Symbian Blasts Google's Phone Initiative

nowhere.elysium writes "Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform. Symbian's vice president, John Forsyth inferred that Google's interest in the field will also wane due to it being 'deeply unsexy', and that development is not likely for such a platform because "You have [...] a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed." In the same series of statements, Linux is likened to the common cold: "About every three months this year there has been a mobile Linux initiative of some sort launched. It's a bit like the common cold. It keeps coming round and then we go back to business.""

Comments

First step for symbian.

[raffe]

Hey, take a lesson from Microsoft:
1. First they ignore you (Linux? What is that? Who cares?).
2. They ridicule you (Linux is like cancer. Linux is un-American)
3. Then they fight you. (Our ROI is so much better and we have a roadmap too!)
4. Then you win

It will happen to you to symbian!!

Re:First step for symbian.

[ozmanjusri]

2.

I've always thought Symbian should merge with Sybian.

You'd get a phone that'd be a pleasure to receive calls on.

Re:First step for symbian.

[MouseR]

Well, while the message is pompous, there is some truth to it. There already was a Linux-based open platform announced (I forgot the details but it has something to do with TrollTech's Qt thing if I remember correctly).

No one cared but the project is kinda moving forward with a couple of Linux phones also being available.

Now Google announce the same thing (which is probably how we ended up with 350+ Linux distros in the first place). now, Google is much larger and has more resources so I suppose next week we can expect something rather nice and complete (and full of adds), but it would have been nice for the "open" nature of this actually looked at and embraced other "open" solutions.

This is going to look as silly as the Blur Ray/HD-DVD war going on.

Re:First step for symbian.

[malevolentjelly]

Since when has linux won against Microsoft? Mac hasn't even "won". Linux is just gaining a more substantial fringe market. Even Vista's many failures aren't enough to drop the prior market share- considering they have new product out within 2 years.

I would estimate that linux is more prevalent in the cell phone market than in the desktop market, so you're likely backwards here.

Re:First step for symbian.

[saintm]

I don't recall Linux winning the desktop yet, so there is another step in there:

3.5. ??????

Re:First step for symbian.

[pipatron]

Uhm, the point here being that they have already passed step 1, 2, and is now doing 3.

Re:First step for symbian.

[vadim_t]

Linux is winning, but not in desktop things yet.

There was a story here some time ago about that there are WiFi access points running Linux at Microsoft. The WRT54G access points are very well known even by people who don't know how to use Linux. Linux runs on various other embedded devices as well. Linux is big in the server arena, especially for cheap web hosting and such. Very big operations (Google, Akamai, etc) run massive amounts of Linux boxes.

The desktop will get there eventually. I hear more and more about Ubuntu making excellent progress, and thanks to Linux being open that means that any improvements to one distribution can propagate to other ones as well.

Re:First step for symbian.

[nektra]

TrollTech is not comparable to alliances like HTC + Google. Have you seen HTC TyTN II? The only weak point I see is building a good mobile GUI in Linux.

Re:First step for symbian.

[malevolentjelly]

These are different birds. Microsoft is not even a remotely large embedded player- to say that there are linux-based access points is a moot point, since they don't offer a microsoft based wireless router in the mainstream.

Microsoft does desktop, for the most part. In this, they are enjoying comfortable domination based on their success with XP, and have some time to turn around from the failures in Vista.

My point is simply that he's got it backwards- the cell phone market is much more promising for linux than desktop, at this point. Linux will really rely on the death of the classic PC market to enjoy total market "domination"-- or permeation, if you will- Microsoft is more vulnerable to the linux-based device market overtaking PC's than linux taking the PC market- if you're just arbitrarily anti-Microsoft you might like the see the captain go down with his ship, in this case.

Re:First step for symbian.

[madirad]

As a hardware (ASIC) designer I talked to Xbox last year. They don't even run their hardware design tools on any Microsoft platform. It's on Linux servers running Synopsys and Cadence tools.

Re:First step for symbian.

[vadim_t]

Linux certainly has it easier in applications like cell phones, but I'm not so sure of that domination will have to wait for the death of the desktop. I don't think the desktop will die completely, for that matter.

Microsoft seems to be having trouble coming up with a good reason for a new Windows version. IMO, the last Windows version that was good was Win2K. There's some point where an operating system, or any application for that matter, really does all it's supposed to do.

Once you get to that point, there's little of importance to add, so you start piling up eyecandy and pointless features. You can see this in things like antiviruses. Once you have an antivirus that does what it's supposed to, what do you add to distinguish it from the competition? It seems that this currently means custom GUI widgets that are often less usable than the native ones. Windows seems to be going through something like that.

On the other hand, Linux still has a way to go in the desktop area, and has the advantage of that it can easily choose not to include annoying things Microsoft does (DRM, say). Linux, being able to deliver without being subject to the constraints of a company, can ultimately reach a point where it can provide things MS can't.

For example, with Windows you have to pay $$$ to get a domain controller. With Linux you don't need to pay extra, and in fact Samba makes it possible to make a box that works as one that's cheaper than just the MS license for the OS.

Re:First step for symbian.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you heard the expression: "The dog that barks a lot does not bite"

Re:First step for symbian.

[sm62704]

nowhere.elysium writes

"Microsoft has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable platform. Microsoft's vice president, Steve Ballmer inferred that Google's interest in the field will also wane due to it being 'deeply unsexy', and that development is not likely for such a platform because "You have [...] a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed." In the same series of statements, Linux is likened to a cancer: "About every three months this year there has been a Linux initiative of some sort launched. It's a bit like cancer. It keeps coming round and then we die.""

-mcgrew

Re:First step for symbian.

[malevolentjelly]

I think that's a vast oversight of the creature comforts offered by XP- I used to feel the same way, until I started to take advantage of XP's excellent media/device features- cd burning, media, etc.. Most of the benefits are geared towards the consumer market.

I think at this point, the DRM debate is really not about the companies vs. the consumers- just look at the WGA strike. Writers are demanding a very complex set of royalties for new media online play, etc- their demands are beginning to underline a real need for DRM.

DRM makes new media real to people working in entertainment and production- people who rely on very accurate tracking of views/sales to make their bread. If you are pro linux desktop, you need to be supporting an open DRM option as opposed to no DRM at all- and I mean option. We should encourage open media whenever possible, but allow for DRM in cases where its necessary for artist/production payment schemes.

Linux is about choice, right? If you want to see a version of the linux world that is not compatible with the consumer market, look at Stallman and the FSF. The elimination of the market is not a market viable option.

I don't see how linux operates without company constraints. It is far more constrained in that it is reliant on multiple-company "coalitions" to get any major change done. Apple or Microsoft can simply say "you know, screw our former base" and create a more modern vision for their system in a single generation- they have total platform control with a hierarchy of talent and experience. That's real organization.

There is life outside of unix, you know. There are better ways to do things- some would argue that open standards are incapable of innovation- that's not the point. Their point is to equalize the market after every push forward- they add accessibility, give people non-commercial alternatives. They're the generic pharmaceuticals.

I think the real frustration open source people face with Microsoft and Apple is how much work it is to constantly catch up with them- it's an endless uphill battle- and the companies that profit off of it are not paying their employee base.

I'll eat my words when I see open source solutions that are both A) Not corporate and B) not alternatives.

Re:First step for symbian.

[malevolentjelly]

I think hardware design fits comfortably within my description of fringe market. The brilliance of corporations is that they can use the "competition" in order to complete a task if it's better for what they need to do- they're not bound by some sort of "religion" like the FSF or open source zealots.

Microsoft's designers and artists use Adobe products, despite offering Microsoft Expression- and many Microsoft coders use vim, instead of Visual Studio. It's just the reality of an enterprise- the employees are developing for the greater market.

Re:First step for symbian.

[nocomment]

Wonderful I come in here to make a joke, but 100+ others had the same joke... ;)

Re:First step for symbian.

[Shakrai]

There was a story here some time ago about that there are WiFi access points running Linux at Microsoft. The WRT54G access points are very well known even by people who don't know how to use Linux

I hate to break it to you, but A) the WRT54G isn't an access point, it's a NAT router that happens to have an AP built into it and B) the new versions DON'T run Linux, they use vxworks. Presumably Cisco wasn't very impressed by being forced to release their code and opted for a solution that they could control better.

They still release a version that runs Linux and can be flashed easily -- the WRT54GL -- but it's not nearly as mainstream by any means.

Re:First step for symbian.

[vadim_t]

I hate to break it to you, but A) the WRT54G isn't an access point, it's a NAT router that happens to have an AP built into it

You're clutching at straws here. It works as a WiFi AP, and that's what matters.

and B) the new versions DON'T run Linux, they use vxworks. Presumably Cisco wasn't very impressed by being forced to release their code and opted for a solution that they could control better.

What is this "their code"? An access point that runs Linux has a kernel and software the vast percentage of which weren't written by Cisco. At best Cisco added a driver for the chipset and some code for the web interface. Hardly a huge sacrifice compared to the amount of code they got for free. Not to mention that nothing stops them from using a closed source kernel module and writing the CGI scripts in some compiled language.

No, the reason the new versions don't run Linux is that vxworks can be made to work using less RAM and Flash space, which costs less to manufacture.

Re:First step for symbian.

[toadlife]

So where does Linux losing market share to Windows fit into that formula?

Re:First step for symbian.

[wolfen]

Just a random observation. I bought an HD-DVD player by Toshiba this weekend. (Along with a lot of other people who jumped on the $99 player deal that was out there)

Guess what operating system it's running? Here's a clue, they have the GPL printed in the back of the manual.

So now I have a player that came with 10 free HD-DVD's and is running Linux, and which upconverts my DVD's so they look amazingly better and which cost me only $99.

Look more closely and you'll probably find more things are running Linux then you'd think.

Actually, the original HD-A1 was apparently running Red Hat. ( http://geekswithblogs.net/lorint/archive/2006/04/21/75795.aspx )

Re:First step for symbian.

[vadim_t]

DRM makes new media real to people working in entertainment and production- people who rely on very accurate tracking of views/sales to make their bread. If you are pro linux desktop, you need to be supporting an open DRM option as opposed to no DRM at all- and I mean option. We should encourage open media whenever possible, but allow for DRM in cases where its necessary for
artist/production payment schemes.

No. I don't support DRM, period.

If it uses DRM, I don't buy it or use it. If it even supports DRM (portable music players say), I will specifically look for the device that either supports none or has the least amount of it.

Linux is about choice, right? If you want to see a version of the linux world that is not compatible with the consumer market, look at Stallman and the FSF. The elimination of the market is not a market viable option.

And I should care about the market why exactly? I used Debian for a long time. RMS liked, IIRC. It worked perfectly fine for me.

I don't see how linux operates without company constraints. It is far more constrained in that it is reliant on multiple-company "coalitions" to get any major change done. Apple or Microsoft can simply say "you know, screw our former base" and create a more modern vision for their system in a single generation- they have total platform control with a hierarchy of talent and experience. That's real organization.

Haha. Whoever at MS or Apple says "let's screw our userbase" won't keep their job for very long. MS is well known for maintaining backwards compatibility for a very long time. Apple shipped emulators to compensate for an architecture change. They certainly have broken compatibility, but that's not something that is done easily or often.

I didn't mean precisely that, however. What I mean is that companies have to deal with issues that aren't relevant to many Linux distributions. Including a popup blocker in IE was probably a major decision for MS -- what if our partners get annoyed, or people block ads on MSN? How can we implement this feature in such a way that we can say "See, we have that too", while not creating a conflict with another division? MS also isn't going to let you run Windows on a 32-way box, or have the box be a domain controller without asking for a good deal of extra cash, while Linux distributions need not have any artificial limits like that.

There is life outside of unix, you know.

Tried it. Many times. I used MS-DOS, DR-DOS, PC-DOS, PTS-DOS, OS/2 Warp, Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, 98, ME, 2000, NT 3.51, NT4. I maintained many Windows boxes. I currently prefer Linux to all of that.

I'll eat my words when I see open source solutions that are both A) Not corporate and B) not alternatives.

Many Linux distributions are non-commercial. Debian and Gentoo for example. What do you mean by "not alternatives" though?

Re:First step for symbian.

[realdodgeman]

Since when has linux won against Microsoft? Mac hasn't even "won". Linux is just gaining a more substantial fringe market. Even Vista's many failures aren't enough to drop the prior market share- considering they have new product out within 2 years.

I would estimate that linux is more prevalent in the cell phone market than in the desktop market, so you're likely backwards here.

Work in progress...

Re:First step for symbian.

[raddan]

I think it's just a matter of time. The pure economics of it will eventually win out, like the Cold War. Microsoft will "stay ahead" as long as they can throw money at their problems, but eventually this will catch up with them. It's very hard to compete with free, especially against an operating system that has more freedom to do things "right" than to do them "glitzy". Linux doesn't need to appeal to fickle buyers or hungry stockholders. Developers can focus on stability. Microsoft's culture of reinventing the wheel, even among their own product lines (why write from scratch when you can rewrite your own stable product?), is also working against them in a big way.

Re:First step for symbian.

[Ginger Unicorn]

they're not bound by some sort of "religion" like the FSF or open source zealots.

The "zealots" are merely sticking to their principles in order to achieve a goal. Why do you feel the need to sneer at them?

Re:First step for symbian.

[Jaysyn]

To paraphrase Denis Leary:

"They can have a big DRM cakewalk
Right through the middle of Hollywood & Vine
and it wont make a lick of difference
Because we've got the cash, OK?"

I don't buy anything with DRM, neither does my family & I'm still working on my friends.

Re:First step for symbian.

[ScrewMaster]

Winning, when it comes to Microsoft, doesn't constitute having a greater market share.

It means that, after Microsoft has done its absolute worst ... you still have a marketshare, and if you can grow it so much the better. So in that sense Linux has (so far) beaten the odds: so has Apple, although that's been more because Microsoft deigned to let them live (they may come to regret that.) I mean, do you have any idea how many companies and products lie in the wake of the Microsoft's passage? I don't either, but I do know after almost thirty years in this business that it's a big number. The fact that Linux is not only heavily used, but on the rise is truly remarkable, given that Microsoft perceives it as a threat.

Re:First step for symbian.

[Hal_Porter]

Because they're so easy to troll? Other groups are sensible enough to ignore comments like that.

Re:First step for symbian.

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I couldn't help but notice that number 4 has no quote :)

Re:First step for symbian.

[SuperQ]

You'd like the Squeezebox then. No DRM supported.

Re:First step for symbian.

[jacksonj04]

why write from scratch when you can rewrite your own stable product? Good question. I guess we'll find out when they release a stable product.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Re:First step for symbian.

[Ginger Unicorn]

you assume i am a FLOSS "zealot" which i'm not. i'm just someone who thinks it's worth pointing out pointless bigotry for what it is. perhaps someone can flame me as a "zealot" for that.

Re:First step for symbian.

[Anonymous Coward]

You homepage domain is for sale? Time for an update.

Re:First step for symbian.

[malevolentjelly]

How is the latest version of Ubuntu or OS X not like Vista? The whole lot of them are becoming bloated- and linux is largely suffering from a lack of commercial software support, which they shun.

Open source code works, for the most part, but is extremely shoddy when compared to professional software- although some open source software is professional (like Sun Microsystem's OpenOffice) When is Windows not stable when you're running a pretty much first party run of software? I've found it's usually some weak 3rd party app that crashes me, if ever.

Linux, Vista, and OS X can be run in a more minimal way- with a lot of the junk disabled. They all pretty much suffer from the same crap and crash in the same instances. We can pretend that this is the end-all race in consumer computing, but in all reality the embedded device market is going to kill the classic PC market off within the next generation. It's silly, inefficient, and unnecessary as it stands.

I think the PC market is moving out of the home and shrinking in the business. Why compute on a massive energy wasting box when you can accomplish everything with a terminal-esque(monitor, keyboard, mouse, w/gui) workstation where you dock something resembling a PDA?- Or perhaps you just use google-fied thin clients? How much longer can we hold on to this 1980's-90's technology?

Re:First step for symbian.

[raddan]

I have to disagree with many of your comments. While I think that general purpose computers will decline in popularity, and I also think this is a good thing, I highly doubt that they will be "killed off". LOTS of people need general-purpose computers for data-processing, and that need will not be filled by shiny single-purpose gizmos.

What first-party proprietary product has stability problems? Well, for starters, Windows itself does. To be quite honest, once you've worked closely with and studied another operating system that has any thought put into its design, you will realize what a total POS Windows and its toolchain is. It is not built with you in mind. It is built for the purpose of maintaining Microsoft's hegemony.

You obviously do not have any exposure to high-availability systems. Windows is amazingly difficult to run in this kind of environment-- that's why virtualization is becoming so popular. It's working around the software's shortcomings.

As for Open Source being shoddy. I could give you counterexamples all day. MTAs like Postfix are vastly more flexible, reliable, and safe to run than Exchange. Berkeley Packet Filter beats the pants off of Microsoft's "firewall" software, particularly if you want system policies that integrate with DHCP (like, revoking leases from network abusers), VPN, and failover, or do anything not explicitly intended by the GUI designer (pf on OpenBSD has no GUI). Microsoft's system inspection tools are a JOKE-- the ones that they provide are so ambigious that Microsoft even now offers third-party tools on their own website to supplement their own (like ProcessExplorer). The shell is barely functional, which means that you cannot easily chain tools together, and the likelihood that the new Windows shell can run industry-standard sh scripts is probably nil. I work with both of these platforms in server environments, and the difference is night and day. I prefer the Open Source stuff almost any day.

A final note-- your "weak" third-party applications should not be crashing your system. Modern operating systems properly contain their applications. The fact that Windows users are still dealing with issues that were identified in the 1980's shows that most of the world still exists in a sad state of affairs.

Re:First step for symbian.

[malevolentjelly]

Well, we all know that Windows is the only proprietary operating system. Right?

LOTS of people need general-purpose computers for data-processing, and that need will not be filled by shiny single-purpose gizmos. Things like cell phones and PDA's can do more than one thing- they are simply smaller computers. I believe that the interfaces may not change in the business world(keyboards, monitors), but the systems will. In the consumer world, both will change.

I think of Windows as a desktop operating system- you've got an IT enterprise server view of it- which is simply inapplicable to what it does best, which is run client userland applications. Your description of superior open source applications more or less describes applications that are better at being unix, which windows is not. It's not unix. Microsoft may be trying to pretend it is- but it is not.

Windows can completely waste x11 in performance and usability any day, because x11 was built with network transparency in mind- which is basically useless to most anyone who's not running a remote terminal. Why worry about Windows' 1980's problems when you're wrestling with Linux's problems from the 1970's?

I don't remember my system crashing on account of a program in the last several years with my Windows system- and most people refer to programs crashing when they're talking about a system crash. On linux, my system might not break into an exception handler (or BSOD), but it sure launches out of X and gnome at the drop of a hat. But we should all be doing everything in text mode, right?

Let me lay this out for you-- graphics are important. Everyone uses Linux and Mac because they are completely graphical.

Now, onto my original point: Linux is a terrible embedded OS. It's only application in embedded-space is as a cheap userland layer- this is what I was talking about, not servers. Get your mind out of the server, sir. Linux is a passable server system, and I was not knocking it in that role.

Whoops

[Colin Smith]

Pride and all that.

Hmm... A bit of complacency there too.

Re:Whoops

[Ossifer]

Pride? I think he sounds scared...

In that case...

[OgreChow]

I'm glad there's no cure for the common cold. Is this guy just completely missing the fact that some of the brightest young developers in the world work for Google? They don't need external developers in order to be a success. Any third-party dev is just icing on the cake.

Re:In that case...

[vandit2k6]

Ha I think its more like sprinkles icing is already there :) :) :)

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful there... while some of the brightest developers work at Google, Google seriously lacks good product managers capable of seeing a product through. Google's few non-search and ad apps are still only niche players (even gmail doesn't have the market share it could have outside the geek world). Google's model of letting geeks have fun is great as long as the money is free (which it is, thanks to their ad engine), but as soon as the apps need to start producing revenue to justify their existence, Google will struggle.

I think this is what Sybian is trying to point out. Google may have a good idea and a motivated geek force behind it. But, it takes more than just motivated geeks to ensure longevity in the marketplace.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

brightest young developers? Right ... what exactly has Google produced themselves that has any innovative value? I truly can't think of anything. Sure, their search was nice, but after that? Video? They bought youtube. Pics? They bought picassa. Gmail? Can't work with it ... seriously, google hasn't developed _anything_ new for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:In that case...

[TheGratefulNet]

some of the brightest young developers in the world work for Google

but google was caught demonstrating age discrimination, and so.... yes..... the developers there HAVE to be young or they get fired.

link for brian reid and other 'older people' who have gotton the shaft at google:

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5283653.html

do no evil, huh? bloody LIARS, they are. war is peace, right? 'do no evil' is an unfunny joke.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, you're wrong.

But I think it's more than a question of someone finding an original project that you've missed. Google's use of the AJAX framework is making very powerful applications available over the web in a way that Java clients never got simultaneouly "right" and "fast".

Have you used the Google maps feature where you ask for directions between two points, then drag the route across an interim destination and let it plot it for you? Have you tried to do this with other mapping software? Google takes good concepts and invests enormous engineering effort in making them more "useful" not just adding pretty features that look good on the box.

I'm sorry you "can't work with" Gmail. Perhaps the online instructions are lacking. I spend all day at a keyboard and find Gmail to be the online mail system I least hate, by a large margin.

Have you used Google Earth? Does any other mapping software hold a candle to Google Maps? The Garmin stuff I spent a lot of money on with my GPS ain't bad, but it "ain't free." either.

And it's also worth noticing, that because the Javascript portion of AJAX is exposed, Google is sharing a great deal of their innovation with the world just by their choice of tools. If you're not part of web development it may not be easy to see, but many companies get a forward tug from their draft, and the web would be a much less interesting place without them.

Re:In that case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you used the Google maps feature where you ask for directions between two points, then drag the route across an interim destination and let it plot it for you? Have you tried to do this with other mapping software? Google takes good concepts and invests enormous engineering effort in making them more "useful" not just adding pretty features that look good on the box.

MapQuest had this (albiet in their Java client) back in 1997. Java didn't die then b/c it developers couldn't get it "right" and "fast" but b/c of the FUD propogated by those fearful of real apps running in browsers. (ok, maybe Java wasn't terribly fast either, but it was still faster than most JavaScript implementations are today)

Have you used Google Earth? Does any other mapping software hold a candle to Google Maps? The Garmin stuff I spent a lot of money on with my GPS ain't bad, but it "ain't free." either.

Keep in mind that Google bought Google Earth in pretty much its current incarnation. As a 1.0 product, Google Earth rocks, but the user interface could use some updating and KML isn't the greatest geo-aware ML out there. I'd love to give Google credit for Google Earth, but they don't deserve it. As with other products (*cough* DejaNews *cough*), they bought it and put it in maintenance mode.

And it's also worth noticing, that because the Javascript portion of AJAX is exposed, Google is sharing a great deal of their innovation with the world just by their choice of tools.

Grudgingly so... read up on their mapplet APIs (http://www.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/mapplets/guide.html). They are trying to get rid of the JavaScript approaches to using Google Maps in favor of a sandboxed application. They really don't want to be as open as they currently are in this area and are using a new set of APIs to deprecate the older (and more open) approach.

So, Google's not all that original and they're trying to close things up.

Re:In that case...

[ciryon]

I'll save the quote in this article and look at it again in a few years.

A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[ivan256]

Symbian and BREW developers are scarce, not because it's boring or unprofitable to develop for mobile platforms, but because it costs a fortune to get development licenses with the software vendors and distribution licenses with the carriers. If there was a truly open phone, with an SDK that allowed full network and display access, and users could install and run these apps without a carrier distribution aggrements, there would be many more mobile developers.

Nothing like building a big wall around yourself, then complaining that nobody ever comes to visit.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[shirizaki]

Nothing like building a big wall around yourself, then complaining that nobody ever comes to visit.

No, more like "We've built this big wall between us, the carriers, and the consumers to shave the sheep clean, and now all this open and free comes along to ruin it for us!" THAT is the real reason.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[kyofunikushimi]

FTA:

It's costly, arduous and at times a deeply unsexy job of supporting customers day by day in launching phones. That's something there's very little experience of in Google's environment. "if you are a serious phone maker and you are asked to bet your handsets on somebody, you would want to bet on someone with a track record of delivery and support.

They're not delivering the phones. They won't be supporting phone users directly. They'll be dealing directly with the hardware companies, which is NOT the same thing as supporting end users. The phone companies will be supporting the end users. If you need some help with your iPhone chances are you contact AT&T, NOT Apple.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[LWATCDR]

Palm? WinCE?
Both offer full TCP/IP access last time I checked. Even the Blackberry now offers access to the TCP/IP in their SDK.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Ford Prefect]

They're not delivering the phones. They won't be supporting phone users directly.

That's what he said - "supporting customers ... in launching phones". Helping customers, the phone manufacturers, launch phones.

"If you are a serious phone maker ... you would want to bet on someone with a track record of delivery and support."

But he does sound a touch envious of the lifestyles of those at Google - describing his own work as "a deeply unsexy job". Aww... ;-)

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[ivan256]

Both have sizable developer communities too. There's a reason they weren't in my short list.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[malevolentjelly]

Developer support is kind of a big deal in the real world. Real developer support is what open source's open access and fully available documentation pretends to emulate. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of cell phone developers google would need to support. Thousands upon thousands.

When companies work with a corporate OS, they actually get plenty of open access to the platform and documentation- often with full source licenses. The benefit is that they don't have to deal with a customized fork of linux- a fork they may have to pour lots of money into to get through shoddy documentation and inaccessible, often proprietary work from competitors (like nokia-only extensions in X.org)-- they have a platform they can simply implement and get support on from the ground up, with predictable patch and release cycles and supported tools.

Too many open source people think that a device's hackability is the end all watermark if its developer-friendliness. This couldn't be further from the truth. When you're delivering to customers, you want predictable results and a stable platform- hackability is only relevant to students, hobbyists, and software activists. The embedded market is about making a self-contained device, not an unstable wide-open PC.

If you want hackability in phones, why not use something based on Windows mobile? The .NET development system offers developers a stable and fairly accessible alternative to tossing things together in Java or writing native programs without really compromising the system.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[asphaltjesus]

but because it costs a fortune to get development licenses with the software vendors

That's a totally false statement regarding symbian. I downloaded their sdk yesterday from Nokia's site. Free as in beer, but it's easy to get. There are quite a few apps for symbian already and the sdk looks pretty well documented. I think there's an OPL runtime for symbian too.

and distribution licenses with the carriers.
In symbian's case, you don't need to go to the carrier. It's another reason why their OS is years ahead of the game.

If there was a truly open phone, with an SDK that allowed full network and display access, and users could install and run these apps without a carrier distribution aggrements,

What are you waiting for? Right here: http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/05c63dfd-d6e9-4c0e-b185-d365e7001aeb/S60-SDK-0548-3.0-f.3.215f.zip.html

Symbian is in a sh!t storm right now. Microsoft is using their usual tricks resources to screw the better OS out of the market. Apple's out-shouting symbian with their platform. Nokia has all kinds of Linux initiatives going on but two products actually using it, and BREW definitely is not a "compile once run everywhere" solution.

Symbian's OS is arguably the best in the field, so I can understand why this guy is pissed. Maybe his business plan has other problems, but you are all missing out on a great phone OS that you CAN ACTUALLY WRITE NEW APPS WITHOUT THE CARRIERS BOTHERING YOU if you don't have one.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Tony Hoyle]

because it costs a fortune to get development licenses

Bulshit. The development certs. are free. The SDK is free.

There are many, many thousands of symbian developers and many many thousands of independent symbian apps.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[neokushan]

Incorrect. The developer certificates are NOT free, Symbian signing is NOT free. It's only free if you're developing freeware, otherwise you're looking at about 500 to get an application tested and signed.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[hey!]

Well, BREW, whaterver its technical merits or problems, is all about the carriers being the gatekeepers between developers and the users. Once you've paid your SDK and testin fees, you have to sit down and convince a carrier to let you sell your product to their customers. Basically the carriers would prefer anything a customer does with their network to be tied to some fee producing service.

That's why mobile development is in such a bloody mess. Phone vendors do not want phones to become a portable application platform. You can port your phone number when you change carriers, but they'd sure as hell prefer you to lose as much else as possible, for example your phone book and applications, and if possible the phone itself. I expect this is why J2ME is not offered in the same way as J2SE; the phone companies would do their best to kill if it looked like it was emerging as a platform which freed mobile applications from carrier control.

There's nothing really all that special about mobile development. Devices are resource constrained, but in the grand historical sense they aren't all that constrained, when compared to a 286 PC/AT machines from which many an entrepreneur made his fortune. User interfaces are different, but not in a way that a smart designer (who can be hired for a fee) can't take into account. Believe me, I've done it, and while it is easy to make stupid mistakes, it's not really that hard to avoid those mistakes if you have enough money.

And it's not like mobile applications are, in the current state of the art, all that wonderful.

The real problem is overcoming the phone companies. Google is in an interesting strategic position, because they have so much money, they've got huge amounts of mysterious dark fiber, they're making noises about being interested in acquiring spectrum. Maybe they'd have a hard time becoming a mobile phone company, but they could become a mobile something else company and by the way pretty soon that something else does the things you use your phone for now.

Smart people at the mobile companies should be concerned that Google's involvement in mobile technology, if not co-opted, could lead to a paradigm shift. At least in the US, the companies aren't prepared for that kind of competition. They aren't even prepared for fair competition in their existing business. They do their level best to make it hard for consumers to price compare services.

So, Google is in a position that Symbian might well envy. Symbian is a captive of the phone companies. If the phone companies don't want to play with them, there goes their business. If they don't want to play with Google, it has almost no effect on Google's main business, and Google goes back to the lab and cooks up a world of pain for them.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[BasilBrush]

Mod this down, it's complete bullshit from someone who hasn't a clue. The SDKs for Symbian OS are free downloads, there are plenty of shareware and freeware developers working on it, and you don't need any license to install such apps on a phone.

It will cost to buy a certificate to certify the app as non-malicious and fit for purpose, and without that the user will get a warning when installing that the app is unsigned. But that is a quite reasonable security step given that phone malware could cost serious money on a phone bill. But the lack of such a cert doesn't stop you from using or distributing free apps.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[LWATCDR]

But you said, "If there was a truly open phone, with an SDK that allowed full network and display access, and users could install and run these apps without a carrier distribution aggrements, there would be many more mobile developers."
You said "If", that implies that there are no phones with that are easy to develop for. Just pointing out that there are phones already do have a easy to access SDK. As far as I can tell they are not Open as in the FOSS use of Open but they are easy to develop for.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Tony Hoyle]

Developer certificates *are* free. For anyone. You only start paying if you want to distribute a signed application.

You pay for the certificate if you want to start distributing commercial apps. That's no more cost than you would pay for a signing certificate on Windows for example and if you can't recover that cost how are you paying your devs in the first place? You do *not* have to submit the app for testing once your company has a certificate, as the signing application is part of the SDK. We actually have one, although the project that was going to be used for it got shelved.. the cert. is there though and I could use it if I wanted.

Even many independent applications distribute signed because it's easier on their customers. At the free end the more common model is to distribute unsigned and sign it yourself using a dev. cert. - and that's just a tedious extra step (pity they made it mandatory.. optional was far better).

That hardly counts as 'hostile'. Windows mobile needs signed apps, you can bet the google OS will have similar requirements and the iphone definately will (if they ever release the SDK to non-approved developers, which is looking doubtful).

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[neokushan]

You do have to get it symbian signed if you want to distribute your application. The signing tools that come with it are so that you can sign your application with your Company's certificate to verify that it came from you, but this will not run on a commercial phone. Only officially Symbian signed applications will.
There is a self-signing process, but this is only available to trusted developers who have developed a lot of Symbian applications.
The point is, it's very difficult for a small developer to get started when it comes to mobile applications, it's either freeware or nout for a lot of them and that's the problem.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[rockmuelle]

Huh? I've been using free (as in beer and sometimes as in speech) languages and libraries for Nokia's S60 platform (built on Symbian) for a while now:

http://www.forum.nokia.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S60_platform

-Chris

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is in an interesting strategic position, because they have so much money, they've got huge amounts of mysterious dark fiber, they're making noises about being interested in acquiring spectrum. But the gravity from dark fiber is the only thing keeping the cyberspace from expanding at an exponentially increasing rate. Google does not play dice.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[nschubach]

Having programmed in Java and C#, I don't see what your getting at on the claim that .NET is somehow better than that which it was modeled after. Unless you truly are here as a Microsoft fan or employee trying to up-sell the company. Java is just as capable and stable as .NET (I'd arguably say Java's grown more stable and capable over the years.) All your previous posts I've read point me to this belief of you being here for "fan or fortune."

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Ecuador]

The company I work for develops for Symbian, BREW, Win CE among other things (while actually being a Linux-only workplace, thanks to compilers runing on VMWare). What you say is mostly true about BREW, which started as expensive for developers and with recent increases in testing fees has become ridiculously expensive.
Symbian is not as much of a cost problem, however that is the only good thing I can say about it.
While I have not worked much on Symbian myself, the fact that we work for most available mobile OS platforms and all developers get to see the bug reports and development issues of all projects (we are rather small, so following the dev lists is not overwhelming - switching to another project to help is common too), has given me a unique perspective on things and made me laugh out loud when I read about the Symbian VC's announcement.
It seems that our symbian developers spend most of their time trying to program around Symbian OS bugs and Symbian OS version differences. As I am writing this, there is talk in our dev list about whether we should change the planned behavior of our UI due to ridiculous Symbian OS bug. Bugs like this show bad implementation from Symbian's part. However, the compatibility problems between different OS versions is more troubling, since it also means bad planning.
Now, this outfit calling google (or anyone else) inexperienced and Linux "the common cold", it makes me want to either rofl, or pull out my hair. Just because Nokia invested so much in that stupid OS, doesn't make Symbian OS devs "gods" of any sort - they might have just been at the right place the right time (we all remember MS-DOS).
I guess Symbian fans might call me a Troll, and there might indeed exist some good aspects of the OS. However, after 2+ years working and monitoring other's work on all competing patforms I do thing I have a decently accurate insight to do a comparison.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[malevolentjelly]

Java's slow- and its development tools sort of suck. It's like my cell phone is living in the rich media world of the late 90's internet. It's barely crawling forward, as well. When you use Java, you're always trapped in the constraints of Sun's aging JVM. They're only recently adding rich application capabilities, and half the language is deprecated.

C# is more of a marriage between the better points of C++, Java, Delphi, and Smalltalk- it's gaining popularity with good cause- even in Mono- it's not just .NET.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Fluffy Bunnies]

Symbian has some kind of signing program for freeware, but as I have no experience with that, I'll let that slide. But to to reiterate something that has been already said, you do not have to get your app signed even if you want to distribute it. All that means is that the people who use your program have to self-sign it for their own phones. That is somewhat annoying, but it gets a lot easier after the first time. This is something any end user can do and isn't, I think, an unreasonable for freeware apps.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[nschubach]

Java's slow

Ah, the old dated, "Java's slow" remark.
Java's Client VM may be, sure. But you can always use the server VM or native compilation. Also, Eclipse is quite possibly the coolest IDE I've used, right up next to Visual Studio. The non-version manager code history features alone won me over.

C#/.NET is gaining popularity because it's installed by default on the OS that has market share and partly because it's Microsoft. Hell, the company I work for approved it's use before Flash simply because it's MS. If a non MS Java VM was installed by default with Windows Update things might be different. It may also be the the thought that Java cannot be compiled into native executables which are less apt to "code stealing" through de-compilation, which is wrong.

Now that Sun is opening it's Java implementations, it can only look up as far as performance and platform support. As a side note, Java has increased in performance most notably with SE5 and 6 and has done wonders for the speed and performance numbers. It may be "too little-too late" for you, but please stop using the argument of Java being slow if you haven't been programming in Java for a few years.

Also, deprecation is not a bad thing. It's called adapting and changing. Microsoft's model is to start over every few years with a new OS full of bugs and problems. Of course, they charge the consumer for it. That's their business model. Deprecation can morph languages into something better without steep learning curves and alienating the former clients. Hell, I was surprised when Microsoft brought "Goto" back in C#. Sure, it's main usage is sort of a hack to switch fall-through, but I'd argue that Goto is about as archaic and needless as it gets. At least Java had the foresight to deprecate it to discourage it's use.

Some benchmarks and links:
http://www.kano.net/javabench/data
http://thermalnoise.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/java-slow/

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[0xdeadbeef]

Don't be absurd. There is no such thing as "Symbian fans".

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[vhogemann]

I'd like to point out that nerfed phones seems to be a problem only in the USA.

Here at Brazil most operators sell their phones without any features disabled, for an example I can upload any application to my phone using an microSD card, also after one year all operators must unlock your phone for free. I think this happens on other countries too.

So, even if this Google initiative fails at the USA... it can succed at the rest of the world.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Anonymous Coward]

All that means is that the people who use your program have to self-sign it for their own phones. That is somewhat annoying, but it gets a lot easier after the first time. This is something any end user can do and isn't, I think, an unreasonable for freeware apps. Really, that simple and painless? Imagine you had to do that for every free game and application for Windows. Would you do it, or hack Windows to do it for you, at which point there'd be no point to signing anyway?

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Fluffy Bunnies]

There's a "slight" difference in the number of freeware apps I have on my computer and on my phone. But if your argument is that the signing should be done away with, I agree. I'm just saying it's not really a barrier to freeware app development.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Simon Brooke]

I downloaded their sdk yesterday from Nokia's site. Free as in beer, but it's easy to get. There are quite a few apps for symbian already and the sdk looks pretty well documented.

Already? Bloody should be, the system is fifteen years old...

Seriously, I used Symbian phones for five years, but never developed anything for them because the SDK was so poor. I've developed apps for Windows Mobile, and I don't even like Microsoft. My next phone will probably run OpenMoko, if I don't try to get Android running on my current phone.

Symbian - OK, it is (or was originally) a British product. But it really isn't very good.

Re:A lot of /what/, before /who/ gets out of bed?

[Simon Brooke]

you can bet the google OS will have similar requirements and the iphone definately will (if they ever release the SDK to non-approved developers, which is looking doubtful).

You think Monday's never going to come, then?

And...

[whisper_jeff]

... and that iPhone thingy will never take off either!

Methinks he doth protest too much.

Re:And...

[Goffee71]

"You're not the boss of me!" - said a Symbian executive cowering under the stairs...

Symbian v Google

[eraserewind]

Maybe Google's inexperience will allow them to design a Resource API that doesn't leak memory when you create a variable on the stack. (on the stack! for heavens sake!). It's not for no reason that people complain about Symbian programming.

all i got to say is...

[xTantrum]

Damnnnnnnn...that is cold.

Re:all i got to say is...

[Rei]

Dear Mr. Forsyth,

Thank you for letting me know which brand of phone to not buy, should the Neo1973 fail to materialize this Christmas.

Re:all i got to say is...

[ReeceTarbert]

As a matter of fact, you couldn't buy a phone branded Symbian even if you wanted to. However, here's quite a selection:

http://www.symbian.com/phones/index.html

That being said, I agree that Mr. Forsyth statement is unfortunate -- to put it mildly.

RT
--
Your bookmarks. Anytime. Anywhere

PR stories on slashdot = lame

[wattersa]

There are way too many public relations stories on slashdot. Basically you can disregard anything written in a press release or in a news story about what one company said to another. Every time, it is a carefully worded written statement made by the company's PR department or external public relations firm. They often make vague comments that work by implication and innuendo (leaving wiggle room and plausible deniability) rather than commitments to hard facts or positions. Every time someone takes a press release seriously, the company benefits. I for one don't believe slashdot should give top billing to stories like this.

Here, to have a CEO call the mobile field "deeply unsexy" in an attempt to make the public think Google doesn't fit into it implies that he and his company are deeply concerned about Google entering the mobile platform market and shaking it up! As for "You have [...] a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed," he's implying that it will take a long time to be profitable. However, I think Google has "a lot [more] zeroes" in its market capitalization and R&D budget than Symbian and many other companies combined. Thus Symbian's fear that Google will get into mobile devices.

Re:PR stories on slashdot = lame

[kevinbr]

"......As for "You have [...] a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed," he's implying that it will take a long time to be profitable. ....."

No he means that he believes a lot of phones must ship before any developers get interested in a phone. A phone with only a few customers using it is not that interesting for a developer when there are phone that have millins of users.

So, he is alluding to chicken/egg. Does a developer wait for enough devices to ship, or does he take a punt and start now.

He is wrong of course, with the hype thousands of developers will bite and start developing for the google platform.

Not experienced enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, that's what Palm said about Apple when the iPhone was just announced. Any effort that shakes the incumbents in the mobile space out of their complacency is a good one as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Not experienced enough?

[techpawn]

And here's something I was wondering? How is a company to get experience at doing something until they do it. It's that vicious cycle we see when applying for jobs for the first time. They won't hire you because you don't have experience but you can't get experience because they won't hire you.

I say try something new! Google has got the the bank to try something risky and "unsexy" and if it fails, move on knowing that it's core is still making money enough for their private landing strip...

So what? They're not doing it alone.

[The Evil Couch]

FTFA
John Forsyth, vice president of strategy at Symbian, the platform that powers many of the world's phones, said Google lacked experience.

Google has formed an alliance with 33 firms to develop an open platform for mobile phones, called Android.

Among those firms are phone giants HTC, LG, Motorola, and Samsung. Additionally, they're apparently courting Nokia, as well. I don't think that Google's inexperience in designing phones matters one bit. They've allied themselves with virtually every major mobile phone maker in the market. They don't *need* any experience within Google. They have it in spades with their partners.

Re:So what? They're not doing it alone.

[Clarious]

Not all of them going to develope Android, they said they will 'support' it.

Re:So what? They're not doing it alone.

[JCSoRocks]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Google didn't have any experience writing Search optimized file systems or databases or anything of that ilk either... but it did. It also wrote a crapload of other nifty / amazing applications. Experience isn't necessary, it's just helpful. Did anyone freak out and scream "ZOMG Apple has NO experience making phones! They CAN NOT DO IT!!!!". No, that would have been silly. I think Symbian is just freaking out because they've seen the trouble Microsoft has had competing with Google and I'm sure they're afraid the same thing will happen to them.

Re:So what? They're not doing it alone.

[lp-habu]

Did anyone freak out and scream "ZOMG Apple has NO experience making phones! They CAN NOT DO IT!!!!". No, that would have been silly.

Actually, I think they did. And yes, it was silly.

Re:So what? They're not doing it alone.

[Poorcku]

Samsung is in on Symbian with 4,5%. They also ship Linux powered phones. What makes you think they will go ALL IN on this alliance?

Re:So what? They're not doing it alone.

[kevinbr]

"..... They've allied themselves with virtually every major mobile phone maker in the market......" A mobile operator joining a consortium like this is meaningless. I used to handle Standards issues for a Large european mobile operator. We sit in committees and decide if we want to join to move it forward or join to obstruct.

People who believe these operators are joining means much are naive. They could be joining to get advance notice of what is going on, perhaps commision one phone as a test in some backwater market.

Things are not what they seem. Mobile operators have no strategy, but they are excellent at spoiling the picnic. Taking away their cash floor will be long and arduous. They turn over vast boxes of cash. They can afford mistakes. This is a long haul battle.

Re:So what? They're not doing it alone.

[Luyseyal]

Additionally, they're apparently courting Nokia, as well.

... who owns Symbian! Crazy!

-l

I don't like Symbian....

[Corporate Troll]

I always read it as Sybian ;-)

Cold

[Anonymous Coward]

Once your old and useless it's fairly normal to die from a common cold.

Re:Cold

[sm62704]

Once you're young and illiterate it's fairly normal to die from a drug overdose.

-mcgrew

PS- Get the hell off my lawn, punk.

Then he threw a chair through the room and said:

[El_Muerte_TDS]

"I'm going to f#cking kill Google".

Lousy summary

[Improv]

Saying that Linux is like the common cold is not a good summary of saying that the frequent linux mobile efforts are like the common cold.

But Symbian sucks

[WarwickRyan]

Really, it's horrible.

What kinda of operating system hides screen config options under the phone security menus?

Their whole UI seems to have been built by a randomisation script.

The technical background might be fine but when the user experience is so poor it just drags the whole experience down.

I own an Nokia N91, I'd add.

Re:But Symbian sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Symbian doesn't do GUIs. Phone manufacturers do. Complain to them, not Symbian

Re:But Symbian sucks

[Creepy]

On my phone all configuration is under Settings and Tools. The more recent incarnations (mine is 20.1 + something) of Symbian seem much more usable than the ones from a few years ago, judging by how much easier my new phone was to program (new phone is a Motorola, I don't remember what the old phone was - some odd brand, but it ran Symbian).

Still, I think it could be easier, and I think feature creep has added a lot of deep menu chains, so I wish it were more customizable for the features I use. I know Symbian devs spend a lot of time on memory safety (nothing can leak, ever) and I'm not sure if an open OS for mobile will enforce the stability as well, so I'm taking the wait-and-see approach. I've hard crashed my Palm T3 enough times with shoddily coded products to know how important that is in a mobile device. Obviously poorly coded programs on Symbian could do the same, but I haven't ever found one (not that I've looked hard, but I have unlocked my phone and mucked around a bit).

Re:But Symbian sucks

[Yer Mum]

Mine's in Tools > Settings > Display (6680). If you want to see a randomisation script in action, try Windows Mobile.

There are very few smartphone platforms out there. Apple's GUI might be arguably better but as a programmable platform it's left wanting (maybe in January we'll see something if Steve is kind enough to us mere mortals). Windows Mobile might have less hurdles with regards to certificates but the GUI is basically a 800x600 desktop crammed into a phone screen. There are Linux platforms but they seem to be one-off phones, I can't say I've seen manufacturers repeatedly churn out a range of Linux models. That leaves us with Google, which appears to be vapourware at the moment. I have no doubt that Google can churn out decent web apps, but there's a bit more to a mobile platform than that.

It come across as arrogant, but Symbian has succeeded for a reason where others failed. And what are else are Symbian supposed to say, that they worried?

Re:But Symbian sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

What kinda of operating system hides screen config options under the phone security menus?

Not Symbian OS. It doesn't have a UI. If your N91 has a crappy UI then your beef is with S60, not Symbian.

Re:But Symbian sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

I own a SonyEricsson and it only works in between crashes. It also deletes my email (when using POP3) and likes to produce an awful noise instead of playing my MP3. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

And developing for Symbian is NOT easy, especially if you don't have a windows box. But my SE only eats J2ME programs so I'm using NetBeans.

Re:But Symbian sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, but you haven't coded for symbian.. :)

It's like HR departments all over again..

[malkavian]

When they turn round and say "Well, you've not been doing this job for 20 years, so you're obviously not any good at it, as you have no experience".
The amusing thing is that experience doesn't necessarily equate to aptitude. You have to get into the game somewhere, and in a few years, Google WILL have the experience. You don't stop paying attention to good ideas just because they don't come from someone with that 20 year history. A good idea is a good idea.
Besides, it's just the opinion of one company; what carries the weight is what the other product producers in the consortium think of it, and whether they consider it viable to carry the idea through to product.

then why is the iphone killing everything?

[k3v0]

If making good phone software is so hard, how come apple can do it so well?

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[bjelkeman]

This sounds much like what Palm's CEO said previously: "We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone," he said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in." Indeed not. Where are Palm now?

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[dfghjk]

They don't. Theirs is just somewhat better than anything else right now.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[Tony Hoyle]

If you think 'crashes constantly, buggy SMS, no MMS, crappy Bluetooth, 2-3 clicks before you can even get to a screen where you can use it as a damned phone' better than everything then you haven't seen many phones.

Apple are newbies at the phone game and it really shows. They'll improve I'm sure.. there's nothing really wrong hardware wise with the iphone (battery life is poor but you can work around it).. its just needs a v2.0 software with all the bits they screwed up the first time around.

Google will probably go through the same learning curve.. IMO their project is doomed anyway - without nokia support they've lost 90% of the phone market to start with.. and apple will certainly never run googleOS they'll never be in the 'sexy expensive' phones.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[poot_rootbeer]

If making good phone software is so hard, how come apple can do it so well?

Other than that Apple is really REALLY good at making software?

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[letxa2000]

Where are Palm now?

On my belt. For years. And probably will be for years. The iPhone was--and remains--a lot of hype. I'm happy for Apple with their success and if users like the device, I'm happy for them too. But they're not doing anything with their iPhones that I haven't been doing (or able to do) with my Treo for years.

Inasmuch as they may have improved some user interfaces, great. Competition is always a good thing.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[Anonymous Coward]

lol

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[iMouse]

Hmm, Windows Mobile on a Palm device. That ought to tell you where Palm is going in the future...

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[mixenmaxen]

because they control the hardware that it runs on.

This is also why Macs run so well. It is significantly harder to make an operating system that will run in an unknown hostile environment made up of parts supplied by the lowest bidder.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[hkmwbz]

If making good phone software is so hard, how come apple can do it so well?

They are making it for themselves, for their own hardware, etc. Not really comparable to creating a general purpose platform for "everyone".

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[letxa2000]

I have Palm OS on my Treo and I wouldn't have it any other way. The thing friggin' works.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[Stevecrox]

Because the American phone market is so backward? In europe we actually have good phones, the idea of having a built in MP3 player, radio tuner, 2 Megapixel camera and GPRS, if you actually go contract you can start looking at getting GPS and WiFi as standard. Heck I got a XDA Mini S for free on a lower and better contract than the O2 deal requires. As for this "interface" nonsense pretty much every phone I have seen (excusing the Windows Mobile ones) goes for a Symbian style interface which makes things easy to use because its a good and simple interface.

As it stands the markets pretty much well divided over here, expensive flash phones tend to be the latest Nokia's (Nokia n95 atm) the phone 90% of people have tends to be a Sony Erricson (the current one to get is the w880i) if you want a small phone people tend to get some form of samsung and then moan about it and finally the whole cool market seems to be made up of Motorolla V3's. Every last one of those phones is cheaper on pay as you go than the Apple iPhone (excusing the n95 which is still cheaper on a lower tariff.)

The Apple iPhone is a status symbol, just like owning an iPod is. I'm actually really interested to see how well it does over here in the UK, since its a status symbol I'm guessing teens are going to be the most likely to buy it. Having only recently stopped being a teen and knowing many teenagers (well all of us) we all go out and like to drink, many of my friends and others have asked me why I'd bring such an expensive phone (the Xda mentioned above) out with me. Since most of them wouldn't bring an iPod Nano out with them I'm curious to see if anyone I know will get one.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[dangitman]

It is significantly harder to make an operating system that will run in an unknown hostile environment

Hostile environment? What the hell does that mean in this context? It's not as if Windows (or Linux for that matter) is running on hardware that is somehow opposed to running Windows or Linux. In fact, much of the hardware has stickers on it touting how it is "ready for Windows" or somesuch.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[mixenmaxen]

sorry, English is not my first language

What I mean is that Apple knows exactly what hardware their software will run on, since they make it. Windows (and Symbian) has to operate on a large number of different vendors hardware, some of which is buggy.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[thammoud]

For a second I thought you were talking about my Nokia E61.

Re:then why is the iphone killing everything?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think 'crashes constantly, buggy SMS, no MMS, crappy Bluetooth, 2-3 clicks before you can even get to a screen where you can use it as a damned phone' better than everything then you haven't seen many phones. Based on your statements, I'll bet you haven't actually used a non-store demo (i.e. trashed by thousands of customers) iPhone for any reasonable time period either (say 30 minutes or more). If you had, you'd know that most of your criticisms are wrong. I'll give you that BT is currently lacking - nothing that can't be fixed with software.

(battery life is poor but you can work around it) Hmmm ... 5-6 hours usage for video playback sounds pretty damned good from a phone to me. Talk time is better than most mobiles out there - not sure where you get your facts from.

Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[PrescriptionWarning]

It obvious that they see Linux as a threat, otherwise why would they be so hostile? They're clearly afraid.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Anonymous Coward]

Because symbian sucks? The comment about developers is rather funny, considering that symbian is downright hostile environment for developers.

Nokia did a "internet tablet" some years back with linux, and were surprised to find that tons of people are porting software for it (or writing new stuff) - much more than for any of their symbian platforms.

It's not always about revenue. The only platform that I know of that is more hostile towards developers than symbian is brew. Go and check the hoops you have to jump through to get your program published on their horribly broken platform.

(anon for a reason)

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Tony Hoyle]

Because symbian sucks? The comment about developers is rather funny, considering that symbian is downright hostile environment for developers.

Uhh.. what?

The SDK is a free download. How is that hostile?

You can program in standard C or C++. How is that hostile?

Compared to some platforms it's positively open.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[ORBAT]

Ever since Symbian 9.1 (or S60 v3 in Nokia-speak) signing of applications has been mandatory and it also broke compatibility with previous versions. You can always self-sign your application, but to do anything actually interesting like access any files or use the network connection, you have to get your application signed by a Test House (and possibly the cell phone manufacturer.) To get your software signed for free, you have to jump a lot of hoops, and if you're developing commercial software you have to shell out cash for the signature.

How is that NOT hostile?

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Tony Hoyle]

1. If you're making commercial software then paying for a proper certificate is a very minor cost - even independent devs do it.
2. Free developer certificates work fine.

You don't have to get your app signed by a 'test house' you sign your apps yourself using your companies' cerficicate.

Plus you can access files and use the network and other stuff like GPS with a standard developer certificate... heck I've even written stuff that does that myself. What you can't do with the dev certs is mess around with the OS itself - that requires a special certificate - but 99% of applications will never need that.

Most 3rd party symbian *signed* apps cost about £5. They can sell that cheap because developing for symbian is dirt cheap, and anyone can do it.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, it's pretty clear they're shaking in their boots. This is more or less the behavior one expects out of a wild animal backed into a corner.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[jhol13]

http://s2putty.sourceforge.net/installs60v3.html

I will never buy a phone which cannot run http://www.xk72.com/midpssh/ or Putty.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Anonymous Coward]

According to your link, s60 3rd ed. phones can. All you need to do is change one setting. What's your point?

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Did you actually try to develop anything for Symbian?

Well, I did. And let me tell you this: Windows APIs, complete with their haphazard organization and historical baggage, lunatic bugs and arcane undocumented extensions are an example of Reason and Logic, when compared to this positive 10 day old vomit which is Symbian. Any ole Linux API is like an Extatic Symphony of Cosimic Joy, Eternal Purity and All-Encompassing Sanity, next to this 10 day old vomit which is Symbian.

Hell, I am being unfair to 10 day old vomit.

You gotta be a masochist to develop for this thing, downloadable "api" or not.

The toolchain is fucked up beyond belief.

The API is a convoluted mess of overcomplicated certinisms, wheels reinvented to be square and with an offset axis, said square "wheels" within other square "wheels", and all existing only so that Symbian "alliance" can have NDAs, Patents and what not on this shit, which otherwise has been done a million times before, some 900 thousand times of which done much better.

Great majority of it is undocumented or laughably documented (they want you to pay big money for access to the "real" stuff). Most of what is documented you do not want go near.

The OS itself was designed by a brain-damaged monkey, its like a retarded dwarf cousin of Windows, complete with moronic "drive letters" and whole bunch of other truly imbecillic "features" from the early days of DOS, which even Microsoft doesn't want anymore.

You gotta pay money for application certs.

On and and on and on.

Or and did I mention that there is like 6 mutually incompatible versions of the thing in the wild, and about 8 different, mutually incompatible of course, versions of the "ui" deployed on various phones?

One way to gauge of the levels of insanity is the fact that there are a grand total of 4 (to my knowledge) languages ported to this thing, NONE of which has anything resembling something like a useful set of bindings to the Symbian API (Java, which is the only remotely usable one, has a very limited MIDP profile). Ponder that!

In short: do pay good coin for those downloadable Symbian-specific apps if you need them, because their developers have all been through Hell several times to make them.

What really kills me though is how arrogant and pompous the "designer" of this pile of pig manure about this monumental "achievment". Another, mind boggling observation is that there actually cell phone manufacturers using it.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Anonymous Coward]

PREACH IT!
There is really nothing I can add to that except.
AMEN.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Anonymous Coward]

Standard C++? In Symbian? Have you ever actually *tried* programming for Symbian? There is absolutely
no trace of standard c++ in Symbian. No exceptions (nowadays they are available, but still not used),
no STL, nothing. Conventions deny using normal destructors for stack-allocated objects. All this
and more makes it a very hostile platform, developing for it is ridiculously difficult compared
to many other platforms.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[jhol13]

Signing applications is not mandatory.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[syrinje]

It's not always about revenue

As a battle-scarred product manager in telecom/networking and security, I beg to differ. It is Always About Revenue. Period.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[recharged95]

Microsoft and even Linux = software guys writing stuff for all hardware.

Symbian and even Palm = hardware guys writing software APIs.

Choose your poison...

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, another deeply scarred veteran of Symbian development. Seriously, I'd rather do any kind of development over Symbian development. I've been offered great money for it, but I'm not touching it again if I can help it with a 10 foot pole. I always love to read other people's rants about Symbian -- it gives me a sense of justification hearing my own rants echoed by others. But like Frankenstein's monster the damn thing just won't do the decent thing and DIE!

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[DiSKiLLeR]

Did you actually try to develop anything for Symbian?

Well, I did. And let me tell you this: Windows APIs, complete with their haphazard organization and historical baggage, lunatic bugs and arcane undocumented extensions are an example of Reason and Logic, when compared to this positive 10 day old vomit which is Symbian. Any ole Linux API is like an Extatic Symphony of Cosimic Joy, Eternal Purity and All-Encompassing Sanity, next to this 10 day old vomit which is Symbian.

Hell, I am being unfair to 10 day old vomit.

You gotta be a masochist to develop for this thing, downloadable "api" or not.

The toolchain is fucked up beyond belief.

The API is a convoluted mess of overcomplicated certinisms, wheels reinvented to be square and with an offset axis, said square "wheels" within other square "wheels", and all existing only so that Symbian "alliance" can have NDAs, Patents and what not on this shit, which otherwise has been done a million times before, some 900 thousand times of which done much better.

Great majority of it is undocumented or laughably documented (they want you to pay big money for access to the "real" stuff). Most of what is documented you do not want go near.

The OS itself was designed by a brain-damaged monkey, its like a retarded dwarf cousin of Windows, complete with moronic "drive letters" and whole bunch of other truly imbecillic "features" from the early days of DOS, which even Microsoft doesn't want anymore.

You gotta pay money for application certs.

On and and on and on.

Or and did I mention that there is like 6 mutually incompatible versions of the thing in the wild, and about 8 different, mutually incompatible of course, versions of the "ui" deployed on various phones?

One way to gauge of the levels of insanity is the fact that there are a grand total of 4 (to my knowledge) languages ported to this thing, NONE of which has anything resembling something like a useful set of bindings to the Symbian API (Java, which is the only remotely usable one, has a very limited MIDP profile). Ponder that!

In short: do pay good coin for those downloadable Symbian-specific apps if you need them, because their developers have all been through Hell several times to make them.

What really kills me though is how arrogant and pompous the "designer" of this pile of pig manure about this monumental "achievment". Another, mind boggling observation is that there actually cell phone manufacturers using it. QFT.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[syousef]

Thank you for making me laugh so hard I nearly cried.

I've looked into both palm OS and symbian development and am glad I had the sense to stay away. I have other things to do with my life.

Re:Symbian must have some sand in their Bajingos

[Anonymous Coward]

6+ years developing for Symbian (UIQ and S60). Cannot agree with you more. If they do not get rid of their current windowing subsystems and their ridiculous UIs they will definitely fail. Developing for it without having access to the source code is practically impossible.

Underestimated, again?

[RayDude]

I guess Symbian will become another in the great long list to underestimate Google.

Its foolhardy to make such assumptions and reckless for an officer of Symbian to make such statements. How can you do anything but take Google seriously at this point?

If google says they are going to do it and they have the skills and the deep pockets needed to do it: so why not plan on it and have product in place to protect your own company from it?

Because its cheaper and easier to bury one's head in the sand than face the fact that you have real competition whose goal is to make money on advertising by giving away an open source OS. They don't even wish to compete in Symbian's turf, they want to make phones for the masses to get more advertising clicks. By executing this strategy they will make Symbian's entire business model obsolete.

So bury your heads Symbian, we'll bury the rest of you later.

Fools.

Re:Underestimated, again?

[jareth-0205]

What actually have we seen from Google that is commercially successful apart from search? For their monolithic size and supposedly cool creative environment, we haven't had much to show for it. Vast majority of their services are still in Beta! Outside of their core business of search and serving adverts, Google are doing nothing particularly special. Ye gods, they had to *buy* Youtube because Google Video was so poor!

Symbian have been in the business a *long* time, they are entrenched and have seen off Microsoft and Linux for years. It is supremely arrogant to think the magic Google touch is going to have a great deal of impact here, when it hasn't had much impact anywhere else...

Re:Underestimated, again?

[link5280]

...and what area has Google been underestimated? As far as I'm concerned they are a search and ad company who diddles in a few software apps, none that I consider competitive either.

Re:Underestimated, again?

[morgan_greywolf]

I guess Symbian will become another in the great long list to underestimate Google. Yeah, they should just ask Microsoft what happens when you underestimate Google. I mean, besides the broken chairs and a crazed CEO shouting epithets and obscenities at them.

If google says they are going to do it and they have the skills and the deep pockets needed to do it: so why not plan on it and have product in place to protect your own company from it? Exactly. Google has the some of the most brilliant minds in computing science and engineering working for them, and they can afford it. Call Google what you will, but if they want to do something, by the Gods, they've got the resources and talent to pull it off.

Re:Underestimated, again?

[king-manic]

What actually have we seen from Google that is commercially successful apart from search? For their monolithic size and supposedly cool creative environment, we haven't had much to show for it. Vast majority of their services are still in Beta! Outside of their core business of search and serving adverts, Google are doing nothing particularly special. Ye gods, they had to *buy* Youtube because Google Video was so poor! Google analytics is putting the screws to a lot of analytics companies. They now either have to find something critical and new to offer, reduce their price, or increase their support. Analytics is as good enough for a lot of organizations.(click view source scroll to the bottom)

Google Maps grabbed a sizable amount of the market share of the online maps/directions market.

Google news is one of the best news aggregators on the net.

Google custom search put many smaller search tools for single site searches to shame.

None of them are stand alone or profit making products but they all give Google more information which helps their core compitence and they all help build the brand and mind share. Both of these pump their stock price which provides more money to expand. The longer you spend within Google's domain the more ads they can show you, the more money they make.

Re:Underestimated, again?

[Yer Mum]

They're supposed to say they're not worried about it, that's if they don't want to have their customers running for the hills.

They said the same about Apple but are building touch-screen control into the next version.

If Google actually specify anything about their platform I'm sure they'll build that in too. I'm sure it'll be faster for them to do that than it will be for Google to implement all the basics properly that are already in Symbian.

Re:Underestimated, again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Symbian will become another in the great long list to underestimate Google.

In 1997 I worked at an online search company with a long history in microfilm... Most F'd up place I have ever worked. People trying to act busy and skilled but accomplishing nothing. Six month software release cycle. Their search was so pathetic... And they stored their content in PKZIP format using BINARY libraries to which they did not have the source. So platform migration was a big problem for their limited minds. But I digress....

I asked the Director of Search if he'd checked out google search... His reply "Google? Google is a joke."

These were "professionals" who doggedly refused to change a compiler flag to gain an immediate 30% reduction in CPU consumption for search (which ran on millions of dollars in hardware). It doesn't take long to QA millions of queries through a search engine. You see, the change would have been too much performance gain in a single year. If they made that improvement this year, what could they possibly do next year?

Apparently they couldn't keep their books straight either. 100's of millions in earnings became losses. External auditors still have not figured out how much they lost from 2001-2005. You can bet the execs did not return their performance bonuses for those huge profits that turned out to be huge losses.

Re:Underestimated, again?

[chromatic]

What actually have we seen from Google that is commercially successful apart from search?

Ads. Is Google Search commercially successful?

Show me the yachts...

[Zigurd]

Show me the yachts of the Symbian ISVs and I'll believe that Symbian's long history is an advantage for software developers. Mobile applications has been a mug's game because it is hard for end-users to get and use applications due to carriers' "walled gardens," app signing, and locked-down APIs. Arguing for a continuation of the status quo will not improve that situation.

Google may or may not succeed, but they have moved the industry - the OHA members in particular - a long way in the right direction.

lazy developers?

[Gearoid_Murphy]

I really don't get his comment about developers not getting out of bed unless they're showered with money. Linux has the boadest developer base in the world. Thousands of people contributing their bit and for free!!!. Not that I'm ruling out any potential showers of cash for the future, bring them on I say, I can take it. As for his insinuation that linux has parallels with the common cold, he would be prudent to take note of the legions of naysayers littering the wake that linux has made in this world. Besides, we all know microsoft is the real virus. LINUX RULEZ!!!

They have to say something like this.

[Britz]

Or should they go: "Oh no, we are going out of business soon!" I suppose investors wouldn't like to hear this.

Symbian was formed and supported out of one single reason: Microsoft
The mobile phone makers, that used to hold a stake in Symbian (Motorola, Nokia and Ericsson each a quarter with Psion having the last quarter IIRC) bought the IP of Epoc from Psion and founded Symbian, because they were scared that Microsoft (with Windows Mobile) would attain the same dominance in the mobile phone market that it held in the PC market.

That danger is over and Symbian ownership has shifted around a bit. Also Microsoft did not yet become such a threat. I suppose that in the mobile phone market there is enough space for everyone. The numbers of units is much higher than in the PC market and it is still growing much faster. Apple just joined it btw. And even if they were to capture only 1% of the world market, they would make a huge profit from the huge amount of sales that this would mean in numbers.

Same with Google.

Re:They have to say something like this.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I have to question the the "have to" do this. Palm did this of Apple and I think it blew up in their face. Exactly what point does it become just a habit of dissing other products in order to protect yourself? I think it speaks of a lack of confidence in your own product. Not only that, if everyone catches on to the fact that practicing PR is basically speaking with a forked tongue, then what credibility would the company have when it tries to say something? As such, I think this sort of practice is self-damaging and nullifies or negates any benefit of having a PR department.

Re:They have to say something like this.

[:jax:]

The ownership structure of Symbian is different now. It is half-owned by Nokia, with Ericsson and Sony-Ericsson being next in line.

Microsoft is not less of a threat in this segment, smartphones, i.e. phones with an open operating system, than it has been. It is solidly in the second position. Linux-based phones are slowly growing as well, having a greater market share on phones than on PCs (but far lower than on servers). iPhone is a marginal player, but that may change in time. All of it depends on what is meant by smartphone of course, and the vast majority of phones still use closed proprietary systems, smartphones is still a niche market. There are also different markets. The phone market in America is very different from the one in Europe which is very different from the one in East Asia. The developing world has some surprises in store as well.

I would give the Anonymous Symbian some credit, making a good phone is different from making a good embedded device, and it takes time to get this right. The selling point of the iPhone is not that it is a great phone, but that other aspects of it is great. Windows Mobile used to be horrible, but it has improved in time. This initiative might not make the killer phone on first attempt either, but chances are that there might be a second one.

All in all there seems to be more competition coming in as this phone niche is becoming more mainstream, which should be good for all of us.

Re:Competition.

[LWATCDR]

Except. Everybody is all excited about... Well at this point nothing.
What no screen shots? No docs? Not even a pretty phone to look at? I mean who really cares until they show SOMETHING!
The Iphone is a nice IPod+browser+phone but until I can add real apps it isn't what I consider a smart phone.
I still have not seen this SDK apple said was coming.
Yea I have high hopes but I can understand those that are more than just a little annoyed at the hype.

Look at Nokia Tablets

[Draco_es]

Maemo devices work, and work really well. Are Linux based and are very hackable, which make them very appealing for the gadget lover. Don't know about OpenMoko, but probably is a good platform, too.

If Nokia tablets don't include a phone its probably because Nokia doesn't want to compete with their own NSeries. Why couldn't Google build something similar? They have the money, the best smart guys the money and reputation can buy, and don't need to compete with another device builders. Their are in another business. They only need to provide the middleware to access their web apps.

Re:Look at Nokia Tablets

[Tony Hoyle]

N800 is basically the same but a bit smaller and with a phone.. Linux based and very hackable.

Re:Look at Nokia Tablets

[Anonymous Coward]

N800 does not have a phone, nor does the new N810. Being able to install skype on it does not make it one.

Re:Look at Nokia Tablets

[clonmult]

The one caveat is that Nokia is rumoured to have a version of the N810 that can take a SIM card .... then it'll be an interesting option.

Although if its as reliable as my 770 (or my colleages 770 with the 2007 firmware), then its not a viable option as a phone. Nice toy, but nothing much more.

You have a lot of zeroes in your sales figures?

[forel]

The summary cuts out the crucial part of that quote so that it means something else. It should say "You have to have a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed," implying that money and prevalence drives developers to write for mobile platforms.

Why Phones Suck

[Doc Ruby]

So that's why most mobile phones suck: Symbian's attitude is that developers aren't worth bothering with, phones need to be "sexy" more than "good", and Linux is to be dealt with like a virus, not a solution.

I hope Google does to mobile phones what it did to online search, maps and blogging: makes them work by finally providing some competition in the core function without being trapped in its box.

Re:Why Phones Suck

[Braino420]

Symbian's attitude is that developers aren't worth bothering with, phones need to be "sexy" more than "good"

Symbian must be high if they think their handhelds are sexy. The company I work for does alot of work with handhelds, and the Symbian devices all look like they're made by Fisher Price.

Re:Why Phones Suck

[Braino420]

Oops, maybe I was high. I was thinking of Symbol devices :o

Google has the experience...

[sim60]

...because Google has hired people with the experience, from out of Symbian, amongst other companies.

Symbian itself has been on a hiring binge for ages, since Google 'stole' many of their key staff.

Symbian C++ experience

[brilwing]

I had the pleasure to write Symbian C++ programs about 2 years ago. I'm happy that this time is over now. At that time I also did a little example to compared Java-MIDP and Symbian C++. I wrote a program that only downloads a file via http. The Java program had about 100 lines of code, the Symbian C++ program took 1000 lines.

A nice quote also comes to me mind from Oscar Wild: 'Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.'

Re:Symbian C++ experience

[Hal_Porter]

Yup, Symbian C++ Api really, really sucks. It's actually a good deal nastier than MFC and I didn't think that was possible.

http://www.symbiantutorial.org/symbian-tutorial/?3._Symbian_Fundamentals:3.1_Console_Application

A console application can be as simple as this (file hello.cpp):

#include "main.h"
LOCAL_C void mainL(CConsoleBase* con) {
_LIT(KTxtHello, "Hello.\n");
con->Printf(KTxtHello);
}

Well, really, I am cheating! There are some complex details, but these are hidden in the "main.h". This is a variation of an example named "CommonFramework.h" that you can find in SOME versions of the sdk (for example in the SDK 6.1). The header follows the VERY BAD practice of including CODE in the header file. CommonFramework.h does so, but unfortunately, since LOCAL_C imply static, you have to write all the code needed to start the application in the same file... or include code! Since I like to reuse main.h, I choose to do the same (but I am not proud of it). The code of "main.h" is shown in detail AT THE end of this chapter, since you cannot understand it without having knowledge of some characteristics of Symbian, which we have to explore in the course of the chapter.

Hmm, let's look at main.h
http://www.symbiantutorial.org/symbian-tutorial/?3._Symbian_Fundamentals:Starting_a_Console_application

#ifndef MAIN_H
#define MAIN_H
#include <e32base.h>
#include <e32cons.h>
LOCAL_C void mainL(CConsoleBase* con);
// literals
_LIT(KTxtTITLE,"Console App");
_LIT(KTxtOK,"ok");
_LIT(KTxtPressAnyKey," [press any key]");
_LIT(KFormatFailed,"failed: leave code=%d");
// declarations
LOCAL_C void initConsoleL();
// main function called by E32
GLDEF_C TInt E32Main() {
// mark the head start
__UHEAP_MARK;
// create the obligatory cleanup stack
CTrapCleanup* cleanup=CTrapCleanup::New();
// execute the init console function, trapped
TRAPD(error,initConsoleL());
// no error or panic
__ASSERT_ALWAYS(!error,User::Panic(KTxtTITLE,error));
// clean the cleanup stack
delete cleanup;
// mark the end
__UHEAP_MARKEND;
return 0;
}
// Initialize Console
LOCAL_C void initConsoleL() {
// create a full screen console object
CConsoleBase* console = Console::NewL(KTxtTITLE, TSize(KConsFullScreen,KConsFullScreen));
CleanupStack::PushL(console);
// execute main application
TRAPD(error,mainL(console));
if (error)
console->Printf(KFormatFailed, error);
else
console->Printf(KTxtOK);
// press a key and wait
console->Printf(KTxtPressAnyKey);
console->Getch();
// cleanup and return
CleanupStack::PopAndDestroy(); // close console
}
#endif

To build a console application you have to write the E32Main function, since this is the required name for the entry point of an exe. Such a function has to initialize the Cleanup Stack then initialize the console. Since the initialization can generate an exception, you have to move all of it to a separate function, than can be trapped. A few random notes. The function is a Global C function, and this must be explicitly declared. Marks are required to surround the cleanup stack declaration. After initializing the console, we call the real function that does your job (here it is named mainL), then wait

Re:Symbian C++ experience

[Gabest]

I tried, tried really hard, even tried the dumbed down java, too bad it wasn't good for anything. Then decided not to touch symbian ever again in my life.

Re:Symbian C++ experience

[svdwal]

The console code above is not the kind of code most people will ever need to write. The Symbian framework has been designed for writing GUI apps, and not for writing console code. The only place where console code is used in a production environment is in unit test drivers. Nowhere else, not even in servers.

A Symbian exe has no environment at all when it is started, and this code is creating a tailormade environment, a cleanup stack and a console. It doesn't need to access files, so it doesn't connect to the file server, for instance.

If you want this to be a fair comparison to (for instance) Unix C++ code, you should also include _main() and __main(), and all the other startup code next to main().

Re:Competition.

[Billosaur]

What no screen shots? No docs? Not even a pretty phone to look at? I mean who really cares until they show SOMETHING!

Exactly. Given that it's Google, there isn't even a beta to look at... But this is Google at its finest -- stirring up a hornet's nest, dropping hints and outright misdirections, then rolling out there own thing like they're surprised anyone had ever heard of it or knew it was coming. It certainly generates buzz.

Open is goood!

[KenRH]

I hope this initiative is successfull, i would love to have a cellphone with an open software plattform where i could dowload FOSS-applikations or write my own.

(I would like to have a Kanji gold like program on my phone, excelent while waiting for the tube)

I you make your money making hardware like cellphones, why would you want to give a third party power over your produkt? Espescialy when there is no "default standard" yet as for the cellphone market.

I dont know much about symbians buisness pratices, but I would not lett Microsoft get within a mile of my hardware i I was making cellphones.....

Re:Open is goood!

[zerojoker]

I own a HTC mobile phone/PDA running Windows Mobile 5 and I am using this program http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/Dominik.Klein/index.html to learn Kanji. Nothing fancy but works great and it's free...

Smoke and Mirrors

[malevolentjelly]

This is smoke and mirrors, of course. Symbian is dying- the most serious nail in their coffin was the Apple iPhone, with which Apple proved that an intelligent and well run software company can simply create a superior platform without an excessive amount of work- because they're simply better.

Google is a classic open source cat wrangler at this point, they probably expect to be more hacking together open source projects than "creating a new platform" or whatever misinterpretation this Symbian fellow made. Microsoft should follow suit, seeing as they also have an excellent alternative platform available for them- the Visual Studio/.NET world would be excellent in the cell phone market, if they might like to try aiming for the consumer market share as opposed to business.

Since it's clear Apple doesn't have nearly the stamina to go cross-hardware (it's an old Apple indian trick to only make one or two target devices for a platform), Google is bucking up to a market where Microsoft does not enjoy total domination.

Google already enjoys a large amount of open source moxie- so they'll get plenty of slave... er... community labor out of "enthusiasts".

This doesn't seem even remotely illogical or crazy to me- and if Google's innovation in the past has been any indicator, the market will be eating out of their hand in a couple years unless Microsoft gets back on the consumer cell phone horse.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors

[dave420]

Put your cock away until Steve releases the iPhone SDK. At least try to not look like a Fanboy. How can you say the iPhone's OS is better for development, or even the end user, when the only apps we've seen for it have been amateurish homebrew or Apple's own. There are no third-party apps of any quality or depth for the iPhone.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors

[malevolentjelly]

Simply look at the included applications as they compare with Symbian and Java applications. It's not rocket science. Apple took advantage of their limited device distribution to set a higher precedent for what cell phone applications should look like- Apple has a tendency to move the market forward.

I personally hate the iPhone. I think it's an overpriced piece of crap- and I would hate to have my music player and cell phone running off the same battery. But they certainly made symbian look old- and this market is all about look and feel. It's a consumer market.

How do I know it's better for development? Just look at what Apple has developed with it. The proof is in the product.

The rest of this considered- what does hackability matter to the consumer market? Answer: it doesn't. Even linux phones are completely closed and no one seems to care- they're more interested in how the screen flips when you turn it sideways.

Re:Smoke and Mirrors

[Hitchcock_Blonde]

Overpriced? Not really. You get a full-fledged iPod touch included in the price. Piece of crap? Don't be ridiculous. BTW, the battery life of the iPhone is pretty damn amazing.

The irony...

[neokushan]

"Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform."

As someone who has to deal with Symbian's crap on a daily basis, I can quite honestly say: Pot? Met Kettle.

Re:The irony...

[neokushan]

Of course, "Met" was supposed to be "Meet". Hopefully Symbian won't ridicule me for being incapable of fully developing a coherent English sentence.

He completed his statement by pissing his pants...

[strangeattraction]

Yes, believe it or not Symbian is known for their sexy software :)

Handhelds.org has been around for 8 years

[Russ Nelson]

Handhelds.org has been around for more than 8 years now, providing Linux on handhelds PDAs and mobile phones.

The Bloviator vs. Reality

[rindeee]

I have a cell phone with service from my provider (ATT). My service consist of the cheapest voice plan I can obtain plus unlimited data and essentially acts only as a Bluetooth data modem. I carry a Nokia N800 for all of my voice, data, chat, messaging, etc. needs (VoIP, for voice) because there is no cell phone that is 'open' enough to fill my needs. Heck, I can even VTC from my 'phone'. The quantity and quality of the apps/OS mods developed are simply amazing. I truly have a Linux machine at my disposal. I wish the jackass at Symbian luck, as that's about all he's got to rely on. At this point, I don't much care about Google's phone OS because I have what I need in the N800. Well, perhaps I'll buy an N810 so I have a hardware thumb board. ;)

did anyone else read this as...

[josquint]

Sybian Blasts Google's Phone Initiative ?

yikes

Re:did anyone else read this as...

[tygt]

Every time I see "Symbian"....

Re:did anyone else read this as...

[pshumate]

Just wait 'til you see the vibration functions on their new line of phones!

Re:did anyone else read this as...

[neersign]

sure did, and I stopped to read more about how the "Google Phone" was going to cut in to Sybian profits...and if Howard Stern had a new toy.

Re:Competition.

[DanielJosphXhan]

Maybe Google is the new Apple ;)

Whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a google lover but come on. Yahoo said, google can't compete, MSN said yahoo can't compete. Blah blah blah.
If sym doesn't get over itself, they will be next Netscape. Sitting in the garage wondering what happened and talking
about how they can throw a football over that mountain....

Reminds me of a movie quote

[InlawBiker]

Charles Foster Kane on how to run a newspaper.

"You're right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars *next* year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in... 60 years."

Google can replace 60 with 6,000.

Ah, thank you YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzhb3U2cONs.

inferred != implied

[Anonymous Coward]

The speaker implies. The listener infers.

Re:inferred != implied

[LionMage]

The speaker implies. The listener infers.

I can't believe you're the only person who noticed this gaffe. You'd think there would at least be some basic editorial clean-up on article summaries.

Re:Competition.

[LWATCDR]

Buzz and FUD seem to be closely related.
After all Google hasn't hit eveyone out the park.
GTalk which is the only IM I use is not all that popular.
Docs and Calc while nice little programs have not replaced Office or Openoffice.
It could be really cool. Google has loads of money and talent so they have the potential to do great things.
I will say one more time. THEY HAVE SHOWN NOTHING YET. So I will go into wait and see mode.

It's just this simple...

[owlnation]

Quoth Symbian: Google is not experienced enough.

I read this as: Wow! Google will have new ideas!

And as: Symbian has run out of ideas. Pretty bad day to work for Symbian, or own Symbian stock as far as I can see.

I haven't seen one good Symbian phone

[Uksi]

I haven't seen one good Symbian phone. I have a coworker who develops on the platform and all the test phones are slow and frustrating to use. It's like: "Oh, another Symbian phone? *groan*"

Why is that?

That's why Symbian is afraid. They know their product can't compete well enough on its own merits, and so they resort to disparaging others.

Uh right.

[jav1231]

"Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform"
Ummm....does this guy realize Google can walk into his office and double his developers' salaries and be "capable" in about 24hrs?

Re:Uh right.

[Futile Rhetoric]

And you're assuming that Symbian doesn't have non-competition clauses in its labour contracts why, exactly?

Re:Uh right.

[ArhcAngel]

All they have to do is set up a shop in Texas. Non-compete clauses aren't worth the paper they're printed on here.

Re:Uh right.

[geekoid]

Non-compete aren't valid in CA.

If only Google was in California..oh, wait.

Re:Competition.

[link5280]

No, because Apple creates polished and useful software and hardware. I have yet to see this from Google, beta this beta that. Their software sits in semi-finished state, or finished but hardly mainstream or full featured. This might change in the future, but that is what it is now. They are a good search and ad company, that's it. Oh, and they are good at buying other companies.

so?

[pak9rabid]

To be fair, Apple didn't have much experience in the cellphone market either and look at how the iPhone turned out...Technology is technology folks.

Re:so?

[hkmwbz]

Then again, Apple controls every aspect of the iPhone, including hardware. A bit different from developing a "general purpose" platform, as I mentioned earlier.

Re:so?

[mvdwege]

Yes, the iPhone turned out really well...compared to phones released two generations ago. The touch screen is nice, the design is Apple's usual high standard, but otherwise, compared to even Nokia's smartphone offerings, it sucks.

Mart

Bingo! Monocultures will dominate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this guy just completely missing the fact that some of the brightest young developers in the world work for Google? They don't need external developers in order to be a success.

Bingo!

MS dominates the world, due in no small part, that they are a monoculture and tightly control the platform while 3rd party developers make the apps, but still have to do things the MS way or their apps won't work very well.

Google will also be a giant juggernaut monoculture, stealing vast chunks of marketshare from MS... with the big difference being that they'll be based upon an open platform, but will tightly control the development end of things instead.

bunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you high? Development seats cost $! Applications must be signed, which means lighting more $ on fire.

And no! Standard C++ is not supported! It's Symbianized C++, with a stupid proprietary try/catch model that forced the developer to push object onto a cleanup stack, which COMPLETELY destroys the possibility of clean, platform-independent code.

Worst of all, many API's are proprietary Nokia information, and require some kind of business deal with Nokia.

Nokia would do well to continue down their current path of supporting C++ exceptions, POSIX threads, and BSD sockets. But - hey now - wouldn't Symbian be like Linux?

One problem with Symbian's logic

[Atticka]

%80 of the population doesn't know or care about Symbian.

%80 of the population knows or cares about Google.

Just the name alone with push Google phone sales past Symbian's.

Google's Response

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sorry. Who is Symbian again?"

This is indeed a fact

[houghi]

A phone, Googles or any other, can never be as good as a Sybian. Trust me, I have seen all the movies.

Sounds like nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

FUD starts with denial.. Symbian's reaction is that of a baby trembilng in fear as a sasquatch's foot bears overhead.

The man needs better writers

[wattrlz]

Is it just me or is he trying to sound like a pulp villian?

a quick comparison.

[DragonTHC]

symbian::fat turkish dude
google::sexy

the fat turkish dude works real hard, but he smells bad and wears the same clothes every day.

Re:a quick comparison.

[Anonymous Coward]

... yet the sexy chick looks good, but can't do anything right; can't give you directions; has 'headaches' if you need her and can really piss you off.

Re:a quick comparison.

[gfilion]

symbian::fat turkish dude
google::sexy

iPhone::Natalie Portman, naked and petrified

nuff said

Re:a quick comparison.

[pcb]

...A tad bit racist, don't you think.

Deeply unsexy argument

[192939495969798999]

Isn't this the exact argument that every bitter competitor has on a new product that inevitably becomes the hugest thing ever, regardless of whether or not it's any better than the competition?

Symbian sucks

[yohanes]

As as Symbian developer, who have developed several applications in almost all Symbian series since Symbian 6.0 (Series 60 1st and 2nd edition, Nokia 9210, Nokia 7710, Series 80, Series 60 3rd edition, UIQ 2.0, UIQ 3.0), I would say that any operating system would be better than Symbian. Here are the reasons why:

1. The design is terrible, and just 2 years ago (in Symbian 9) they start to fix some important issues in the design. Their design was created when memory is very limited, and the compiler has limited ability (for example: instead of exception, they use cleanupstack)
2. The documentation is really terrible. And it is not easy to learn from others, because not many open source software available for Symbian compared to other platforms (try looking at source forge).
3. Symbian 9 (S60 3rd edition and UIQ 3) introduces signing for application that requires special ability. The signing process takes a long time, expensive, and is a painful process. For freeware developers they give free service, but it takes a long time to process your request. Each time you release a new application you will need to go through signing process again and pay again (even if its just a small patch, or you just want to add a new translation to your package).
4. What constitutes as special ability is quite a lot (for example: creating a ping program is not possible without signing).

Some misconceptions about Symbian: it is free to develop a Symbian application, you can sell things directly to the user without cooperating with network operators. But, however suck Symbian is, I am still and will program on that platform, and it has given me some wonderful experiences through the programs that I have written. Symbian is also getting better: full C++ exception support, Open C library, global data is now allowed, etc. They also plan to make the signing process easier and cheaper.

Symbian is right, because of customer service

[mveloso]

The Symbian VP is right: google's android platform will fail.

Why?

Because quite simply, google sucks at customer service. And the OS business is all about customer service.

How do I know that google's customer service sucks? Simple: I've used them for things other than search. Have you ever tried to get a detailed sales report out of google checkout? You can't. You can ask about it, but it disappears into the void that is google checkout's customer service. Can they tell you if they're ever going to have reporting? Nope.

What does the sales report include? Dates, amounts, and state. What about customer names and addresses? Nope. What about anything else? Sorry.

Google's service philosophy is "help yourself." That doesn't help when you need features of a product that don't exist.

If google can't give you a useful sales report for the last month, how can they support a mobile phone launch?

The answer, of course, is they can't. Unless it's advertising-related, google can't concentrate for long enough to make a mature product...or they're too arrogant to listen. gmail still doesn't have folders, which is totally different than keywords (which is their 'justification'). Yeah, whatever.

Re:Symbian is right, because of customer service

[hyades1]

Yeah, that's just what I want...Google giving up my name and address to some prick so they can spam me in my own house. If I give Google my personal info for ANY reason, I expect them to keep in under lock and key, not make it part of a "detailed sales report".

Basically, if I didn't give you that information myself or direct Google to let you have it, you aren't entitled to it and you can fuck off.

Re:Symbian is right, because of customer service

[hanwen]

Google's service philosophy is "help yourself." That doesn't help when you need features of a product that don't exist.

actually, since said product is licensed as opensource, you could simply add them yourself.

Re:Symbian is right, because of customer service

[randomaxe]

Except that nobody will be calling Google for customer service in this case, just as I don't call Access (the current owners of the Palm OS) if I have a problem with my Treo. I call Verizon (the service provider) or Palm (the phone manufacturer) depending on the nature of the issue. I strongly suspect that this will end up being the same sort of thing. You have a problem with your Motorola phone that happens to be running Android? You call Motorola.

Seriously, think about what you're saying. Do you really think that Symbian is fielding support calls from all of the people who are using phones that are running Symbian's OS? I'm pretty sure that work is left up to the Customer Support teams of the handset manufacturers. After all, how many average Joes and Janes out there could tell you what OS their phone is running?

Re:Symbian is right, because of customer service

[emurphy42]

gmail still doesn't have folders

Translation: "I still don't understand that labels are effectively virtual folders." Congratulations on blowing a hole in your own credibility there.

That explains the buzz around the iPhone

[Frantactical Fruke]

When the competition considers their work "deeply unsexy", Apple can run circles around them. Smart phones just might sell a bit better, if the average consumer weren't convinced that most of those features are too hard to use. I definitely don't want to spend more than half an hour studying my phone manual. And that's where the sex appeal comes in. Unless you manage to get me all hot and bothered about your new product, I'm sticking with my five year old basic cell. It does calls and SMS! Whee!

I prefer working.

[miffo.swe]

I have a SE P990i that says Symbian should just stfu and get their own crap working before they dare critize anyone else. The mobile world right now is owned by Nokia and SonyEricsson but there are a big horde of asian phones just waiting to get a toe into the market. Once any of them succed and open the floodgates Nokia and SonyEricsson will take the same route as european computer manufacturers.

The killer is not Linux, but rather Java

[cowwoc2001]

Anyone who's programmed for Symbian will attest to the evils of its programming APIs and limitations of the C++ you can use. Google is said to be bringing three heavy weights to the table:

Linux (cheap)
Java (ease of development)
Google (industry-strength support)

In my view not only does this kill Symbian but it will also be a welcome death. Cell phone carriers and OS developers have abused users and developers for far too long.

Neither was Apple

[cenonce]

Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform.

That's what everybody said about Apple and the iPhone, and we all see how that is working out.

Re:Neither was Apple

[Poorcku]

well iphone was named time invention of the year and we know how close to the truth that is.

Re:Neither was Apple

[hkmwbz]

As I mentioned elsewhere, Apple controls all aspects of the iPhone, including hardware. It's a bit different from developing a general purpose platform on top of other people's hardware. The iPhone is also a bit more powerful than most phones, so they can get away with a lot of stuff.

Dare I say it?

[heinousjay]

The technical background might be fine but when the user experience is so poor it just drags the whole experience down.

Kinda like Linux?

Bye bye karma, I didn't like you anyway.

Maybe, maybe not

[Sloppy]

No idea if what Google is doing will take off. I still haven't really figured out what they're doing (i.e. how open will a platform based on Google's stuff will really be).

But one thing's for sure, Symbian: your phones suck. They suck a lot. Many people want a phone that is better than anything that is on the market. They want it for different reasons:

• More features
• Fewer features, less cluttered UI
• (and for us paranoid dorks) trustworthy, auditable, bug-free (and I'm not talking about software defects ;-)
• Less interference from the network providers, which makes use of the phone expensive
• combinations of the above

Where's the non-sucky phone that uses your software, Symbian? Oh right: it's not on the market, yet. No wonder a lot of people are hopeful that Google (and perhaps even Apple?) might provide, even if indirectly, a non-sucky phone.

There is demand for a non-sucky phone. Sooner or later, someone is going to get around to collecting all the money that people are desperately waving.

Handsets, handsets and handsets

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Er... So long as Nokia is the biggest mobile phone manufacturer in the world and largest share holder in Symbian, Symbian is not going to die. Actually usage of Symbian is just going to increase as Nokia and other handset manufacturers are pushing Symbian into their middle to low price models.

It should also be noted that as most of the price of mobile phone comes from the design and manufacturing, and not from the software, mobile phone companies like Nokia can just kill their competition by leveraging their massive economies scale. Nokia currently manufacturers about 40% of all mobile phones in the world and they enjoy very much of their position, by both having components cheaper and having a number one position in the logistical scale (when Nokia needs parts, component manufacturers will diverse shipments from smaller companies to Nokia). If Google or any other will seriously threaten that leadership Nokia and others will surely answer that by just dropping their profit margins (Nokia has currently 20% profit margin).

Also I don't consider Apple as a serious contender in phone markets. They had a one hit with old hardware and few innovations in software. Those innovations are now copied by Nokia and others. For Apple to become serious player in mobile phone markets they would have to manufacture massive amounts of phones to have some change to compete in price and they would have to have newer technology and software. Technology they can buy, but software front may become their soft spot as in example Nokia just bought Navteq (hint: they provide the maps and software to Google Maps and others).

In the end, I would have to say that seeing Google jump to mobile phone markets is more a sign that hype in Google has gone overboard and the company is over extending itself into what ever front they can think of. As soon as the current boom in the stock markets goes away, the management of Google will for sure cut of all the projects that are not in its core competency.

You know what's unsexy

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows mobile! I used Maemo and I was blown away by it's functionality.
"With the speed of a PC" is just another way of saying cell phones, and
handheld devices and Windows Mobile suck ass!

Mod Parent Wrong

[asphaltjesus]

but because it costs a fortune to get development licenses with the software vendors

That's a totally false statement regarding symbian. I downloaded their sdk yesterday from Nokia's site. Free as in beer, but it's easy to get. There are quite a few apps for symbian already and the sdk looks pretty well documented. I think there's an OPL runtime for symbian too.

and distribution licenses with the carriers.
In symbian's case, you don't need to go to the carrier. It's possible to imagine the carriers aren't very thrilled with this feature.

If there was a truly open phone, with an SDK that allowed full network and display access, and users could install and run these apps without a carrier distribution aggrements,

What are you waiting for? Right here: http://www.forum.nokia.com/info/sw.nokia.com/id/05c63dfd-d6e9-4c0e-b185-d365e7001aeb/S60-SDK-0548-3.0-f.3.215f.zip.html

Symbian's OS is arguably the best in the field, so I can understand why this guy is pissed. Maybe his business plan has other problems, but you are all missing out on a great phone OS that you CAN ACTUALLY WRITE NEW APPS WITHOUT THE CARRIERS INTERFERING.
--

SHOCKED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Symbian downplaying a new, major competitor on the market? No way!

They know that they're going to be the first to fall to Android (Microsoft has enough money to hold out for a very, very long time), so of course they'll come out and bash the platform.

Of course, there's not a shred of a credible argument to be had here. Forsyth sounds an awful lot like a certain Microsoft CEO right now.

Re:Competition.

[truespin]

I still have not seen this SDK apple said was coming. That would be because the SDK will not be released until February 2008 as they stated in the press release...

Symbian has quite a bit to be nervous about.

[kevjava]

I think a loose translation could read that Google has hit Symbian's brown note.

Google has the money to buy the experience they need. Add a half cup of search, a tablespoon of AdSense, and the rest will be history. Geeks will be clamoring for this platform just as they did for the iPhone, as Google has an uncanny sense for what their users want.

how very bizare..

[pjr.cc]

First he talks about google like the only thing they do (or are successful at) is "search" and then he goes on to talk about all the linux mobile phone platforms out there now as a "common cold" like people stopped working on them.

Openmoko only seems to be gaining momentum, sure they're not "in your face" but that hardly means they're going away either.

The thing that bothers me is the way he talks about developers as the people porting the gphone software to a hardware device. But there's two set's of developers in this mix and it may take alot of 0's to get out there, but when you look at the companies already in the alliance you can only guess that it will start up with alot of 0's. The second set of developers are the ones who'll develop applications to run ontop of the platform - and you can guarantee alot of the geeks here will be getting that sdk with the 12th rolls around.

One thing symbian should count itself lucky for however is that iPhone didnt come with an SDK. The guy seems to ignore the developers who are coding applications for the phone and not at the phone hardware.

But, one thing i think will work against google is the way phone developers are going to all have a similar platform which makes it hard for them to differentiate their offerings (even though its being licensed under the apache v2 license to avoid such problems).

I think the biggest error in judgment he makes though is talking about mobile phones like they aren't becoming computers - and lets face it they are and have been for quite some time. The "gsm/3g/cdma/etc" bit (or the hardware parts in general really) are just interfaces to be coded in. I think mr symbian is in for a bit of a shock - google are quite good at doing things like this (the right way), just like apple (who got it wrong - again). As for the gui that goes on top, there are sooo many example that can be built on its not funny and its well past time we got an open ones that look like they may gain a foothold and i personally hope that perhaps one day in the future openmoko and gphone/andriodev will end up merging in some way.

SDK available here november 12th

[Darth Cider]

The Google SDK will be released by the Open Handset Alliance on November 12th. Bookmark the page.

I thought pretty much the same thing

[SmallFurryCreature]

Boy, they must be worried about the Google phone, to release a press statement saying that you ain't worried means that you are pissing your pants and calling for your mommy.

All this story has done is shown that the Google phone apparently is a big enough worry of the current mobile OS platform to speak out about it, and here was me thinking it was nothing, just another Google Beta(TM) product. Thanks for setting me straight guys.

Reaching an additional 3 billion people

[rur]

"Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform."

Google wants to be able to provide their revenue generating services to ~3 billion mobile users - quadrupling their market - and Symbian and Carriers get in the way. It's that simple.

A more moderate take

[Anonymous Coward]

-- " OMG! Google releases free Linux for mobile phones, Symbian is doomed! "

No. Andriod is not going to kill Symbian. The world is not that binary. Android might be a player in the market, we'll see in a couple of years. This is not like everybody switching their netscape start page from altavista.com to google.com, or dropping myspace for facebook.

Nokia/Sony/etc have invested alot of man hours (i.e. money) into Symbian, and will continue to do so for a foreseeable future.

Andriod is a new competitor on the market. By this time next year we're going to see the first Andriod phones from 'eastern' phone manufacturers. The market will judge them, just as with any other product. They will not be available in all markets right away, due to the complex dynamics with the operators. No operators will introduce a "hack phone" into their network, so Andriod will not be a linux-pc running vanilla debian-arm with a phone API.

However, and this is the beauty of it all; Andriod will make Symbian/Windows Mobile/iPhone better. It's called market economy. No successful company is static, adopt or demise. Andriod will bring new cool ideas to the market, and Symbian, Windows Mobile etc will get influenced. The smartphone SDK of this world will be more open and better. Tools will be better, etc, etc...

We're all going to benefit, users and developers.

Foul? ball

[BillHop]

Kinda reminds me of a Left Fielder running towards a baseball he can't possibly catch while yelling "Foul Ball" -- 99% Hope, and 1% denying reality.

A more moderate take

[Anonymous Coward]

-- " OMG! Google releases free Linux for mobile phones, Symbian is doomed! "

No. Andriod is not going to kill Symbian. The world is not that binary. Android might be a player in the market, we'll see in a couple of years. This is not like everybody switching their netscape start page to google.com instead of altavista.com, or dropping myspace for facebook.

Nokia/Sony/etc have invested alot of man hours (i.e. money) into Symbian, and will continue to do so for a foreseeable future.

Andriod is a new competitor on the market. By this time next year we're going to see the first Andriod phones from 'eastern' phone manufacturers. The market will judge them, just as with any other product. They will not be available in all markets right away, due to the complex dynamics with the operators. No operators will introduce a "hack phone" into their network, so Andriod will not be a linux-pc running vanilla debian-arm with a phone API.

However, and this is the beauty of it all; Andriod will make Symbian/Windows Mobile/iPhone better. It's called market economy. No successful company is static, adopt or demise. Andriod will bring new cool ideas to the market, and Symbian, Windows Mobile etc will get influenced. The smartphone SDK of this world will be more open and better. Tools will be better, etc, etc...

We're all going to benefit, users and developers.

Thanks

[untree]

Thank you for bringing to my attention the existence of something more pleasant I can imagine when I hear Symbian from now on.

Symbian shouldn't talk

[BillBrasky]

Yeah, blast Google and Apple's phone OSes because developers just love symbian! http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/6856C375-FE4E-4BC8-B753-B48AF3BD8B30.html
Our company employs some Symbian developers and I've never heard them say anything good about it.

Nice FUDding

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a strong brand, so many people will jump on that new platform just to see what they have. If Apple could, Google can do it too. Also integration with other google services could be very interesting. Not that Symbian (or Windows Mobile, Nokia) have any edge here. Also linux is what gives Google OS a good technical foundation to build features upon. It's not architecurally limited as it often happens with various mobile platforms (PalmOS), and it can only benefit from being Linux (AFAIK no popular OS is as scalable). Of course, it will take time to get the full thing really good.

Fragmentation of market is still in full power, though. Mobiles aren't PCs. Each hardware maker has it's own standard and refrains from standards. Devices aren't modular ans can't be upgraded, usually not even software. It's even less possible to to make cheap clones and have another independent OS installed.

This is a win-win situation for hardware companies and carriers because keep full control of the market: selling mobile software, providing crappy content for a lot of money, as well as blocking VoIP. This is a sport where Google might stumble - big players will of course try to cash in on possible Google hype, but will just ship few models with gOS. If they see Google gaining grond and becoming a standard they can't control, it's not hard to back up and go with the proprietary again (people still buy phones based more on design and feature checklist).

But as of 2007., you still can't buy widely available mid or low-range mobile which is built on open platform with free SDK. Should be telling enough about what kind of companies are successful. Anyone can make a GSM phone, but very few can make cheap enough mobile to have appeal to lots of people. keeping software design and hardware interface specs secret is also a part of this equation which keeps cheapo copy-paste competitors out.

Symbian's not that bad, but BREW?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done serious Symbian development, and am now getting into BREW (I consult for corporations). I've also worked with many other phone OSs.

Symbian development is cheap - the SDKs and tools are free. What costs *some* money is getting your app signed so it'll install on phones 'in the wild'. That can cost a few hundred dollars, so you'd better get it right the first time. There's a much cheaper route for amateur developers - check www.symbiansigned.com for details (I don't know much about it).

BREW, otoh, is guilty as charged. The tools are costly, certification and signing are costly, development phones are costly, and then you still have to have your app distributed by a carrier (and they'll charge for it). The whole BREW world is designed to make money for the carriers and professional development houses. The amateur and very low budget developers are essentially shut out. I found TFA a little surprising, it seemed that the Symbian guy was just wishing Google would go away.

No really. Get out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone that is not braindemaged would fscking HATE to develop software on Symbian. The API is braindemaged, the platform is braindemaged, the support is braindemaged, the documentation is braindemaged, the security model is braindemaged. I REALLY welcome an open platform, where developers have a nice environment to work with, and where software (either in source or in binary) can be easily shared between developers. The end of Symbian is coming, and we're ready to party!

Google has experience

[bobobobo]

Well, if you work here in the valley, it's no secret that google has been hiring dev and QA people with Mobile experience like mad as of late. They have enough talent with plenty of experience to get their mobile OS off the ground.

"Deeply Unsexy"

[ukemike]

The Symbian guy calls mobile applications development "deeply unsexy" and by association calls Symbian unsexy. I think that this sums up Symbian's problems perfectly. Nearly ALL cell phone UIs are awful and unsexy. I want my cell to be easy to use and Sexy! You go google!

ehm symbian is a big laugh too.

[PermanentMarker]

Sybian devices are such a poor devices that I'm surprised that CEO's use them at all. For them it's a bling bling device. But as all 'bling bling' cheap and worthless too. But that's their sales practice, show it to the high people and then force it into a company... While real IT workers rather have those other mobile platforms. For example windows mobile 2003 or well etc those devices at least do very simple integrate within visual studio So it's easy to develop business applications or other type of applications for it. To give an example using my PDA I can phone I can mail I can control my TV by IR I can do GPRS traveling I can use timer to cook an egg I can use excel or word, or even take remote control of my server trough a VPN and terminal server I can use it as programable calculator (an emulation) It has an HTML editor If it only had a biger screen i wouldnt use my computer, as its also damn fast too this device. Oh and symbian i almost forgot the device counts for 2 user connections to an Exchange server (poor software cause bad performance load).. So if you plan to rollout symbian, think of upgrading your servers to high end server.. keep that as a free advice reminder.. :)) Perhaps some might want to use an iphone, but I don't understand that hype, I was never able to understand apple. Although I do a bit admire those people who keep so attached to some hardware, almost like some UNIX people I know of. To me I don't care, but I do think a software solution should not depend to much on hardware and it should be very easy to program on. To me that is the windows platform; although I hope to that Linux will come with some good PDA OS and software alternatives too (how about a GNU public GPRS driving solution, that's a hot market..)

Re:Competition.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that it's Google, there isn't even a beta to look at... But this is Google at its finest -- stirring up a hornet's nest, dropping hints and outright misdirections, then rolling out there own thing like they're surprised anyone had ever heard of it or knew it was coming.

s/Google/Microsoft/g

There, I fixed that for you.

Re:Then he threw a chair through the room and said

[sm62704]

Mods? That was funny! There's no extra karma for funny, ya know. It was also on-topic. Does that dead Spanish guy have to explain the joke to you?

Google

[ItchyBob]

I'm going to leave the Symbian bashing to one side and try to talk about google. They have a great search engine, full marks. But they won that market because no one else cared about search at the time. No one else was trying to make a better search engine, the competition was poor. But they still went in and did it, spotted the market and did a bloody good job. But they are entering a whole new arena here. This is a different ballgame. They can't just release a load of beta code to a handset manufacturer and see how they get on with it. It's true, they dont do customer support, but thats not difficult to change. But thats the point - they will have to change. The way google work will not work in this industry. Thats what Symbian are trying to say in quite an arragont manner, admitedly. Can they adapt the way they work? Well, most likely. They have the money, they have the drive and they have the people. They will probably give it a good go, but it wont happen overnight.

Re:Google

[jetxee]

> But they won that market because no one else cared about search at the time. No one else was trying to make a better search engine, the competition was poor.

My impression (from the end-user point of view) is that no one (M$ and Symbian in particular) cares about really good, reliable, powerful and easy to use mobile platform. I am really dissappointed with stability of Symbian software and the choice of software. I may say the same about WinMobile (some of my friends used to use it...). I think Google has a chance in this game, because everything else sucks.

DRM Role in Rentals

[CavemanKiwi]

I rent movies thru the xbox 360 system and I think it works really well. How can you provide this service without DRM ? Does a digital rental serivce have no place in the world?

Re:DRM Role in Rentals

[vadim_t]

Rentals work perfectly fine without DRM. In fact piracy of rented games can provide profit that usually wouldn't exist.

This was quite long ago, back when CD burners were a new thing, so most people didn't have one. Speeds were about 4-8X IIRC.

Children can easily get enough money for a rental, but have a noticeably harder time getting enough to buy the game. So what they'd often do is rent the game and immediately pirate it.

Funnily enough, around here there was a place with an arrangement that was just perfect for this. Both the shop that rented games and the one that copied them were located one right next to the other. This was inside a building full of small shops. The arrangement was that of a hollow square, with shops on both sides of the corridor.

So what people would do is rent a game, exit towards the stairs as if to exit the shop (to avoid annoying the shopkeeper), but instead of doing that walk the loop until they ended up at the shop that copied CDs. A short while later they'd have their copy, and return the rental a day or two later. This also ensured the copy worked properly.

The guy who rented games didn't like this all that much, but if somebody only has $10, they aren't going to pay for a $30 game with that. For children $30 is a significant investment. So if they didn't rent it, they probably would not pay anything at all for it, and just find a friend and copy something of theirs instead.

For the shop that copied CDs, they were more than happy enough to accept CDs obviously coming from the rental shop.

Interestingly enough, despite the rampant piracy everybody made cash. The rental shop owner obviously paid for the rental copies. People rented his stuff so he got paid too. And the CD copying shop profited quite nicely as well. Making piracy impossible would mean that couldn't afford to pay the full price wouldn't rent at all, and hence nobody but the copy shop would get paid.

Now this is of course for physical goods. If DRM is indeed necessary for online rental, I won't miss the lack of it, as I regard DRM as a much greater evil.

Re:DRM Role in Rentals

[malevolentjelly]

Of course, the danger is piracy getting quicker and more convenient than people simply purchasing goods. Once it's more trouble to buy something than pirate it, you will have a crisis in paid talent.

Like... the WGA strike.

I don't believe in the RIAA's court cases- but I think an open, interoperable DRM could be beneficial to the industry.

And this isn't a sign that the music and movie industries need to "adapt"-- because in all reality you simply can't beat instant downloads of any song or video at no charge. The real war against piracy has come in the form of HD video content- they're trying to create formats where there's too much data involved to be compressed and transferred efficiently.

We don't need lawsuits against mothers and the elderly, we need social stigma against piracy.

Re:DRM Role in Rentals

[vadim_t]

What's the WGA got to do with DRM?

I'm a programmer. I charge by the hour. Once you pay me, I couldn't care less what happens with it after that. Same way I don't see why the WGA would need to have any concern about what happens to the movie. Once the work is done and they're paid, it's not their problem.

Payment per copy sold of an infinitely duplicable product isn't a stable way of doing business these days. Payment per work done however continues working perfectly fine.

Re:DRM Role in Rentals

[malevolentjelly]

Are you kidding?

Writers live off of royalties- unless they're on a full time writing staff job, such as those who work in television writing teams, they're completely dependent on royalties to survive. Writing movies would not be a sustainable way to make a living if not for royalties.

So, this has EVERYTHING to do with the WGA strike, because they're striking based on lack of royalties from new media distribution.

Programming is a 9-5 kind of job- writing is not- good movie scripts don't happen just day after day on a mechanical work schedule like code- they spend months working on a piece of work, if not longer, then submit it for a sale price, and rely on royalties from their work thereafter. Scripts only sell for 10's of thousands in most cases. It's the same way novel writers sustain themselves.

These simply aren't salaried positions. The writing market depends on manic depression and torrential bursts of talent!

Payment per copy sold of an infinitely duplicable product isn't a stable way of doing business these days. Notice that writing jobs aren't farmed out to developing companies like programming jobs.

Re:DRM Role in Rentals

[vadim_t]

Are you kidding?

Absolutely not

Writers live off of royalties- unless they're on a full time writing staff job, such as those who work in television writing teams, they're completely dependent on royalties to survive. Writing movies would not be a sustainable way to make a living if not for royalties.

And what stops them from demanding a contract with a hourly rate, or asking for a higher price?

So, this has EVERYTHING to do with the WGA strike, because they're striking based on lack of royalties from new media distribution.

It's a contract issue. If they aren't happy with royalties they should negotiate a different form of payment.

Programming is a 9-5 kind of job- writing is not- good movie scripts don't happen just day after day on a mechanical work schedule like code- they spend months working on a piece of work, if not longer, then submit it for a sale price, and rely on royalties from their work thereafter. Scripts only sell for 10's of thousands in most cases. It's the same way novel writers sustain themselves.

Programming is the kind of job you make it be. Several options:

A. Work a 9-5 job
B. Write your own software and sell copies
C. Contractor at a hourly rate
D. Contractor charging for the completed work
E. Writing a money generating program (poker playing bot, website that provides a service, etc)

Myself I do A, C and D, and think B is a bad idea and getting worse by the day.

I don't see what's so different about writing that options C and D are not possible.

These simply aren't salaried positions. The writing market depends on manic depression and torrential bursts of talent!

Nobody said it had to be salaried

Notice that writing jobs aren't farmed out to developing companies like programming jobs.

I think this has more to do with culture than anything else. Programming is the same everywhere, but finding somebody in India who can write for an american public is probably quite challenging.

Re:DRM Role in Rentals

[malevolentjelly]

I think the AMPTP would love your approach.

This covers it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI3Ek8N1VsM

Oddly enough, he's spiked my interest

[Anonymous Coward]

There must be some known reason for this, but it wasn't until I read the story that I started to take the Google phone seriously...

*YAWN* This just in...

[SeaFox]

Established industry company blasts another company's initiative to become a competitor in the same market. Film at 11!

back to business indeed. with linux!

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

just ask motorola and the swath of linux powered handsets they're selling.

i kissed nokia goodbye the day i bought my motoming, and judging by the sales, i think moto is on this for the long haul. here at work mings are poping up like weed. at least 4 co-workers have them, some other have motorazr2s (also linux powered).

and you know what ? the ming is awesome. not only because it runs linux, but because it looks nice, is functional and simple to use, the later being the reason why i always bought nokia before i got the ming.

i think linux is on the mobile market to stay. it's fast, stable, allows for great customization, and if you don't like what you got from factory... just dowload the sources and make your own firmware. wanna see symbian beat this. /disclaimer: linux fanboy here

At the risk of a redundant modifier...

[butterwise]

You have [...] a lot of zeroes in your sales figures before a developer gets out of bed

Isn't that the definition of google?

Wouldn't go talkin' smack like that

[PenguinX]

Google may just buy you.

And no, I don't think that would be evil but redemptive.

[Citation needed]

[Kaseijin]

It will cost to buy a certificate to certify the app as non-malicious and fit for purpose, and without that the user will get a warning when installing that the app is unsigned. But that is a quite reasonable security step given that phone malware could cost serious money on a phone bill. But the lack of such a cert doesn't stop you from using or distributing free apps. According to Nokia's Symbian OS Platform Security FAQ, applications must be signed to be installed. Self-signed apps have restricted capabilities. Maybe that's just Nokia. Let's keep looking.

Here's a developer discussing forthcoming signing options, which he views as friendlier to developers. All of them are gated. Installation on more than one device requires payment. Some capabilities require payment; some also require permission from the device manufacturer.

More developer discussion. Even "passive content" has to be signed.

Another developer. The current process is "very painful". The new process has "no real plan" for freeware and FOSS.

Symbian OS poorly designed

[edxwelch]

Maybe Mr. Forsyth should keep quite considering considering how slow, buggy and badly designed the symbian OS is.
Nokias system 40 phones make their own symbian models look bad. For instance, the 6131 is a lot faster and user friendly than the N73, which is ironic considering how much more expensive it is. Its always been this way. Symbian phones have always been slower and more bug riddled than ones with equivilant hardware.

Symbian

[m2943]

So, I have been using Symbian phones for several years now. I think they are the best phones on the market(*): there is lots of useful built-in functionality, lots of add-ons, the multitasking works, they have good browsers, and are generally quite powerful.

But the fact that they are "the best" also indicates in what poor shape the mobile OS market is: Symbian is hard to develop for, it's sluggish, it has a dozen different and incompatible user interface versions, networking configuration is a mess, even simple operations require expensive and flaky shareware add-ons, there's no command line.

The worst part is, though, that Symbian's problems just don't get fixed. Symbian right now is where Palm was a few years ago: they have a large market share, but they are so arrogant that they don't see how troubled their OS actually is.

As for Google's experience, it appears that they hired a number of people from other mobile software companies, and in addition, Google has plenty of experience developing mobile applications for Blackberry, Java, Symbian, and iPhone. I suspect, overall, Google probably has many more man-years experience with mobile development than Symbian's entire staff.

(*) Internally, iPhone is actually better, with its UNIX-like kernel and real window system, but the fact that it limits what you can install and do makes it overall less useful than Symbian.

Symbian needs to suck a fat, juicy...

[smart.id]

Cock. No, I didn't RTFA, but this guy just seems like he's worried about his own company. Google is a fucking powerhouse. No, they're not flawless, but do you think they'd really make a cell phone that looks like their website? Fuck Symbian for trying to prevent innovention. I'm not saying Google is the good guy, but isn't there a conflict of interest here?

Linux won about 4 years ago in the embedded space

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux overtook Microsoft in the embedded space about 4 years ago. Linux is currently in use on about 50% of new projects, versus about 18% for Microsoft.

Here's the link for this years results:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7065740528.html

Check out the past years as well. You'll see why WindRiver has basically dropped VxWorks and ramped up with Linux a couple years ago. They did so when Linux outpaced them.

So there's the example you asked for about when Linux has ever won against Microsoft.

Yeah, Right.

[His Shadow]

""Symbian has suggested that Google is not experienced enough or capable of fully developing a workable mobile platform."

And pundits said Apple didn't know how to pull off a physical phone either. I'm not yet convinced Google has anything worth using at this point or ever. However, the last people you listen to concerning the value of your future efforts are the competition.

about the linux 1,2,3,4 motto

[sentientbrendan]

I've heard a lot of people quote these 4 steps. I guess it is supposed to sound like something Gandhi said. Let me show you the list, and then point out a problem with it.

1. First they ignore you
2. They ridicule you
3. Then they fight you
4. Then you win

If you are talking about a social movement of an oppressed people (where your oppressors are the British), this makes sense. If you are a software system competing in a marketplace, 1,2, and 3 make sense, but 4 does not follow. When the British started fighting the uprisings in India, this generated sympathy for the people of India. However, Microsoft "fighting" with Linux doesn't mean anything involving guns or violence. It means developing features in their software which can compete with the features of Linux. Such actions don't give rise to sympathy for the competition in the marketplace, nor is "sympathy" a driving force of anything in the marketplace. Thus the analogy drawn between the progress of Linux and the liberation of India fails.

That said, I'm pretty optimistic about Google's new phone initiative. I'm just saying that the 1,2,3,4 motto is somewhat nonsensical.

Symbian?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think my girlfriend has one of those.

Re:Competition.

[Lehk228]

google talk integrates with gmail, it also lets any jabber client do the same so if my friend is checking their email i can pop a message up on their screen and talk to them in real time.

This for once ISN'T about Linux! A few points:

[chanchao]

Symbian make an excellent smart-phone environment. Loads of free and open source applications exist for it. If it's hard to develop on there's sure a lot of stuff out there!! Heck, Nokia make a complete Python environment available, WITH access to phone and internet functions. Or you could opt for the regular SDK and code in C or C++. Or do it in Java.

What MORE could you POSSIBLY want!

Enough has been said on the cluelessness of Apple, and locking down their phone as if this was the 1980's. Symbian (and Nokia, their main user/customer) are ENCOURAGING smart phone development.

Also Symbian is stable and works really well. I've been using it almost since Nokia came out with their first Symbian phone. Now, for a laugh, compare this with Windows Mobile, which STILL suffers from a lot of the same shit from way back when it was called Windows CE. What a load is that!

Ok, the Symbian suit-dude who blabbered all over the place should be locked back into his corner office pronto, he's making zero sense, and his repeated comments about phones not being the same as search are pure toe-cramp inducing mega-cringe, as if Google doesn't do a metric fuckton of shit that's nothign to do with Search. Lock the guy back up!!!

Then, the Linux brigade starting nipping at this topic in force. Why? Google doesn't give a flying F about Linux. They're about server-based networking, and even in this day and age that still requires 'something' to run that on. Sure it'll be open, which is good. Sure they won't get it right the first time, (see iPhone) but it may lead to a whole lot more interest in smart phone applications, which is GOOD.

Worked with Symbian LTD for 3 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to a series of unfortunate events, I had the displeasure of working for 3 years directly with Nokia and Symbian LTD. I also have worked closely with 10 other mobile phone OS vendors and indirectly with Microsoft. I however have been fortunate enough to not work with Symbian for the past 2 years, so my information might be out of date.

What you're explaining is partially true. But before you make the un-american claim, please recall that Symbian OS is a British product, so they'd have to say something more like Linux is communist BS.

Everytime I think of a company like Symbian, it reminds me of Ballmer's developer rant on the stage. Symbian is a miracle OS since they are the only OS I've ever heard of that has managed to achieve any success by using brute force corporate sales to get their OS into place. In fact, they invented at least 100 new wheels with 4 or more sides each just during the time I worked with them. The success of a telephone platforms depends on two key items. Developer support and "It's not made by Microsoft". The European and Asian telephone manufacturers have adopted Symbian more because they prefer to not be controlled by Microsoft than on the technical merits of the OS.

To point out the major short comings in Symbian OS (I'll keep the list less than a page, I've written a 10 page list earlier) I'll cover the nasty ones here :
- The standards for the platform were based on a custom made ECGS(gcc) of version 2.91 at some point. They lacked exception handling in that version, so by using a complex series of defines, they emulated exception handling. The problem was, it required the programmer to manually add traps to every possible exception point. While in an ideal world, the intended result would have made a highly efficient exception system (better than standard C++ exceptions), in the real world, it meant that it was nearly impossible to port to the platform, and the code you wrote native for the platform was so littered with these traps and cleanup stack calls that programmers couldn't focus on the important part which was stable functionality of their code. Even after they moved to a new compiler, they mapped C++ extensions to the old system and made developers keep using it even though the end result was adding substantial runtime overhead by placing massive amounts of exception handling into the code.

- Instead of implementing a message passing event loop like on other systems for handling application flow and control, they invented something called Active Objects which just added a "NeedsProcessing" property and "Process" command to every location that might need some sort of event handling. It's a polled system and to avoid making it run really slow, they simply give time to the first object in the object stack with it's "NeedProcessing" flag set. A method which they employ to keep race conditions from always occuring is that each object can raise or lower its position on the stack. So instead of employing a round-robin+prioritization type environment for the situation or just moving to a message queue, they implemented a "fake threading model" that requires programmers to focus on flow control of their application threading style where a simpler system of just posting and responding to events is far more intelligent. The biggest drawback to this model is simply that developers need to focus more on developing an intelligent state diagram for managing active object priority than making sure that each object functions correctly on its' own.

- They didn't support ELF or any other known executable format natively, so they implemented their own executable file format and then after compiling with GCC, a post processor had to be run against each executable to massage it into the Symbian EXE format. While a well written program of this type wouldn't cause too many problems, it generates something similar to the nightmares with TrollTech Qt's moc preprocessing disaster. Trolltech developed some excellent tools for compensating for thi

here's why

[m2943]

Another, mind boggling observation is that there actually cell phone manufacturers using it.

What alternatives do they have? Palm isn't really multitasking, has a history of screwing their partners, and is dying. Windows Mobile is Microsoft's vehicle for world domination, not a system that attempts to address user needs or help phone manufacturers. Blackberry can't make up their mind on what to ship and isn't licensing. And Apple will license OS X Mobile when hell freezes over. Manufacturers ship the turd that is Symbian because they don't have a choice in the smart phone market.

Well, now they do have a choice: that's the point of Android. And if they have any brains whatsoever, they will go for it.

Re:here's why

[IgnoramusMaximus]

What alternatives do they have?

Their main alternative was to actually hire some sane people to design the thing. You see, Symbian was purpose designed and financed by a consortium of cell phone manufacturers! These idiots funded and then inflicted this shit onto themsleves! There is absolutely no fucking excuse for it, as it was designed from clean slate with an express purpose to be used in the cell phone industry.

The problem is firmly related to the gigiantic ego and utter incompetence of the idiot they hired to "lead" this project. Subsequently they've sunk untold millions into this pile of festering crap, not to mention untold hours of the lives of developers ... and users, as the thing is attrociously slow and end-user hostile. And after the millions were sunk, the problem became political and various CEO's egos became involved: "Mistake, ME?! Never! I am the Uber Mega Important CEO! I NEVER make mistakes! It must be the users and developers! We are perfect!" sort of thing.

So they must at some point realize that they've fucked up, scrap this thing, fire the imbecile, and start over.

As a matter of fact some of them did realize it but due to politics of the Symbian "alliance" (and infinite greed of some of its participants who want everything to be "proprietary", "pay to play" technology - chiefly Nokia and Sony-Ericsson) they had no choice but to leave the thing. As a matter of fact, at this point Nokia and Ericsson are really the only players to speak of left in this rapidly dissolving "alliance". That is one of the reasons you see interest in Linux (which is admittedly not the most optimal of platforms for cell phones, but is nevertheless light years ahead of Symbian) and Mobile Windows (also very ill fitting for phones and even if it comes with the whole assimiliation into the Microsoft Empire and a myriad of other problems) - simply because those who left are looking for a reasonably easy and quick to market solutions without massive up-front investment. And dealing with Symbian is just impossible. The other players are also afraid of yet another niche concoction which some lone egomaniac can control and a handful of asshat CEOs from one or two major vendors can unduly influence to everyone else's detrement and thus wreck the whole thing without any oposition.

Re:Linux won about 4 years ago in the embedded spa

[malevolentjelly]

I was implying in the desktop market.

Microsoft is not a contender in the desktop market- they do userspace solutions, at best.

WindRiver dropped VxWorks because linux was cheaper and they couldn't compete with more solid embedded players like Green Hills Software. Linux is crap compared to what companies like GHS, Raytheon, and Boeing are able to hammer out internally- becoming an embedded linux vendor is a sign of failure amongst embedded companies.

Linux-based vendors are just cashing in on their name and more or less giving up on innovation. Linux does not innovate, it equates- at best.

Besides, embedded linux is a myth. You can't run linux on systems with much less than 2-8 mb of RAM, right?