as a native app would. It friggin asks me everytime I start to use it do I want to connect to the internet. No I opened up a web browser so I could NOT connect to the internet. WTF?

Re:No, NOT thank god.

[Anonymous Coward]

Java on mobile devices sucks.

That is your opinion. Java on cell phones is a > 1 billion dollar market. EA alone is generating nearly $500 millions in J2ME (Java 2 Micro Edition) game sales. They bough Jamdat for $700 million (a company that does one thing: writing Java games for cell phones).

20% of all the adults admitting to play games say they're playing on their cell phones.

Java is also present on 95% of all the cellphones sold.

There are more systems running a Java virtual machine than there are PCs running Windows. Enough said.

So it may "suck", it is nonetheless a huge player. Involving real money, in the real world.

And while Java games is how it started, there are much more than Java games available. There are many other applications.

Java may suck on cell phones for you, but it is here to stay. It is good for you that you'll be buying an iPhone (which looks like a lovely, though pricey gizmo for giving calls ;) but Java is an very important player in the cell phones world.

Bla, bla, bla

[bonefry]

Fortunately, you are wrong :)
It is not GTK+ that's the platform, GTK+ is just a GUI toolkit. You should take a look at GPE and GPE Phone Edition.
And also take a look at OPIE, a Qtopia fork.

I don't know what white papers you are talking about, but if I were to build a phone, I wouldn't want any other kind of software on it, other than open-source that is. And that's because I would get total freedom to modify it in any way that suits my needs. And I would get a great community behind me (too bad Trolltech thought to cripple its Greenphone with that awful licensing).
And that's especially important in a market with multiple hardware platforms, and with huge resources limitations.

And also ... lets not forget that JavaME was also crippled by mobile carriers ... that's why I don't give a damn about what they say.

Re:cell phone companies have hampered the growth m

[stud9920]

Windows Mobile sucks. It is a very bad OS. Integration and ergonomics are just not there, neither is interactivity and real time. To give a few examples:
* no possibility to press just once to send an SMS. One has to tap at least 4 times to get there.
* When calling a missed call phone number, expect the OS to ask you if the phone number is correctly spelt (sucker, it's YOUR input!)
* Voice and SMS logic are separate. No easy options to text a voice contact (redial/missed call/busy call), or to call an SMS contact
* No easy way to shut down an application after use, it will just keep running, even if resources are low, until killed or explicitly exited
* Sometimes, answering a call to kill a loud ringtone is impossible, because some random unrelated window was open
* SMSes are randomly deleted.
* Eventhough SMSes are displayed on top of the screen at reception, you have to explicitly open them to have them marked as read. Same goes for the otherwise very boring delivery receipts
* Activesync over Bluetooth has to be triggered manually, and is abysmally slow. Over USB it is only usably slow, eventhough 30secs seems like a lot of time when there is no time
* minor, but no MP3 ringtones
* after dialing, the soft keypad is automatically minimized, which is very bad for IVRs

I could go on for hours. A $50 Nokia provides a better user experience for phone services than the 500$ HTC P3300 that I in fact decided to sell after a month of use. (I have a very decent nokia N70 which I just needed to refurbish for further use)

Disclaimer: I work at a mobile operator. Our rates are rather high compared to the competition, but in Belgium is is explicitly forbidden to SIMlock. I love that. Because SIMlocking is forbidden, there are no subsidised phones (it is actually even forbidden to sell a SIM card with a phone, our legal department took care of getting this banned as the competition did a better job at it), which means people have to buy them from retail at full price, which means feature are rarely blocked.

Not Quite Sure...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

This may be flamebait, a troll, or just general bitching, but I've got some karma to burn, so WTF. I am always amazed that computer geeks have such a negative attitude about spelling and grammar, considering that most people here have some knowledge of and experience with programming, and many program for a living. It seems to me that if you can't spell, you can't program.
int main() works, but
innt mayn() doesn't
So why is it that people who are proud of their fluency in C++, or whatever, are proud to sound like a drooling mouth-breather in English?

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[ColdWetDog]

Oh, stop. It's supposed to be a funny. I thought it rather clever after only two cups of coffee. Of course, YMMV. Actually, I like the Grammar Nazi's. After being a TA in Grad School when the faculty (of a Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology) was all bent out of shape because college freshman presumably in the top 1/3 of their class could not write a simple, declarative sentence in English, and thence made all of the tests in essay format, I look at any attempt at improving the country's language skills in a favorable light. Now, how's that for a run on sentence?

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Your's was funny. It just triggered one of my pet peeves, since I am one of the Grammar Nazis, and I too have had plenty of coffee. When I was a TA in the biology department, spelling and grammar counted as well, but that was because my major professor was one of the original Taxonomic Grammar Nazis. You spell Ixonanthaceae correctly or lose points.

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither of you can use apostrophes correctly so your "Grammar Nazi" status is in question.

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[MMInterface]

What your saying sounds logical, but in reality its not true. You don't have to know how to spell to program, you just have to make the same mistake consistantly. If you think cat is spelled kat, then all you have to do is spell it the same way whenever you refer to it. For keywords you can use something like intellisense. If you type innt mayn() your going see you mistake right away. If good spelling was required for programming then debuggers would be a lot less usefull and we wouldn't have editors and technical writers. In fact, good programmers usually assume that there are going to be mistakes and spend a good deal of time looking for them. Making a spelling or grammer mistake when you are posting on a message board is not work. People tend to put more effort into programming than posting on message boards, so making a mistake doesn't necessarily mean they can't can't spell or write. Sometimes the erros people comment about aren't even worth mentioning and then tend to degrade the conversation and bring it off topic. I'm at work half the time when I post, so I try to type my messages as quickly as possible and make sure nobody is looking over my shoulder. Mistakes are bound to happen.

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[don_bear_wilkinson]

Huh?

IANAP but I when I've dabbled in code I've found that you have to comply with defined terms and syntax. Deviation from the proscribed spelling and notation will break your code.

I do think I know barely enough to grasp that you are referring to the more advanced OO-type languages where you define your own methods and properties, but that does not negate the value of the parent's point, in my estimation.

Perhaps when having this argument it's important to clarify whether one wishes to complain about a mistake, an unintentional mistyping, versus an error, applying incorrect or atypical usage and spelling.

IOW, it's really lame to call people on a typo, but I vigorously support calling people on their illiteracy, ignorance or bad habits. :)

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[rkd2110]

You are aware of the fact that there are more then a few slashdot readers whose first language is not English. For some it's not even the second (me, for instance).

Although I think that aspiring to use language correctly is important, don't you think that sometimes being an anal-retentive geek is not as important as trying to see through the language barriers and understanding the content of the post?

Grammar and spelling are important for standardization and optimization of communication, but it serves as an aid and are not the essence of human interaction (including written and spoken). Understanding what the other person tried to tell you and processing should your prime focus. I agree that sometimes bad spelling/grammar may result at misunderstanding, but I'm fairly confident that it happens less then you're bitching about spelling.

Also, function declaration in computer programming is really not something you want to model human language after. More the other way around.

My 0.2 cents (well, actually not cents as I'm not an American or from the EU. Imagine that).

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Oui, je comprends cela.

Usually, it is fairly obvious when someone is not a native English-speaker. Often, the sentence structure or choice of vocabulary make this apparent, as it is when I speak or write French or German. In those cases, I agree with you. Interestingly, many who use English as their second or third language use better grammar than most Americans.

Grammar and spelling are important for standardization and optimization of communication, but it serves as an aid and are not the essence of human interaction (including written and spoken). Understanding what the other person tried to tell you and processing should your prime focus. I agree that sometimes bad spelling/grammar may result at misunderstanding, but I'm fairly confident that it happens less then you're bitching about spelling.

I agree. However I also think that there should be flogging for Americans saying, "Me and her went to the store," rather than, "She and I went to the store," Come to think of it, when I was a sprout in grade school, there were floggings for that. Maybe that's why people learned it then.

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[Michael Wardle]

I think some geeks prefer language to be logical and uncomplicated and practice what they preach in the hope their preferred usage will catch on. Or maybe they just don't care because people still understand you if you say "less operating systems".

Why do we need the word "fewer" when we already have the word "less"? Isn't it a pointless distinction?

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[MMInterface]

I was referring to built in keywords and methods as well as the ones you can define yourself. A lot of programming tools will let you know immediately when you have mispelled a keyword/defined term because those words are often color coded differently then the ones you define yourself. And as I mentioned before things like intillisense will let you knew if you've misplelled anything. Thats just for catching things before debugging them. You can basically start typing a method, whether its already defined or not and it will try to finish it for you, or you can select something from a drop down list. It probably creates a lot of lazy programmers and creates other types of errors for the sake of productivity. So what I'm saying is that a lof of programmers have bad spelling and grammer but they have processes and tools for dealing with it.

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[rtb61]

I though is was more to do with filling the first page of comments with pointless irrelevant off topic junk and driving all on topic comments to the back pages. New mod required grammer grandma -1.

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[unitron]

Your use of English is far better than would be my use of any language other than English. Allow me to salute the considerable effort you must have expended in order to achieve your admirable proficiency in English by endevoring to increase it slightly:

In two places I noticed that you used then when the word that was called for was than.

Although in the second instance you may have intended to use the word when.

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[lazybeam]

Deviation from the proscribed spelling and notation will break your code.

Using "proscribed spelling and notation" will break your code. Proscribe means "To denounce or condemn; To prohibit, forbid; To banish or outlaw (a person); To publish the name of (a person) as outlawed."

Was that a typo or illiteracy? I'm assuming you meant "prescribed". It's hard to tell whether to call someone on a mistake if it's a typo or illiteracy or ignorance or bad habits or other! :)

Re:Not Quite Sure...

[don_bear_wilkinson]

A mistake. I used the wrong word. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I know better, so it's not what I usually think of as illiteracy, which involves not knowing better.

Yes, windows mobile has issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I've personally never owned a windows mobile smart phone, but I do develop applications for windows mobile devices.

* No easy way to shut down an application after use, it will just keep running, even if resources are low, until killed or explicitly exited
In fact, that's standard behavior. Microsoft reccomends that applications not offer a way to actually quit, and that you leave the minimize box enabled [when you see an X button at the top right, it's actually minimize. OK is the acutual close button]

* Activesync over Bluetooth has to be triggered manually, and is abysmally slow. Over USB it is only usably slow, eventhough 30secs seems like a lot of time when there is no time
bluetooth _is_ slow. Activesync over IR is also incredibly incredibly slow.

[It sucks you can't sync over wifi with activesync 4.0 or later...]

Re:Yes, windows mobile has issues

[stud9920]

bluetooth _is_ slow.

I'm speaking 5 full minutes for a few appointments and 100 contacts here. How come with my Symbian phone it takes 30 secs max ?

Actually...

[lwriemen]

...what most people rail against is the illegal monopoly Microsoft established in the operating system market, without which, operating system independence for applications would have been established a long time ago.

Better! They'll keep making new PDAs

[Anonymous Coward]

The desktop market has fewer operating systems, in part, because there are fewer hardware options. How many home computers do not use the Ix86 instruction set? As a result, operating system companies can write the code to one architecture. This saves Microsoft a lot of work! The PDA/Mobile companies don't really want a common operating system. They certainly don't want a common chip architecture. They compete by selling different devices.

Unix/OSX to the rescue.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest use Unix as a base, and standardize on OSx.

Ignorance is bliss

[lwriemen]

People really should learn about computing history and computer science before posting, then we wouldn't have to filter through such FUD-fueled nonsense.

MS says: If we didn't have a monopoly, users would be overwhelmed by choices.
Ignoramus: Gosh that sounds about right.

MS says: If we didn't have a monopoly, ISVs would go broke trying to support all the different platforms.
Ignoramus: Gosh that sounds about right.

MS says: If we didn't have a monopoly, some other platform would have all the virus problems.
Ignoramus: Gosh that sounds about right.

Mod'ed as interesting? There must be a lot of ignoramuses out there!

Monocultures bad, standard API good

[rhyre417]

The carriers don't realize how good they have it now.

If a user wants a new feature, they are not allowed to install a new app or upgraded OS on their phone to achieve it. I replace my PC every 5 years, but my cell phone is lucky to last two.

There should be a standard API for 'GSM voice calls', for example. That way, every user of that technology can download a Java App that will work regardless of the phone. Screen resolutions vary, but variable size fonts and appropriate UI design can address that problem.

I'd gladly pay for a phone that I could install software on to do interesting things with certain phone calls, based on who's calling, or when they're calling. All the carriers should be permitted to do is update the software I purchased from them, nothing else

It's my computer/phone/PDA, so I should control what apps go on it.

[rant]
Oh, wait a minute I did pay for a phone with those features. I've got a broken Treo 180 in a drawer upstairs that did everything I wanted, except that it's in two pieces now, due to a defective flip lid design.
[/rant]

no repeat

[oohshiny]

Sadly, Linux for embedded mobile devices risks becoming marginalized by a repeat of the 'desktop wars': several incompatible implementations of some pretty basic services which

And this is different from Symbian, how?

so QTopia devices require QT for the UI (and lock out GTK+ applications) and GTK+ devices do the converse

That's incorrect; GPE is based on X11, and it can run Qt applications. Furthermore, the amount of space the Qt libraries take is not that large.

QTopia (which is probably the most mature right now, but costs $$$)

I think this is pretty much the deciding factor: QTopia is little different in terms of licensing from Symbian or WinCE; we don't need another proprietary phone OS. GPE on Linux is a fully open source and free phone OS.

This is Pure Bullshit

[drinkypoo]

They complain about all the phones because they have to configure them all. Well, this is a bunch of horseshit. The manufacturer will be happy to do that for you, aside maybe from loading in custom graphics. And it's unimportant anyway, because you can't even take the config from a RAZR V3 and dump it to a RAZR V3i for instance. Many settings are the same, but many settings are NOT the same (the speaker/mic gain table is not the same, for example) so you actually have to roll a whole new config file not just for different phone families, but even for different phones inside the same family.

I'm not sure what the real issue is - maybe someone inside the industry can explain that. But having more types of phones to configure is not a big deal. Also, you don't HAVE to configure phones you're not selling, so it's even less of an issue.

Wrong!

[Xenious]

What the providors need to realize is they are just telecoms networks like your local ISP and should have nothing to do with phone hardware. In fact phone hardware should not be subsidized at all and just sold through retail outlets. Most importantly the US should align with the GSM and 3G standards used in UK/Europe/etc and get rid of others. :)

Question re: J2ME

[snitmo]

To me the more important question is: how universal is J2ME? Can it be run on most of the OSes?

If J2ME is widely accepted and works well on every OS, I wouldn't mind having many OSes.

Re:cell phone companies have hampered the growth m

[ElGuapoGolf]

To give a few examples:

I don't know which version of windows mobile you're using, but have never seen *ONE* of those complaints on my phone, with the exception of the activesync issue.

Since I don't have SMS issues, can use MP3 for ringtones, and don't have misspelling prompts, I'm thinking you're using a carrier modified version of the phone's firmware. Please complain to your carrier, not to /.

Note: I'm a linux desktop user, and a Symbian user. But even I can't stand this much fud.

Re:cell phone companies have hampered the growth m

[stud9920]

This is not fud, this is the user experience I have on a fucking existing piece of hardware running windows mobile 5. Like I told you, we (the carriers in Belgium) don't modify the phones further than some cosmetic branding, as there is no incentive. The fucking phones could be bought without the clamping in independent stores.

My carrier is me and my colleagues, and the only things I would complain about is the insulting salary.

Awful mistake

[MCRocker]

did the Times really make such an awful grammatical mistake?

Well, there was definitely a grammatical error, but I don't really think it rises to the level of inspiring awe ;)

Not from the carriers I've spoken to

[ConfusedVorlon]

They are very careful to play Symbian off against Windows and (to a lesser extent) Palm.
As soon as one OS is dominant, the owner will be able to demand a larger portion of the pie.
No industry is going to let Microsoft own the space if they can help it.

Open source may change this...

NY Times

[matt me]

The article linked in the New York Times correctly uses fewer and not less. Corruption must have occured.

I completely forgot what I was going to post. So I'll say something else. About how Perl programmers would disagree with you.

Larry Wall's Perl is a fantastic language, because as a linguist he tried to emulate the versility of natural languages. Perl includes pronouns (it, them) and the same characters can be used for different functions, depending on context. He wanted to travel to a remote people without writing and help them create a system, but couldn't afford to, so blessed us by creating Perl. Thank you. See http://www.wall.org/~larry/natural.html

I've forgotten again. Shit. Sorry. Matt

Oh yeah. Making a program language more natural isn't about using more English words and fewer punctuation characters - *cough* to the languages that want you to write number.arithmetic.multiply - a ridiculous construction, but by helping the user achieve a similar command (if not comfort) we have with out natural languages. Greater writers are never confined by their language, they play with it, tease it, and often ignore all convention to create their masterpieces. What programming languages can boast poetry?
http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node=Perl%20Poet ry

Actually..

[Junta]

The era he speaks of, the NT4, 9x, 2k days, there were a fair number of mismatches, primarily in terms of drastically different driver models and levels of support for DirectX. Applications weren't that bad off for the most part, but the big picture was a lot more complex than most apps. Win2k, WinXP, Win2003 were not overly different, but NT to 2k, and now XP to Vista are moderately painful base platform changes..

Apples and Oranges

[ocularb0b]

Give us(the end-users) the ability to choose our OS! like the PC market. Which apparently has far fewer options than a cell phone(um sarcasm). These people have no clue at all. -out