Slashdot Mirror
Nokia responds to iPhone by Promoting 'Open'
An anonymous reader writes "Nokia has responded instantly to the iPhone update-bricking fiasco by running a series of flyposter ads pointing out its own hardware and software is open. While this is to be applauded, it'd be better if companies like this opened their products because they truly believed in openness, rather than to beat the competition over the head. After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft. Since that initial blow, they've been a lot less eager to promote open source."
After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft
Really...I don't recall Apple even being involved at the moment that architectural decision was made. Or are you saying that this was the reason Apple acquired NeXT instead of Be? To irritate the Beast of Redmond? So tragic that historical accuracy is just a few clicks away, and still it eludes everybody.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
For those intrigued by the ads, here is where to get started for Nokia development. It is important to note that all applications must be signed (expounded on here), with the option (but not requirement) of doing things through a Symbian Signed certificate.
It should also be noted that Nokia's openness to development in comparison to the iPhone has been suitably documented previously.
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
Your symbian software have to be signed of by nokia, and that is really expensive! You cant run any own software on that brick!
I believe you can buy unlocked phones directly from Nokia. If you buy it from a telco, you are buying a phone locked by the telco themselves.
The big difference is that when you unlock a Nokia (which is either free, or just a few quid over here in the UK), you can still do the various firmware updates without bricking the device.
Until Apple came to the party, unlocking of phones to allow use on other networks was pretty much taken for granted. They've now chosen to change this mode of operation, and people are starting to get just a little ticked off.
Unlocking is extremely popular in the UK (obviously, can't comment on the US), with market stalls regularly offering unlocking services for a relatively small outlay.
Topic: After all, Apple itself used open source with OS X (kernel, web browser) mainly because they knew it would irritate Microsoft.
Um, what?
I can't be sure, but I'd make a guess and think that Apple didn't use open source mainly because it would irritate Microsoft. I'm sure they had acutal valid business reasons for doing so. (lower costs?, community esprit-de-core?,massive army of unpaid labor?, time to market?) Even if it would "irritate" Microsoft (which I can't figure out why Microsoft would care about where Apple gets it's source code from--especially in these days of the new Kinder, Gentler Microsoft) it hardly seems like a valid business move.
Thanks for the daily slap-Microsoft-because-you-can though.
*sigh*
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
It depends upon how you define 'open' - does open also mean you need to request an 'All Files' cert from Nokia just to get access to the file system? (A certificate they don't give out by the way, ever)
Nokia is full of shit, symbian might allow 3rd party apps, though as long as they force the use of their certificate based crap for ALL applications and themes, then the platform is not open at all. They can and have blocked access to new users at symbian signed. Hypocrites is all I have to say.
On Nokia phones, firmware upgrades have nothing to do with unlocking. If your phone was unlocked before upgrading, it'll stay unlocked afterwards. Likewise, if your phone was locked before upgrading, it'll still be locked afterwards. A firmware upgrade does not mean the phone will return to its locked state or turn into a brick.
In European countries where the network subsidises the phone, customers can ask their network for the unlock code after a year (by which time it's assumed the network will have recovered its subsidy) and go to another network of their choice. The iPhone is tied to AT&T forever and furthermore tied to AT&T's iPhone tariff.
If you don't want to be tied to a network at all, you can buy phones without subsidy which come unlocked and chose which network you want the service from. Most networks give a discount on their usual tariff if you bring your own mobile.
Finally, if you buy a phone which comes locked to a network, you can still run any 3rd party program you like on it, as you can on phones which don't come locked to a network.
So the word 'open' in Nokia's ad campaign is accurate in that the phone is as open as the customer wants it to be with regards to 3rd party programs, and if they originally buy a locked phone they later have the choice to go elsewhere if they later find a better offer from another network. The iPhone fails on both these counts.
I've seen a number of reports that just like Apple, Nokia does not permit unsigned apps on Symbian phones.
It's really sad when a Microsoft product (Windows Mobile) is the most open of the mainstream mobile OSes. You get a warning the first time you try to run an unsigned app on a Windows Mobile device, but that's it.
The only thing more open than Windows Mobile I've seen so far is OpenMoko. Most of the other Linux-for-phone implementations appear to be Tivoized to varying degrees.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
WRT to the linked Infoworld article in the post: it's out of date, Apple has since released the source to the Intel Mac OS X kernel.
Not that this will change anyone's opinion one way or the other.
I suggest you learn the GSM spec before making rash comments.
Each phone has a unique number (also known as IMEI). Part of this number is the phone model and manufacturer (similar to the way an Ethernet MAC is tied up to a manufacturer). It is possible to reject a specific phone or specific phone model based on IMEI and the support is there in all GSM networks. While this is rare and not done in anger, it is not impossible to do.
Further to this some of the reject codes a network can give cause a mandatory shutdown of the phone or can even brick the phone and lock the SIM (the last one usually does not work properly as it is not part of the mandatory tests so different manufacturers implement it differently, f.e. old Samsung resets instead of shutting down).
Namely I can think of at least 2 cases. I bet there are plenty of others.
1. 3 UK did this for people buying their elcheapo voice packages and trying to use them using non-3G phones (in the absense of 3G coverage 3 users roam onto O2). The users had their SIMs bricked and the phones shut down remotely.
2. O2 had a blacklist on some very early Motorolas and Benefones which did not quite comply to the spec.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Not only that, but the submission is wrong. That Tom Yager Infoworld piece that is linked was Yager's reaction to the fact that Apple hadn't yet open sourced the Intel kernel, and ran it under the sensationalist headline "Apple closes down OS X".
Except for the fact that at WWDC, they announced that the Intel kernel would continue to be open alongside PowerPC, as it always had.
Anyone is welcome to see for themselves. At the same time, Apple also launched Mac OS Forge, Apple's clearinghouse for its open source projects. Granted, Darwin as an OS is essentially dead, and has been for some time. But Darwin as the core of Mac OS X is alive, and many key components, including the kernel, are open source on both Intel and PowerPC.
And, no, Apple did not do this in "response" to Yager's article or anything similar. Yager just wasn't patient enough to find out what was actually going to happen, and assumed that since he hadn't seen any new Intel kernel source releases before WWDC that Mac OS X must now be "closed" - but he was wrong.
Does Apple do some of its open source stuff for PR or because it's to its advantage? Of course. One would hope that would be obvious. If you don't think Apple is giving back enough to the community, that's another valid, albeit subjective, opinion. I'd advise people to look at some of the Mac OS Forge projects, however.
So, the submission is wrong in both spirit (irritating Microsoft) and in fact (OS X now being "closed"; or any more closed than it has ever been).