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."

20 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. Slap in the face? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Slap in the face? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      THEIR product to dominate the market.

      No, their plan is profit.
      This is the same discussion about Apple that comes up when people talk about Macs; someone always says "ZOMG they have to do x to dominate the market like Microsoft!"
      While I'm sure they'd be happy if they did dominate the market, Apple is in the business of making money, not market domination.

  2. Please... by imamac · · Score: 4, Informative

    When will people stop expecting Apple to "open up" their products? It will never happen.

    1. Re:Please... by perlchild · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple will "open up" its products, in the sense it will make them "more open" it will however, not "make them open". Both sides are right, just for some values of "open". As for AT&T, my gut feeling is that Android's too open for them.

    2. Re:Please... by v1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to start monetizing their software directly.

      because if the last 5 years have been any indication, Apple is clearly using a failing business model...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Please... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Like all other cell phones, any phone AT&T "makes" is as open as they (and the manufacturer) decide to make it. Even if part of the source for the phones operating system is available, it is unlikely that AT&T will make it any easier for end-users to install custom firmware than the G1 does or the iPhone does.

      Same with Applications. It will be completely up to AT&T to control what API's will be available on the phone (just like it is now, arguably, the sole exception being the iPhone), and what applications will be permitted on the phone and where you will be able to acquire them from.

      People seem to be assuming that because the Symbian OS is open source, that the phone itself is going to be wide open for whatever you want to do. This is highly unlikely.

      Even the magical GoogleOSPhone has arbitrary limitations, such as you can't download music to the phone over the 3G network, not because of bandwidth concerns, but solely to protect the carriers revenue stream for their existing overpriced music store that they force their customers with other handsets to use.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Please... by davester666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      > LOL, don't be a 'tard. Not everything is a conspiracy. Then how do you explain it away? Given explicit support on the iPhone (over both 2G and 3G networks) for: -streaming video from YouTube -downloading podcasts (which are free audio files that can easily be larger than music files) -ability to navigate the iTunes Music Store and purchase music (but not download it) -ability to purchase applications for the iPhone, which can be several times the size of a typical music file How do you explain this arbitrary limitation of not being able to download purchased music? The only reasonable explanation for it (to me anyways) is that the carriers (and probably the RIAA cartel) want to protect the inflated prices for music and ringtones in their existing music portals. The other reason I can think of, namely that the carriers think that allowing the purchase of music would flood their networks with excessive traffic, doesn't really make sense to me. If you ignore the initial network crush, when the iPhone comes out with this ability and people show off this feature to their friends, I don't think it'll have a large effect on traffic because it'll wind up being self-limiting because: -the music costs money. people aren't going to drop $20 every day on a couple of albums. They'll search during their spare time for a new song, or buy a song they hear on the radio. -it doesn't really matter how long it takes to download the song, as it's not streaming. It's just a file download, like a podcast. It's not a big deal if it takes 10 minutes instead of 5. And if the GPhone is a sign of new 'openness', why is there a project to crack the firmware so you can install your own on it? In the spectrum of completely open to completely locked down, the carriers are inching along as slowly as possible towards providing more 'open' handsets. As another example, take tethering your laptop to your phone. You've paid for a so-called "unlimited" data plan, and now the more advanced browsers on your phone will download the same page data that the browser on your computer will, so the data load is the same. But the carriers want you to pay again for the privilege of transporting the data over your own network (namely between your phone and your computer)...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Please... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 3, Interesting
      PlatSec makes it possible to limit third party application capabilities,

      For Limit read block - for all intents and purposes, its not possible to get useful apps on Symbian any more - you can pay for cr*p, but that is not the same thing.

      People are saying "if its going to be locked, then I might as well buy Apple". If Symbian is going to sell phones it will only be because they dump this stupidity.

      Disclaimer: my last 4 phones have been Symbian, and I wont buy another till "Symbian SIgned" is history. If they have not killed it when my contract runs out, I will get an iPhone too. (like all my freinds, family and colleagues)

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  3. Will Apple open up its iPhone platform? by aliquis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No.

    Though you almost made me lol.

  4. Apple vs AT&T by rhathar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Wrong summary by BearRanger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

  6. Ducks in one basket by joeflies · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. A win for open-source? Only if AT&T opens it. by Bearhouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Awful summary, as usual by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.
  9. Re:Open up iPhone? by Thruen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not an expert, but here's how I'm pretty sure it works. OS X itself is not open, as OS X is just the GUI over Darwin, which is open. Darwin is based on BSD, so it has to be open, but OS X as a GUI was developed entirely at Apple. So, the iPhone uses OS X, but that isn't open. I'm not sure if it's running over something based on Darwin, but they may have just modified the version of OS X on the iPhone to run independently, so nothing is open. Again, I'm no expert and I don't even own an iPhone, but that's how I think it works based on what I've read about it.

  10. Ding, ding, ding by Luscious868 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:A win for open-source? Only if AT&T opens i by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.
  12. Re:More like a shining gift to Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Android is going nowhere, at least in the short term. That's my educated opinion, as I was involved with it (hence the anonymous post). It's a side project for Google, and Google has been tightening up over the last few months. Most of the people working on android were contract workers (and have seen their contracts cancelled) or have been reassigned to other projects. Sure, it's open source and the community can support it, but it relies on binary blobs from handset providers and testing on green hardware. I hope it doesn't stagnate and die, but at this point, it looks like it might.

  13. It's because it's just a Fanboi Toy. by sparkeyjames · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.