Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Sidestepping Google, Eyes Symbian
molotovjester writes "In what is surely going to be a slap in the face of Apple, AT&T is eyeballing the Symbian platform as a smart-phone OS for an army of new handsets it expects will make up the majority of the market by 2014. Is this move too little, too late compared to Google's Android? Will Apple open up its iPhone platform, or will dreams of electric sheep be dreamed up by the majority of cell phone users? I wrote an analysis of the industry players as of mid-November, but it will be interesting to see what AT&T does and how it changes the mobile ecosystem."
A slap in the face? Come on. Apple's not going to care. There will always be other smartphones out there. Apple wouldn't have any desire for their OS to run on other phones. Their plan is to try to get THEIR product to dominate the market.
When will people stop expecting Apple to "open up" their products? It will never happen.
No.
Though you almost made me lol.
I honestly don't expect Apple to care too much.
Who stands more to lose: Apple because AT&T is running another phone in addition to the iPhone, or AT&T because Apple decides to let other carriers have the iPhone.
Which gives Apple the bigger market share?
http://www.chaotickingdoms.com
What do you mean? Isn't it embedded OSX? Isn't OSX BSD? BSD is open.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Sometimes it seems AT&T does not know wtf it wants - with its exclusive deal with Apple and its eyes on a platform it wants to if I read the article correctly "open source" it seems to wandering blindly around. Apple as long as its selling units is not really going to care. I nearly turned down a free completely paid for Blackberry with the service paid for automatically by the company for the chance to own an iPhone even if it meant expensing by bill month to month.
ACK
I RTFA, and it seems to me AT&T is looking for a common operating system for their "base" or cheaper phones. This would serve as a replacement for all of the Java crap that's out there now. They also further state that they see Apple as a third party provider using their network services. This has the potential to be the best situation of all. If AT&T opens their network to third party devices, not just Apple/RIM/Windows Mobile, we could see all manner of innovation in the near future.
This is in no way a slap in the face of Apple. If anything it's a validation of Apple's current iPhone model. (That is, if you ignore subsidies and rebates)
I don't think this is a slap in the face of Apple. AT&T needs to hedge its bets - the iPhone exclusivity deal isn't forever, it's until 2010. And when the contract expires, if Apple goes multi carrier or drops AT&T entirely, then AT&T better have the backup plan well in the works. And given that it's almost 2009, it's probably a good idea to get the backup plan done now.
Well, as often the /. tagline is rather full of hyperpole. FTA:
'Seth Bloom, an AT&T spokesperson, confirmed to Ars Technica that the company "has no plans to standardize on one platform for our smart devices. But we have said that we see potential benefit in standardizing our low-end devices on a single mobile OS, though we have not finalized our plans to do so." '
So, you'll get probably get a crippled/slow device with the ability to expensively download crap 'approved' by AT&T. I'll pass.
I thought Symbian was that sex toy that Howard Stern is always trying to get his "female" guests to try out...and I thought, good move, way to diversify AT&T.
Looks like I bastardized "eggs in one basket" and "ducks in a row".
Who really cares? Just more also-rans for the iPhone to beat.
Can any of these claim the 100% security and popularity of the iPhone? No way.
The only sensible option. Would be the perfect fit: http://embedded.hug-nordic.org/
"In what is surely going to be a slap in the face of Apple"? Are you serious?
You can't seriously believe that Apple expected AT&T to stop selling every other variety of phone in existence once they picked up the iPhone. Controlling though he may be, I seriously doubt Steve Jobs is lying awake at night saying, "Those bastards! How dare they sell other phones!" Obviously AT&T was going to keep selling other kinds of phones, including Symbian phones, that's just common sense. But then, when there's a chance to bash Apple on Slashdot, common sense does seem to go out the window, doesn't it?
And as for any moves on Apple's part being "too little, too late", the sales numbers hardly bear that out at this point. Last I checked, the iPhone was outsold all of RIM's devices put together last fiscal quarter. Obviously this is going to fluctuate as time goes on, I hardly think that demonstrates widespread pent-up demand for a FOSS mobile operating system. When you spend all your days on Slashdot, it's hard to notice, but believe it or not, not everyone gives a damn.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
As the telecoms are dragged kicking and screaming to the party, they will find out why Android and Mobile OSX will dominate the next-gen hardware.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The new Blackberry is the shit!
Oh wait, no, the new Aussy GPhone 2.0 is the shit!
Or was it that new Samsung one... Shit, now I forgot which one I like..
I hate it when that happens!
We have a winner. AT&T stands to lose a hell of a lot more if Apple brings the iPhone to other carriers than Apple has to lose if AT&T offers other smart phones that run other OS's. AT&T's move is smart. Not everybody wants an iPhone so you might as well offer other smart phones. It would be suicide not to. I doubt Apple cares. Last time I checked the iPhone is doing pretty damn well and Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff. They realize that there is a certain group of people willing to pay more for their products and they've done pretty well for themselves catering to that market.
[Don LaFontaine] Is this move too little, too late compared to Google's Android? Will Apple open up its iPhone platform, or will dreams of electric sheep be dreamed up by the majority of cell phone users?[/Don LaFontaine]
R.I.P. Don LaFontaine - you were the best.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
S40 then? I haven't seen many Symbian devices since they aren't that common here in the US, but in Bangladesh my relatives had these basic phones that ran S40 and it was actually pretty advanced for regular feature phones.
All your base are belong to Wii.
Ah, "dominated by Nokia and Microsoft"?!?
What the hell is that all about? Apple is now back on top at college campuses, Firefox and other browsers taking more and more market share, and major players like IBM wrapping Linux heavily into their product lines, whatever "domination" you speak of won't be there for long, especially when the average business pays a $500 premium per employee just to have an MS-flavored OS and office suite. Good luck keeping that model in this economy.
As far as Nokia goes, I'm certain that Samsung, LG, and Motorola(few you might have heard of) would have something to say about "domination" as well...
How about AT&T has been supporting Symbian phones for years since they are GSM. I'm on my 4th AT&T Symbian phone, a Nokia E71.
Having all other AT&T iPhones running Symbian is like a giant gift to Apple. Android is platform more suited to delivering phones atop of, so making them all Symbian will have the iPhone shine all the brighter as a result.
It seems a silly move on the part of AT&T though, the Android platform is going to grow and be supported by applications far better than Symbian.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Why?!? Among Windows Mobile, Linux, Android and Apple, Symbian the the most utterly screwed up platform. Brain dead API and development environment. I wouldn't invest a cent on it, if I were AT&T. Apple scared? I guess you never used a Symbian smartphone before, did you? Laffin'
I doubt Apple cares. Last time I checked the iPhone is doing pretty damn well and Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff.
Because if everyone's special, then no one is.
...how is that a "slap in the face" any more than them selling RIM phones right now is? Or if they picked up Android, like others seem inclined to?
Are they going to REFUSE to sell iPhones at that point? Won't Apple be out of it's exclusivity period by then anyway and hopping aboard any carrier who wants them, thus assuring AT&T lose potentially millions of long-time customers who follow the phone elsewhere? Won't pretty much all the carriers be looking for "their own thing" alongside whatever iPhones, BlackBerries, Androids, or whatever diversified phones they pick up to attempt to appeal to all consumers?
Symbian will soon be open sourced by Nokia (who has completely acquired the system).
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
This is because ATT realizes just what the iPhone is ... An apple fanboi toy. It never caught on with the general public. Parts are very difficult up to impossible to get replaced without loosing your data. NO SPARE BATTERY possible. Come on every other Cell Phone on the planet has easily user replaceable or spare battery capability. A less than stellar relationship with application developers. Last but not least piss poor service from Apple. Now why do you wonder that ATT is looking for a replacement?
Oh yeah and I never owned one. I just listened to the bitching of the few I knew who did.
As this has already turned into an Apple loving/bashing forum, here's a different point of view-
ITS ABOUT F'N TIME!
Seriously though...How long has Nokia had incredible Symbian-based phone around the globe? The US gets the version the red-headed step child slobbered on, shook vigorously, then beat with a bat. Then our beloved GSM carriers get ahold of it and lock it down to do as little as possible. So up to now, one needs to buy an expensive (compared to subsidized models) unlocked phone off ebay or elsewhere and get a SIM card and pray most of the features work to get a Symbian phone that doesn't suck. And that crowd is limited to techno-geeks who know they can do that.
The iPhone and surrounding technosphere are nice, relative to the rest of the US market, but compared to many Nokia, SonyEricsson, HTC, etc. handsets, they're nothing special.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
S40 does not use Symbian OS.
Symbian's biggest strength is Nokia. Without Nokia Symbian would be extinct. Will Nokia remain committed to putting the Symbian OS on its phones if Symbian is owned by AT&T?
Speaking of hyperbole, I'm just trying to figure out how the Phillip K. Dick line refers to anything other than trying to sound cool while not making any sense in context.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
AT&T, from all accounts, pays Apple $15 a month for each iPhone. I'm sure all that all Samsung/Motorola/etc get is a per-item fee. AT&T would prefer to charge you $90 a month and keep the extra $15 a month. That's why you never see AT&T advertising the iPhone - while it gets them more customers, they're making less of the iPhone customers than other customers. They want you as a customer, but if they can get you AND keep the extra money, that's what they're going to do.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
I just went to sybian.com. From the looks of it, it's a perfect fit for AT&T, designed to screw you almost as much as their rate plans and patchy 3G coverage do.
.
Symbian can't compete against the newer OSes from a feature roll-out stand point. The speed of the G1 coming to market w/o many bugs is a different world from a Symbian release (i.e. releases are slower, and has more bugs usually).
.
Looking at my G1 and Android OS, though not a google fanboy, I do admit they did an better than expected job and will be hard to beat.
The iPhone was IMHO hugely overhyped - there are (IMHO) too many things that get in the way of a decent user experience (no multitasking, always go via home key, lack of cut & paste). So far, for me the most useful phone was the Sony Ericsson P1i, but they killed UIQ so no idea what's going to happen there.
It starts, of course, with what you want from a phone. I had to search for a simple, big button & readable display phone for my dad who needs a few phone numbers and SMS, but really NOTHING more. I need a phone to sync calendar and todo in addition plus a password vault and speaker phone ability. This would make an "OK" for the iPhone but after comparing (I have one from work) I have gone back to the P1i. I looked at the Nokia Communicator which could do with an upgrade, and the new Prada phone is interesting as well (I could go on :-).
I personally now have a new feature I need and it is coming: Dual SIM. In a simple, small, suit compatible flip phone. A bit like the the grand daddy of them all, the Motorola V3i, but more capable. And, going full circle, with a USABLE user interface. And then I just choose which one I use on the basis of what I'm about to do..
Insert
S40 isn't Symbian based, so no. It'd be S60
Symbian is a mature smart phone OS: it works pretty well, but it has a decade of accumulated crud, making it hard to use, ugly, and hard to program. Symbian is obsolete.
But, then, AT&T wants an OS for their obsolete business model: the reason they want to pick an OS is because they want to create a custom OS that ties their customers to their services.
AT&T should focus on giving people fast, cheap access and forget about offering services. And Nokia should dump Symbian and move to Android. Those may be painful choices, but they are still less painful than the messy business failure these companies will experience if they continue on their current paths.
in standardizing our low-end devices on a single mobile OS, though we have not finalized our plans to do so." '
So, you'll get probably get a crippled/slow device
no, it means that the phones without touchscreen, music libraries, 20mp cameras, little ram.. you know the phones people want to make calls and text, they'll be operated by a common platform. There won't be anything crippled about them, they'll be designed for a certain market segment.
It's not as bad as you might think. The adoption of the latest versions of Symbian lags by about 1.5-2 years. I.e. Symbian have finished their latest and greatest version and started working on the next one(s) years before others can get it through their own development (e.g. S60) and into new models.
Buying Symbian is probably mostly about reducing this problem.
Hey, I know /. crowd is used to kicking and screaming on Symbian, but I wonder if it's time to reconsider that attitude? After all, all of Symbian will be available under EPL soon, so it is clearly miles closer to OSS than, say Apple, or even Android (which is still largely closed source).
Symbian has it's faults, but also has many advantages. Maybe it's time to stop giving speculative derogatory statements and first have a closer look at the platform? Well, I believe this is what AT&T has done...
Ecosystems involve ECOLOGY.
Your writing style is horrible.
"or will dreams of electric sheep be dreamed up by the majority of cell phone users?"
(puke)
In serious need of editing. Christ, that is shithouse.
Apple products were open. My Apple II had slots for which any number of companies produced cards. I even had a Z80 card made by Microsoft that I used to run TurboPascal on CP/M. Apple closed their products as a business decision when Jobs decided the computer should be an appliance, first manifest in the Lisa and then in the Mac. Intel and OS/X doesn't change that, it merely commoditises the hardware.