VMware's Dual OS Smartphone Virtualization Plan Firms Up

Sharky2009 writes "VMware is developing virtualisation for smartphones which can run any two OSes — Windows Mobile, Android or Linux — at once. The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time. VMware says: 'We don't think dual booting will be good enough — we'll allow you to run both profiles at the same time and be able to switch between them by clicking a button,' he said. 'You'll be able to get and make calls in either profile – work or home – as they will both be live at any given point in time.'" Also mentioned in February of this year, but now the company's announced a target of 2012 for mass production.

Comments

Why?

[vcgodinich]

No, really, why?

Re:Why?

[PCM2]

Supposedly, it's to support the growing trend (seriously?) of companies requiring employees to provide their own phones/PCs/whatever. Virtualization will allow them to run a "work phone" environment on their personal phone. Reported advantage is that it eliminates the need to carry two phones while still firewalling off work data from the "personal phone" environment.

Sounds great, huh?

Re:Why?

[ducomputergeek]

At our company employees do get their own cell phone, company chips in $30 or $60 a month depending on whether they need a data plan (which we cover the cost of) into the first paycheck of the month.

Works extremely well.

I don't really see the point of this in the real world. I could see where this could be useful where we would have 1 phone and test in Windows Mobile and Android on one hardware platform. Outside of that, I see no real value.

Re:Why?

[salted-fry]

When all you have is virtualization, all your markets look like... um, virtualization problems? (not very catchy, is it)

Re:Why?

[sznupi]

Virtualization is hip. Somebody at your management will be swayed.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many potential uses. Access to multiple app suites, ability to put a less restrictive environment on a company phone without exposing, say, a corporate VPN to untrusted software, etc. The trend is toward virtualization for security and compliance.

Re:Why?

[master5o1]

Why not?

Re:Why?

[oxfletch]

Because they're VMware and they don't have anything more useful to do?

Re:Why?

[broken_chaos]

Except for the fact that the phone will likely still have only one SIM card, only one telephone number, and you'll now be on-call when you need your phone for personal business.

Re:Why?

[palegray.net]

That's not a change in lifestyle for many folks these days.

Re:Why?

[rolfwind]

No, really, why?

This is supported behind the scenes by the battery industry. Several years back, a phone that couldn't last one week would be viewed as kinda week, smartphones put that limit down to a day with real use, and of course, this virtualization will be completely useless for most people, but they'll accept having to charge the phone every 6 hours now. So instead of replacing a battery every 2 years, it'll go through all of expected lifecycle in 3 months. Profit! $$$

(I can't think of any other reason...)

Re:Why?

[techno-vampire]

while still firewalling off work data from the "personal phone" environment.

Unless the two systems can't access files stored by the other one, how are you going to keep somebody from accessing work data from the home side of the phone? If nothing else, they can still email it home from the personal side without any record of it on the work side.

Re:Why?

[Hadlock]

There's already a hot market for dual-SIM card phones, but that requires you to "dual boot". If your job requires you live/do your job through your phone, this makes things a lot easier.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that that "having a hammer and seeing nails" metaphor again? Yeah, it needs work. Sorry.

Hmm...*pulls out hammer* Here, let me fix that for you....

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool! All this functionality available to power users while driving...

Re:Why?

[Jurily]

Virtualization will allow them to run a "work phone" environment on their personal phone. Reported advantage is that it eliminates the need to carry two phones while still firewalling off work data from the "personal phone" environment.

And where is the part that requires two OSes? This is the classic "solution looking for a problem".

Re:Why?

[lazybeam]

I've seen two-SIM phones before. I don't know about availability, cost, etc, but it would be a good idea for some people.

Re:Why?

[Fred_A]

Virtualization is hip. Somebody at your management will be swayed.

Virtualisation is so last year, it's all in the cloud now.

Where is my cloud phone ?

Re:Why?

[thsths]

> Virtualization will allow them to run a "work phone" environment on their personal phone. Reported advantage is that it eliminates the need to carry two phones while still firewalling off work data from the "personal phone" environment.

Except that it does not. It will (if implemented properly) shield the private phone from the work phone, but not the other way around. Or, in short: trusting an untrustworthy platform is a bad idea. So if your work data is so important, it needs to run on a work phone.

Re:Why?

[jonbryce]

Nokia has a home screen / work screen on some of their smartphones, without the need for any virtualisation.

Re:Why?

[mspohr]

Two SIM phones are common in Asia and among the low cost clone phones. You don't see them in the US or even Europe since the telcos are adamant that they do not want you to have access to any other 'service'.

I just bought a very cheap iPhone clone Sciphone i9+ from Hong Kong for US$71 that has dual SIMS micro memory card slot. iPhone-like icons, camera, video, acceleration sensor (changes orientation of photos when you tilt the phone, etc.), FM radio, lots of other stuff.

The dual SIMS are great for me since I can have both my Swisscom SIM and my ATT SIM in the phone (and both active at the same time, if I want).

The phone, however, is of dodgy quality and the OS is proprietary. It does have Java so you can add software to it easily.

Re:Why?

[ozmanjusri]

No, really, why?

It's the only way to make Windows Mobile usable.

Re:Why?

[obarthelemy]

There was the Sidekick, but it's future is now ... clouded ...

Re:Why?

[obarthelemy]

Virtualization exists because OS companies have a hard time making resilient OSes. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be needed, and OSes would be reliable, load-balancing... natively.

Re:Why?

[Runaway1956]

Apparently, you're not especially familiar with virtual machines. You can isolate the machines, so that they are never aware of each other, or you can set up networking between them, or you can allow them to simply share resources on hard disk. It all depends on the administrator's goals how they are set up. I can allow a WinXP VM to bet so infested with malware that it can't even boot up, but it has zero effect on a similar WinXP VM running on the same hardware. Well - aside from consuming CPU cycles, which will necessarily slow down the second VM, along with the host. But, the infections will stay isolated in that first VM, unless I'm sharing folders in one manner or another.

Re:Why?

[jimicus]

Virtualization exists because OS companies have a hard time making resilient OSes. In an ideal world, it wouldn't be needed, and OSes would be reliable, load-balancing... natively.

Such an OS has existed. It was called OpenVMS.

Re:Why?

[amRadioHed]

If the OSes aren't capable of load-balancing properly on their own, how is it that the VMs running on them are properly load-balanced?

Re:Why?

[rvw]

Nokia has a home screen / work screen on some of their smartphones, without the need for any virtualisation.

Great! But that still requires a Nokia phone, and all employees have to buy Nokia. What if they want a Pre or Android phone?

Re:Why?

[couchslug]

Why not stick a toe in the water? It wasn't long ago that desktops bogged running VMs, and now we can run many of them.

As cell phones become more like multi-purpose computers, expect more capability.

Re:Why?

[nospam007]

Except for the fact that the phone will likely still have only one SIM card, only one telephone number,

Google has an app for that.

Re:Why?

[jonbryce]

Then I'm sure the same feature could be introduced to Palm OS or Android, again without the need for virtualisation.

Re:Why?

[mrboyd]

I thought it was mostly used as a way to detach the software form the hardware thus limiting the impact of hardware failure. I don't really see how virtualizing a crappy OS will give you load balancing. Did you mean redundancy?

Re:Why?

[wisty]

No, really, why?

Because everyone knows that the problem with smartphones is while that they have way too many pixels, standardized input devices, video cards that can render billions of polygons a second, and a buttload of RAM; but you just can't run games like Crysis on your trendy Apple, or use PhotoShop on your home dev box / server.

Re:Why?

[quickgold192]

Here I am! *Palm Pre waves*

Re:Why?

[obarthelemy]

both actually, it's my understanding that the latest VMs do both, but I may be wrong ?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

At our company employees do get their own cell phone, company chips in $30 or $60 a month depending on whether they need a data plan (which we cover the cost of) into the first paycheck of the month.

Works extremely well.

I don't really see the point of this in the real world. I could see where this could be useful where we would have 1 phone and test in Windows Mobile and Android on one hardware platform. Outside of that, I see no real value.

Sounds like "Corporate Socialism" to me. I'd DEMAND to be taken off this "Nanny State" arrangement. If you want a phone, you should buy it yourself with all the extra money you'd get if they weren't STEALING from your paycheck to support all those deadbeats.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in Romania at least they're quite common. Chinese manufacturing, very cheap, lots of features (live tv, for example), unreliable hardware and software, but prised by some.

I can't actually phantom how they cram so much features in them, but I'll be buying one these days just to get its feel. Allview (http://allview.ro/mobile/site/) is such a Romanian company making these phones. Note that these are not marked as cheap knock-offs of brand manufactures, but as a niche market.

Re:Why?

[vegiVamp]

No, you're confusing two things.

On the one hand, you have dual sim hacks ( http://mobile.brando.com/dual-sim_c0937d100?shop_by=category ) for normal phones, which do indeed require a reboot to switch between sims.

On the other hand, there are (a limited number of) real dual-sim phones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_SIM#Active_dual-SIM_phones ), which allow you to receive calls from both sims, and software-select on which sim your outgoing calls are made.

Re:Why?

[7213]

I'd be laughing, if I wasn't weeping about how true that statement is 'round these parts.

Re:Why?

[CXI]

It's not just the security aspect. When a company provides a cell phone it has tax consequences and there are specific reporting requirements where all personal calls must be identified and repaid to the company. Given the free and unlimited minutes, as well as the volume of calls someone would make, this is a major PITA to deal with. My employer requires that all calls on the work phone be work calls, period. Unfortunately, even though the IRS knows this is bad and wants to fix it, they have to ask Congress to do it, and hope that Congress does what they ask. Here's a good link with the related legislation: http://www.taxgirl.com/irs-reverses-course-on-cell-phone-tax-asks-congress-for-repeal/

Re:Why?

[silent_artichoke]

Umm... GP says the company chips INTO the paycheck and they cover data plans. Nice rant though.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably not as easily as you make it sound though. You need to separate contacts, separate email (maybe one is exchange and the other gmail), have encryption and remote wipe available for the "work" partition / VM, requirements for certificate based authentication, and a PIN to unlock the work phone. Many of those would have to be completely optional for the "home" partition / VM. It definitely needs to have more of a barrier between the two profiles / partitions / VM's than just "here are your two different home screens".

Re:Why?

[GIL_Dude]

Everyone sees something different as the "major win" for virtualization. Yours is certainly valid. The GP's is a little more dodgy. Another common one is that since it can be difficult to fully separate administration roles from application management roles - just creating two VM's is "somewhat safer" than having one machine with two apps running on it. Yet another is to protect from poorly coded packages stomping on each other with different levels of dependencies. One more is to have different patching outage windows for multiple applications. Anyway, let's just agree that there are a bunch of reasons for folks to virtualize and different ones may be the primary driver for different workloads.

Re:Why?

[Bert64]

That sounds like quite a disturbing trend, if the company does not own the hardware then it cannot demand you remove any data from it or enforce any kind of policies on it...
Most places I've worked explicitly forbade the use of personal equipment for work purposes.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your cloud phone is called the Sidekick. You may have heard about it earlier this year.

Re:Why?

[SCHecklerX]

Where is my cloud phone ?

The Palm pre?

Re:Why?

[natehoy]

It's right there, in your flying car.

Re:Why?

[rwa2]

What, haven't heard of the new physicalization trend yet?

Re:Why?

[rwa2]

I wouldn't mind a single device that could be used for both business and personal use, but it would need additional hardware features... such as dual sim cards (a lot of the Chinese phones already have this) and probably dual removable memory, and removable cameras and other recording devices (though a lot of businesses have yielded on restrictions of some of those things lately, if only because it's almost impossible to get a phone without a built-in camera and even bluetooth these days.)

But this would be pretty useful to let the work side stay locked down and encrypted, and having the personal side relatively open for third-party applications (which, while still a risk if inappropriately used to discuss proprietary business, can really help business productivity ... e.g. Google Maps Mobile and the like).

Re:Why?

[NotBornYesterday]

But those are the most fun!

Now I need to get 2 phones, so I can VMotion from one to the other in case one dies.

Re:Why?

[Rich0]

Can't say that I've used the latest version of it, but my only response is:

You' RW-ASTed...

Granted, my linux box has similar failures when mounts and things like that go away. Who builds OSes and starts with the functional requirement that external devices should never go offline?

Re:Why?

[techno-vampire]

Apparently, you're not especially familiar with virtual machines.

It's true that I've not needed to work with them as yet. However, your reply either doesn't answer my question or I don't understand you answer. Are you saying that by default one VM can't access files created by another and isn't even aware of them?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The SideKick. That worked out well when they deleted everyone's data.

Re:Why?

[Runaway1956]

No, what I'm saying is, when you create the machine, you assign properties to it. If you don't want that machine to access anything at all, just don't give it any shared resources, don't give it a network interface. You will have a standalone testbed, for whatever purpose you need it.

If you wish that machine to have access to the internet, and nothing in the LAN, you can give it exactly that. If you wish to give it unrestricted access to your LAN, but not the internet, that's fine as well. In my case, I run my VM's on my gateway machine anyway, so I just give it access to my physical eth0, connected to the internet, or to eth1, connected to the LAN. There's an option to create a virtual network among your virtual machines, and you can pick and choose which machines has access to that network.

As a seperate issue, are shared resources on the host's hard drive. I can share any folders I choose, or none at all.

You mention "default" settings, and there really isn't a "default". Each and every machine has to be set up uniquely, by way of a wizard, and you have to consciously choose each parameter along the way. Choosing the wrong parameters will likely give you a non-working machine, if the wizard even finishes creating the machine.

Hmmm. Maybe that last paragraph isn't quite what I mean - - - by default, there is no shared resources, no network interface, no access to the internet OR the LAN, or even any virtual network. You must specify each parameter before it can ever exist.

If you're interested, why not download and install one of the VM softwares? It's easily uninstalled and layed aside if you decide you're not very interested. ;^)

http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads

Good project for a rainy afternoon, or a Friday when you're trying to dodge responsibility on the job. I think that any tech savvy person can get it installed and running in that much time. Once it is up and running, you will need the time necessary for any normal installation of your chosen operating system before the VM is of any use.

Have fun!!

Re:Why?

[techno-vampire]

As a seperate issue, are shared resources on the host's hard drive. I can share any folders I choose, or none at all.

I presume, then, that a VM has no access under any circumstances to any folder that isn't shared with it. If so, that answers my question. Thank you.

I may well install VirtualBox, but if so, I'll see if it's in the Fedora repositories first. (always the safest way to go.)

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

God, I fucking hate people like you. I have a G1 and have fallen hopelessly in love with Android. I've written several applications that I now find indispensable that use the hardware api's in ways don't won't work on anything else. On the other hand, I also LOVE Linux on my desktop. Ergo, I want an N900 so bad I can taste it but I'm not going to get one if I can't run Android on it. Of course, Android will work, however, I also want all of the Maemo goodness. And running Debian in a bootstrap environment inside of Android which has no native X display is more a curiosity than anything else.

If only there were some way to run them both simultaneously...

Re:Why?

[Hurricane78]

You don’t see it, because it is virtualized in the verticals. Duh.

I bet you don’t even have the eTurbo 9000 XFX edition. :P

Re:Why?

[sznupi]

Which...would be...cloud car?

won't this adversely affect

[Anonymous Coward]

battery life?

Re:won't this adversely affect

[goombah99]

battery life?

No they use virtual batteries.

Seriously, supposedly the reason apple has assiduously avoided background processes not to mention creating a centralized push notifier was to avoid battery life drain and process management headaches. Which OS get's to be the power manager? Or does that fall to the VM too? And then imagine the process management headache when I've got three different places to kill apps (the two OS and the VM). ANd did some one say virtual memory paging hell?

Re:won't this adversely affect

[Hadlock]

ok I tried really hard, I opened the tab, then closed it again, then read three more posts, before having to post this. "get's" does not have an apostrophe in it! It is "gets". It's not a contraction, and it's not possessive. I can understand bad grammar, lack of punctuation, etc., but poor usage of apostrophes really "get's" my goat!!!

Re:won't this adversely affect

[Anonymous Coward]

"get's" does not have an apostrophe in it!

It obviously does. :D

Re:won't this adversely affect

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "doe's"?

Re:won't this adversely affect

[Anonymous Coward]

"ok I tried really hard, I opened the tab, then closed it again, then read three more posts, before having to post this. "get's" does not have an apostrophe in it! It is "gets". It's not a contraction, and it's not possessive. I can understand bad grammar, lack of punctuation, etc., but poor usage of apostrophes really "get's" my goat!!!"

No need to wonder what anal retentive children grow up to be, is there? They all have a promising future on forums and boards like Slashdot. I wonder what it pays?

Re:won't this adversely affect

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, never forget the following sage advice from the GNU man pages:

BUGS
      Never use gets(). Because it is impossible to tell without knowing the
      data in advance how many characters gets() will read, and because
      gets() will continue to store characters past the end of the buffer, it
      is extremely dangerous to use. It has been used to break computer
      security. Use fgets() instead.

Re:won't this adversely affect

[rrohbeck]

Oldie but goldie:
GP is of the persuasion that an apostrophe means "Caution: s ahead".

Re:won't this adversely affect

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get's it.

Re:won't this adversely affect

[ergo98]

Seriously, supposedly the reason apple has assiduously avoided background processes not to mention creating a centralized push notifier was to avoid battery life drain and process management headaches.

Do you believe their excuse? Somehow the iPhone has a battery life equal to or worse than a Droid, which is of course a phone with no such constraints.

Apple wants to control the experience and the ecosystem. It's as simple as that. Everything else is just noise.

It reminds me when Linux had to be custom compiled for every host, the necessities for the platform (e.g. network, video, etc) needing to be compiled into the kernel. At the time this was held up as some sort of great feature. Of course really it was just a technical deficiency and when they moved beyond it suddenly its imagined advantages were forgotten. The same for when the Apple PC world used PowerPC chips, those superstar processors that put the x86 world to shame. Then Apple went x86 and it was forgotten.

Re:won't this adversely affect

[natehoy]

it's 'simple. 'Sometimes you put an apo'strophe in front of the letter "'s", and 'sometime's you dont. Other letter's occasionally get an apo'strophe be'side them but the "'s" i's the mo'st likely 'so 'some people ju'st u'se the apo'strophe con'stantly 'so they dont have to de'cide. ('c' in thi's ca'se i's prinoun'ced a's an 's).

'see what I mean? ju'st 'simplifie's the whole 'senten'ce 'structure. No de'ci'sion's ne'ce's'sary.

Re:won't this adversely affect

[Hadlock]

Best thing I've read all day. Thank you!

great, so my phone can be even slower

[SuperBanana]

The idea is to have your work applications and home applications all running insider their own VMs and running at the same time so you can access any app any time.

Are they including a free RAM upgrade kit? And why does this seem to be a hammer in search of non-existent nails?

The biggest problem I have right now: lack of dual SIM (or multi-line) support in almost any phone. I don't need to separate "work applications" from "home applications." I need to have a work number / data plan billed to my company, and a home number (with no data plan) billed to me.

*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009. VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009. VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...

My phone is smart because it runs a Linux distro that allows for root access when required. Meaning I am not restricted, tethered, limited etc...

I bought my phone two years ago, so it is not new.

Nokia Nxxx (770, 800, 810, 900) all will allow you to run WiFi, VoIP, etc... With the N900 you have the option of getting a cellular plan if you must. Personally I would not bother with cellular any time soon, but that is my choice.

Thanks to my choice (VoIP + WiFi on my "smart" linux enabled (maemo) hand set) my total cost of ownership (TCO) is less than $100 per year. You read that right, less than $100 per year. $24 per year for SkypeIn (with SkypePro) + $3.00 per month for unlimited calling. $24 + $36 and I am done. That is for one year.

I love it. So make sure you purchase the right phone. Hint on the WiFi Firewall/Router, get a DD-WRT supported device!. Check the website first before you purchase and only purchase hardware that supports DD-WRT, that way you can control your router and insure WiFi access via a secure intranet.

Your solution is simple, purchase the right hand set. Buy the right phone. If it will not run a Linux (that allows you to access root when required) then do not buy it! Are you limited, tethered, restricted...then you must not have root access to fix that!

A strong password for your root account is enough of a security deterrent and has been for years, so please do not spread that FUD.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Frankly, the RAM is the easiest part of all this. All you need for that is a few dollars worth of well proven technology that gets cheaper all the time.

Battery life is the real kicker. The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smartphone OS, much less two trampling on one another. These phones will either last 3 hours, or hearken back to the "old school brick" form factor.

Dual SIM is funny. Horrible little Chinese knockoff phones, with inscrutable UIs and more misappropriated brand names than correctly spelled words, all support dual SIM, no problem. Among phones that you've actually heard of, though, not so much.

I'm frankly pretty pessimistic about VMware's chances here. I'm sure that they can manage it, in the technical sense, for suitably modest flavors of "manage", and on high end phones; but(assuming anybody actually likes this one phone, two personalities idea) they'll likely be beaten by the makers of the phone OSes.

Unlike the PC/server situation, where potentially insecure or ill-behaved applications make virtualization seem like a very useful compartmentalization strategy, the phone scene has been ruled with an iron fist by the vendors. Plus, because phones have been treated as near-disposable client devices for years now, and are stuck on low-bandwidth pipes, VMware's failover and redundancy stuff isn't going to be too relevant.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Yaodin]

There is something for VOIP, check out iSkoot, it is a Blackberry app and allows you to call computers with your skype account for free or use your skype credit to call land lines. The voice quality is not all that great though and it is my no means integrated into the phone.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[w0mprat]

Virtualisation would have seemed this way on PCs in the 90s, with machines starved for then-expensive RAM. What I remember of virtualisation in the early days is it was slow and you'd never consider virtualising anything for a production environment. I would have laughed if you told me you could run 2,4,10 VMs feasibily on one server.

Of course, that smartphones will begin to follow moores law the same way, we'll see much more memory space and cpu horsepower in the same power envelope very soon, so any question of necessary resources (eventually) is moot.

Yet, it may be possible on existing hardware with some trickery, indeed VMs run fast now, almost native for some tasks, and this on x86. Yet, ARM is the default for smartphones, near native speed for ARM? Indeed we should throw out our experience on other platforms. The question then is how does virtualisation stack up on it? Is it a better or worse instruction set? Considering the x86 set needed additions to really speed up virtual machines.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[SuperBanana]

Frankly, the RAM is the easiest part of all this. All you need for that is a few dollars worth of well proven technology that gets cheaper all the time.

Except that every embedded device or phone has very constrained amounts of memory, because they're trying to get the per-unit cost down as much as possible to get per-unit pricing up as much as possible (or drop the price to compete- cell phones are a commodity item.) When's the last time you even saw RAM specs on a phone? The iPhone (non 3GS) has 128MB and is widely considered to be hobbled by it.

Hell, it's true in the desktop world, too. You can spend $2500 on a Mac Pro, and Apple will only give you 3GB of RAM.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. I think you need a new phone.

I'm able to do VOIP over 3g (north american AT&T using an "iphone" plan) using my Nokia E51 and VOIP service from callcentric.com. Callcentric even supports local number portability.

The 3g VOIP is pretty poor but it is good enough to see that I'm getting a call, answer it, and tell them I'll call back (either using the AT&T voice service or by switching my phone to a local wifi hotspot and calling them back using VOIP.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[sznupi]

RAM for mobiles could be a bit more expensive though, has to use very little power.

BTW, Samsung also has dual sim phones. From quick Google search those are at least d880, c6112, d980, w629, b5722, b5702, c3212, c5212...so quite a lot.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I realize that the embedded world is extremely cost sensitive, constantly trimming as far down as possible.

My point was just that, if the customer/carrier requirement is now "Phone that runs two OSes and a hypervisor, needs more RAM" your ODM will raise an eyebrow and raise your bill; but everything should otherwise slot neatly in to existing designs, and the per-megabyte cost of all that RAM will definitely be lower next year.

If you demand more battery capacity, on the other hand, you'll get "Sure, no problem, would you prefer to wait a decade for the nanotube/unobtanium cell to be perfected, or ship the fattest handset of the year? Oh, and it'll cost more."

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[DNS-and-BIND]

What, so the manufacturers should shoot themselves in the foot by providing dual-SIM? If they do that, then you won't need to buy two phones! There's a reason that most dual (or triple) SIM phones come from no-name Chinese manufacturers.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[w0mprat]

How android works is analogous to a virtual machine already. If you've rooted your Android phone you don't really have full root access to what runs underneath the Linux variant.

My phone is smart because it runs a Linux distro that allows for root access when required.

The linux you have root too is really running a layer above the the radio software etc. This is why rooting your 'droid is (reasonably) safe, you stilll don't get root to fsck with the fundamentals of the phone and bring down the local 3G network. On a side note, your user-level applications run in their own sandboxed userids and not the logged in the user as such. More to the point the application space runs in Java which has virtual machine like qualities and I can see many tricks possibly to get android running very nicely alongside anything else.

Oh and it's Linux too.

Android at least seems to be ripe for VMware to play with. The difficulty would be any non-linux/unix derived smartphone OS (ahem Windows mobile ahem).

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Anonymous Coward]

How android works is analogous to a virtual machine already. If you've rooted your Android phone you don't really have full root access to what runs underneath the Linux variant.

Um, no. The vast majority of Android handsets use SoCs where the Linux kernel has complete control over the applications processor and the baseband stack runs on a dedicated core. Some of these (Droid) use two different chips (OMAP3430+MSM6K) and some (Dream, Hero, etc) use a single chip with multiple cores (like MSM7201A). I'm unaware of any commercially shipping Android handset where the Linux kernel for Android is not running "on the bare metal"

There's nothing "under" Linux in these environments, though the baseband is "alongside", but that's not really that different (conceptually) than plugging a WAN card into your PC.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

Battery life is the real kicker. The very best commercially available batteries are just barely adequate for one smart phone OS, much less two trampling on one another. These phones will either last 3 hours, or hearken back to the "old school brick" form factor.

Battery life on any computer is a pain. I just gave up and kept a phone cord at work and at home. And that is only because I have had power cords break from being moved too much. Also when I get to the office or get home, I simply plug in my Nokia N800.

There was a time where a company, do not know the name, wish I did, was selling an external rechargeable battery. The one I was looking at cost between $150 - $300 per battery and was the size of a small laptop, but only about 1/2 inch thick. It was intended to be placed underneath the laptop and simply plug into the normal power outlet on the laptop. One guy used one of these for a 14 hour flight from North America to South East Asia, said he played DVDs all they way across the ocean and never lost battery power.

Perhaps that company, if it still exists, has an external rechargeable battery that you could clip to your phone or hand held computer so that you would have an extra 3 hours to 8 hours of battery life. Just thinking out loud as you are right battery life is a pain for all of us.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[sznupi]

Battery life is already the largest limiting factor for progress of smartphones.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[wvmarle]

When I read this my first thought was that this is yet another sign that the difference between smartphones, netbooks, and even laptops and desktops is fading. The form factor is what remains mainly, as we can pack more and more computing power in smaller and smaller packages.

We can do things now on smartphones that 10, 15 years ago were just getting possible on an average desktop PC. And the gap is narrowing quickly. OS vendors (and VMWare is pretty much in that market) these days are of course looking at the smartphone as the next platform.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, don't blameVMWare because your phone doesn't have VoIP capabilities. If you have a cheap phone, you got what you paid. If you have a smartphone, you probably have a RIM device such as Blackberry. Their pre-2005 OS uses a Big Mistake (R) called RIMJ2ME, and is unable to do a stupid think (my Sound Blaster 16 did it 15 years ago) called full-duplex audio. Because of that, you cannot download, for example, Fring or Nimbuzz, and enjoy VoIP calls.

It's RIM fault... Indeed, some cellphones (Symbian-based Nokia) brings with native VoIP some years ago.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[mjwx]

*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009. VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...

There are several SIP applications for Android. The best I've used is Fring which integrates part of skype, MSN, Gtalk and a few others. There is also SIPDroid but this is hit and miss with Australian VoIP providers.

It will be 2010 shortly and only we elitist open source people will enjoy VOIP on our mobile devices.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[bertoelcon]

I used to see little packs you could get that held 2 AA batteries and plugged in a phone. I do not know if they make them for smartphones or just dumbphones though. I still have one for a Nokia 3100 somewhere around here.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[faragon]

*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009. VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...

Check the Nokia N900... and yes, it runs Linux.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Anonymous Coward]

My phone is smart because it runs a Linux distro that allows for root access when required.

Now I see why most slashdotters are considering themselves smart...

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[somersault]

Thanks to my choice (VoIP + WiFi on my "smart" linux enabled (maemo) hand set) my total cost of ownership (TCO) is less than $100 per year. You read that right, less than $100 per year. $24 per year for SkypeIn (with SkypePro) + $3.00 per month for unlimited calling. $24 + $36 and I am done. That is for one year.

It also is not much more useful than using a landline and pay phones. The point in a mobile phone is that you are mobile.

If however you never go outside, or otherwise spend 100% of your time in areas with free WiFi, then it's great for you, but there's no point making a big deal about it because it's a useless idea for most mobile users.

Me, I have a company mobile and we're allowed personal use as long as we don't take the piss. I send and receive a few texts each week, and sometimes use internet services (email, cinema times, and I've just installed a facebook app), but I'm around computers most of the day anyway so it's rare that I'd need to use my phone for that stuff.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[olden]

... Thanks to my choice (VoIP + WiFi on my "smart" linux enabled (maemo) hand set) my total cost of ownership (TCO) is less than $100 per year. ... $24 per year for SkhypeIn (with SkhypePro) + $3.00 per month for unlimited calling...

Huh, if all you need is calling while next to a WiFi hotspot, "less than $100/y" remains way overpriced IMHO.
I use VoIP from my cellphone for maybe $10 to $20/y with SIPdroid + IPkall DID + JustVoip (or others) + optional: Asterisk, SIPBroker and E164. But all this is mostly irrelevant as my reason for having a cell is to call from places other than home or work = often without WiFi.

Back on topic: VMware stuff is IMO like that VoIP/WiFi stuff: sure cool, appealing to geeks. Good for PR / publicity. But otherwise limited practical usefulness, esp for non-techies...

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Runaway1956]

Interesting. I don't own a cell phone - the wife and kids do, but the service in our area makes them just about useless. You have to go to town to get decent service at all.

But, you've got me interested in playing with a Nokia. Thanks!

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Krneki]

VOIP and dual SIM cards support would mean healthier Telcos competition. You know we can't have that, do you?

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[eharvill]

You mean something like this - http://www.amazon.com/RichardSolo-1800-iPhone-External-battery/dp/B001LNDXEK

Or these -

http://www.batterygeek.net/External-Cell-Phone-Battery-Packs-s/77.htm

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[eharvill]

Well, I'm sure the cellular service providers could somehow strong arm the manufacturers into doing that. The cellular service providers typically lose money on each phone, but more than make up for it via their 1 and 2 year service agreements. The dual SIMs would be a boon for the cellular service providers IMO.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Rexdude]

*Checks calendar* Yup, it's 2009. VOIP still not possible on my smartphone...

You must be in the US!

There are numerous VOIP capable smartphones available as others have mentioned, it's another story if your service provider deliberately disables the feature or blocks it from working on their network.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[caseih]

Sounds like you need a new smartphone. My Nokia E65 has integrated VoIP and it can, with a third-party dual-sim adapter, handle multiple SIM chips (though not both at the same time). Most of the Nokia smartphone line that runs symbian has integrated VoIP that works very well.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Bert64]

The reason chinese phones support dual sim and ones you've heard of don't, is because the manufacturers you know of are in the pockets of mobile operators, while the chinese ones aren't.
Dual sim is a useful feature for the end user of the phone, but not for the operator, and most of the big name manufacturers are building handsets for operators not for users.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I don't get. Virtualization has taken off on the server and PC side because the hardware is there to support it. Is the hardware on the phone side really powerful enough for this?

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[drinkypoo]

You don't really need more battery if the background OS is idle or nearly so. Also, while the batteries aren't getting that much better, OLED is starting to see more uptake so the screens are taking less power, and the process technology continues to march forward, making the CPUs consume less power as well. The radio won't use more power in this scenario, so I'm not seeing the problem (except that battery life is not improving as fast as I would like.)

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[rastoboy29]

Excellent post.  Hear hear!

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

You mean something like this - http://www.amazon.com/RichardSolo-1800-iPhone-External-battery/dp/B001LNDXEK [amazon.com] Or these - http://www.batterygeek.net/External-Cell-Phone-Battery-Packs-s/77.htm [batterygeek.net]

Good links thank you for providing them, closer to the second link, about the same dimensions of the the SPPS200 and PPS130 (about the size of a small laptop or netbook), except it was white like a cutting board. With the one I saw, the intention was to have the PC rest on top of the battery in your lap, I assume there was a toggle electric cord going from the back of the battery to the back of the computer. My only concern was potential heat and about that same time I started paying attention to the lap cooling fans. The battery was advertised to get either 12, 14 or 16 hours of DVD player running type of usage out of a laptop. The guy who reviewed it used the battery, playing DVDs on his laptop all the way to Asia on an airlines flight. Sounded great to me. Then all of a sudden I stopped seeing them anywhere.

Do not know if it was because of their price, they were not cheap (my guess) or if there were problems with them. I am thinking they were too expensive for all but the most well off power usage, thus their demise.

You would think that a series of universal external battery packs, different sizes for different devices and varying lengths of battery times, with universal plugs for all the current hand held devices regardless of manufacturer or operating system would be perfect and well worth the money to all.

On that first link, the RichardSolo 1200 for iPhone / iPod ! External battery pack is the idea, see how the white box, I assume the battery, fits under the device, same foot print. Oh ignore the projector looking part of the image, what is that infra-red, blue-tooth-like battery beaming, too funny. I sure hope that battery pack has a cord in the back the flips up and plugs into the device as keeping the device and the battery pack lined up would be a pain.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

The reason chinese phones support dual sim and ones you've heard of don't, is because the manufacturers you know of are in the pockets of mobile operators, while the chinese ones aren't.

Please someone mod this person up. Mobile operators most certainly have been dictating to the hardware vendors. Thank goodness for Google, opening the doors with the Android software in coming years, as Nokia steps in the right direction but hold back from doing more for the same reason. Even Google's first Android is limited at the bequest of the mobile operators. Based on what I have been reading, this is going to change next year, yea!

The only reason we have not seen innovation in the hand held / smart phone / device space is because of vendors who are more interested in charging you more for text messages than allowing you to do what you want to do.

Makes me despise the cellular vendors all the more. I stopped buying their hobbled junk hardware.

We have one open phone (N900) and one semi-open phone (Android) now. By next year we will have over half a dozen, my prediction and by 2011, even more. The genie is not going back into the bottle, get over it, cellular companies! Or continue, business as usual and continue to piss off your customer base.

Happily cellular free for more than 3 years now and loving it!

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

...The cellular service providers typically lose money on each phone...

This is total BS. The typical phones have been itemized and priced out. The total cost of components in almost all cases is less than $40 per unit. When they purchase the components in bulk, they get even better prices.

The cheapest handset I have ever purchased was $100, so they still made over 100% profit. To lower the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of your handset, make sure it has the ability to use WiFi (not over cellular as this defeats the purpose). Install WiFi Firewall/Routers at home and at work and use WiFi in those two places, reduce your plan's cellular minutes and use the savings to offset the cost of the phone.

I bet prior to Verizon settling the bill, this parent was wishing they would have bought their son a WiFi enabled phone, Teen's Cell Phone Bill Tops $20,000. WE hear about junk like this every day, every week, every month. A simple solution, when at home, you son/daughter uses WiFi, however your hardware must allow for it, admittedly only the Nokia Nxxx (N800, N900) and Android (at least I think it does) allow for this today.

What really gets me, is the cellular companies could prevent this from ever happening if they wanted to....

Personally I am surprised that someone has not set up a "chat" exchange server, let kids give themselves an account and chat with each other via the server. If they come in via cellular, so be it, however if they come in via ISP (hardwired or WiFi) there would be no charge, so be it. Put up minimal advertising to pay for the service and/or charge a nominal yearly fee.

No need for a monthly fee as text messaging eats up so little bandwidth.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

here are numerous VOIP capable smartphones available as others have mentioned, it's another story if your service provider deliberately disables the feature or blocks it from working on their network.

This is why you have a WiFi Router and a handset that can use that WiFi (without using your cellular minutes or your providers network). WiFi is FREE. Of course your hand held must allow you to use the WiFi router you install. My Nokia N800 does, even the Nokia N900 will (and it has cellular built in). I am pretty sure the Androids will let you use WiFi without using your cellular provider's network but am not 100% sure.

If you must use your provider's network, you are tethered. No good! Do not buy the hardware, if its tethered.

Having cellular when you are not in a WiFi hot zone is a plus, cellular should NOT be required for access!

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[Rexdude]

Most of these handsets are sold only unlocked (N900 especially) and thus APPEAR to be costlier than so called operator subsidized handsets.

Unless Americans catch up to the rest of the world by insisting on unlocked handsets without operator interference, this sort of thing will continue.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

...If however you never go outside, or otherwise spend 100% of your time in areas with free WiFi, then it's great for you, but there's no point making a big deal about it because it's a useless idea for most mobile users.....

You can extend your WiFi even outdoors, I know this is not what you mean.

I had over $150 per month plan...switched to VoIP, ditched cellular, so I save allot.

Total Cost of my Old Cellular plan:
$150 * 12 = $1,800 per year * 3 years = $5,400.00 + $500 hand set = $5,900.00 (TCO) Total Cost of Ownership over 3 years.

Skype: My service is less than $100 per year.

$100 per year * 3 years = $300 + Nokia N800 ($500, when I bought it, $200 today) = $800.

$5,400.00 - $800 = $4,600.00 in savings. That is a very big deal to me and I bet 80% of the others reading this.

I had my router/firewall, but lets say you did not. Lets say you buy one of the better DD-WRT supported device! costing $100 (I have bought these for $15 per router and they have $200 dollar routers also, with the DD-WRT software they are worth between $600 - $1000 dollars for that $15, $100 or $200 hardware cost! And there is nothing you can NOT do with DD-WRT!).

$4,600.00 - $100 = $4,500.00 in savings.

So you need cellular for emergencies, no problem... Prepaid hand set ($100), $50 for prepaid minutes the first year, if not included for the $100. (Plus $20 for year two and $20 for year 3. No one has this phone number, therefore no one can call it, just for me to call out in an emergency. The cellular plan I bought allows my minutes to remain active for one year. No monthly recharge, that would be stupid.

$4,500.00 - $190 ($100 + $50 + $20 + $20) = $4,310.00 in savings.

So I have cellular when I need it, emergencies only. I have unlimited calling and a phone number for people to call me back from any phone, cellular or landline. If I am not connected to the internet, Skype Pro takes a message, which I get the next time I connect to the internet from anywhere, at work, at home or other WiFi hotzone.

I do not fear getting a ticket for talking on my cellphone when driving, my state does not allow that, driving without hands free device. I was never worried about distractions when driving, as I have been driving for years, however with newer, younger drivers this is important. Removes the temptation to answer the phone in the car, if a phone can NOT ring.

No fear of extra charges. Does not happen with WiFi or Internet direct connected VoIP.

I do not count the cost of Internet Access at home as you have that with cellular anyway. So that is a wash. I do recommend fiber always, but if no fiber, go DSL, just say no to Cable. By the time they restrict, throttle your service you would be better off with DSL service at 1.5Mbps down / 384 Kbps upstream. Most of you do not see how bad your Cable modem / service is throttled because you do not have a firewall/router device capable of showing you this in real time like the DD-WRT software shows you. You need to know, get a DD-WRT enabled router and learn the truth.

I figured I could purchase two separate DSL providers fro the cost of one Cable provider, thus I have redundancy built in. Yea!

My next apartment/home will have fiber and I will never look back!

I call $4,500.00 in savings over three years, very significant and you should too!

Think the cost of a N900 is pricey and i agree, $599.00. What if I changed my $150 per month cellular service plan to $50 per month thanks to the WiFi capability of the Nokia N900 or Android smart phones? $599.00 / $100 = I have paid for my new Nokia in 6 months with the savings by reducing my cellular plan. If you can reduce your plan by even $50 per month, you will recoup the cost of your Nokia N900 in 1 year. And after that its paid for! Best of all its a computer with full browser, GPS and more and also your phone!

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

...for maybe $10 to $20/y with SIPdroid + IPkall DID ...

If that includes the cost of your incoming phone number, I pay $24 for that (discounted from $60 with SkypePro purchase), then it is a very good deal. My less than $100 price includes the phone number + unlimited calling in North American and Answering service for when I am not connected, so I do not miss a phone call. I have caller ID and other stuff, but that is not significant.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[somersault]

I call $4,500.00 in savings over three years, very significant and you should too!

I didn't say it wasn't significant, though as I said, this only works for you. And your previous plan was *insanely* priced if you were paying that much. Here you can get 'unlimited' data and texts for £15 a month.

I basically never call people, I just use my phone for checking cinema times, sending and receiving texts, and receiving the occasional work call.

Marketing types at your phone provider may still call your number even if you've never given it out to anyone btw. If you leave the phone switched off then that's fine though. But still, it's silly to pretend that what works for you would work for everyone. Most people these days are used to "always on" connections, and I think this is how things should and will eventually be - the ability to use online services anytime, anyplace.

Re:great, so my phone can be even slower

[lamapper]

You are indeed lucky to be in a country where you can get a text and/or phone plan for only "£15 a month". Here in America, only recently did another cellular company start offering plans (voice, not text) for $50 per month unlimited. Metro PCS has had real unlimited plans for between $40 to $50 per month for years. That is definitely the direction I would go, if I had to purchase cellular today as other cellular company plans that state they are unlimited have small contract in the contract that state otherwise.

With every other cellular company, in America, you are guaranteed, check RipOffReports.com (by consumers, for consumers; Don't let them get away with it...let the truth be known!) if you do not believe me, that you are guaranteed to eventually get hit with random over-charges. Which demonstrates to anyone who looks, by their very actions, that they (cellular providers in America) believe, honestly believe, with all their little tiny hearts, that Americans HAVE NO CHOICE! Thus they can get away with it. Can they? Really, Really, REALLY. (more directed at Americans than you)

Most people these days are used to "always on" connections, and I think this is how things should and will eventually be - the ability to use on line services anytime, anyplace.

I agree with you that this is how things should be and eventually will be, even here in America. Just not today, not yet. The American corporations have no incentive to provide it. In fact they do just the opposite, when a town or city attempts to put in city wide WiFi for the benefit of their customers, the telcos fight it, and they fight it hard. Usually they successfully prevent city-wide WiFi, but not always. It like people forget that the city infrastructure, water, sewer, eclectic belong to them and them alone!

The mentality of fighting innovation and service for customers is, well, pathetic. They have been fighting against fiber over the last mile in America for years, literally decades now. In Utah and Wilson, North Carolina they have fiber to their home. Will your community be next? Its up to you!

• User owned Fiber initiatives, where a community and a family in that community, can literally own the Fiber cable from the telco switching location of the town to their home. Smart families will spend the $3,000.00 (what one community charges) to own that critical fiber link for, especially if they plan to keep the home and property in the family and have children as it will bear fruit for generations. Of course the next bottleneck is having a non American Telco control fiber across the continent + undersea fiber optic cables to other continents. Utopia serves a good portion of Utah to date; Bringham City, Tremonton, Perry City, Layton, Centerville, Murray, Midvale, West Valley City, Riverton, Cedar Hills, Lindon, Orem, Payson, Cedar City
• Greenlight, North Carolina: the city council started running their own Fiber when Time Warner refused, that's when Time Warner got busy lobbying the legislature! They are still lobbying the state legislature, even though a Bill to limit broadband was defeated!

Note: About needing a non American owned company; the facts are that the current American telcos, even after receiving over 200 Billions in American Tax dollars over decades, have refused to innovate and provide fiber over the last mile to Americans. They received American tax dollars + additional taxes + additional legislative approved fees to bring Fiber to American ho

From this point on....

[7-Vodka]

Who the Frack wants windows on their phone?

Re:From this point on....

[jamesh]

Who the Frack wants windows on their phone?

Microsoft does.

Not sure about the customers, but I don't think they matter.

Re:From this point on....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think they're only supporting dual OSs rather than triple?

Re:From this point on....

[hvm2hvm]

score: 2, troll
so I guess that's a successful troll? :P

Re:From this point on....

[dunkelfalke]

I do. Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps, real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for. I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.

Re:From this point on....

[Krneki]

There should be a special category for the inconvenient truth. I'm personally trying to reach the +5 Troll, I know it ain't possible, but it hasn't stopped me from trying.

Re:From this point on....

[dredwerker]

I do. Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps, real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for. I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.

Really - winmob has the most useful apps.

The Iphone has an app for everything :)

but seriously how about layar on Winmob or GoogleNavigation or Google Voice Search even TomTom seems to have become deprecated(?) on winmob.

My winmob has been trounced by Android and Ipod/Iphone apps and I do have all 3 and a Blackberry.

Although I did just develop a gps app for Winmob and apart from it crashing all the time (probably me) it was quite painless.

Re:From this point on....

[dunkelfalke]

There is a huge number of turn to turn offline navigation software for Windows Mobile - more, than for any other operating system, because nearly all of those PNA devices are Windows CE based.

Let me name a few (Most of them are availiable in Europe only, though):
Navigon MobileNavigator
NavNGo iGO/Miomap
TomTom
Route 66 Maps
Sygic Drive (Now called Teleatlas McGuider)
Nokia Smart2Go
Destinator
Map&Guide FleetNavigator and TruckNavigator, Falk Navigator
MagicMaps2Go
CompeGPS TwoNav Pocket
Medion GoPal
Navitel Navigator

As you can see, navigation for Windows Mobile was part of my job discription a couple of years ago ;-)

Re:From this point on....

[amRadioHed]

Oh it's possible, at least it used to be. It is not recommend however unless you are a trained professional.

Re:From this point on....

[dredwerker]

There is a huge number of turn to turn offline navigation software for Windows Mobile - more, than for any other operating system, because nearly all of those PNA devices are Windows CE based.

Let me name a few (Most of them are availiable in Europe only, though): Navigon MobileNavigator NavNGo iGO/Miomap TomTom Route 66 Maps Sygic Drive (Now called Teleatlas McGuider) Nokia Smart2Go Destinator Map&Guide FleetNavigator and TruckNavigator, Falk Navigator MagicMaps2Go CompeGPS TwoNav Pocket Medion GoPal Navitel Navigator

As you can see, navigation for Windows Mobile was part of my job discription a couple of years ago ;-)

There are lots of them I agree, lots does not always equal good quality though. Then there is modernity of applications - winmob was quite advanced a few years ago and now it isnt - obviously IMHO and experience.

Re:From this point on....

[dunkelfalke]

Well, since the development of most navigation applications started on Windows Mobile, they've got better quality than the software for other platforms.
Also, what do you mean by "was quite advanced and now isn't"? It is still the mobile operating system with working multitasking, huge hardware support, a good bluetooth stack and so on. Don't confuse the graphical shell with the operating system. You can have lots of different UIs for Windows Mobile.

Re:From this point on....

[Krneki]

Oh, apparently the troll gods do exist. But as the 254 Google hits says, it ain't something every mortal can achieve.

Re:From this point on....

[dredwerker]

Well, since the development of most navigation applications started on Windows Mobile, they've got better quality than the software for other platforms. Also, what do you mean by "was quite advanced and now isn't"? It is still the mobile operating system with working multitasking, huge hardware support, a good bluetooth stack and so on. Don't confuse the graphical shell with the operating system. You can have lots of different UIs for Windows Mobile.

I dont confuse any such thing there are different graphical shells for lots of oses. Yes the mobile routing started on windows. Doesn't mean they didn't take their eye of the ball.

I mean its not advanced with regards to the audience its courting - users and therefore developers.

Do we see augmented/mixed reality on windows mobile? nope. Or tomtom with intelligent routing? nope.

Do we see modern apps even if they are seen as useless by slashdot geeks on winmob - nope. We might not want to flip a coin or slide a pint of carling but the other OSes are getting hugely more development and some if it actually useful :)

Yes apple's OS can't multithread but people dont care about that when they want to say find a restaurant on a find-a-restaurant app, they want it to work. If it does that - good.

I have never had a prob with my htc hero or iphone os 3 stack or come to that my blackberry storm or my htc kaiser. Some of the earlier xdas were a bit flaky.

I have been winmob for years as an end user and now it doesnt do what I need it to do and by sales figures and looking around me it doesnt do what a lot of others want either. Or people aren't drawn to it. From my perspective business people - use blackberry - not really sure why - but hey.

Then its split between Iphone and other phones with Android coming up behind - again IMHO and in the UK :)

A quick way for me to check this or anyone is to walk the length of a train in a rush hour if you can manage that and do a quick survey.

Winmob is great now if you want a piece of random shareware or something but then that would be free on the marketplace in android or itunes or good enough to pay £5 or whatever in your equivalent currency ;).

Re:From this point on....

[Anonymous Coward]

I do. Windows Mobile has still got the most useful apps, real multitasking and lots and lots of features and is also nice to develop for. I personally like it more than any other current mobile OS.

YOU SICK FUCK!

Re:From this point on....

[dunkelfalke]

I mean its not advanced with regards to the audience its courting - users and therefore developers.

But it is. Developing for .NET compact is much more comfortable than developing for any other mobile platform.

Do we see augmented/mixed reality on windows mobile? nope. Or tomtom with intelligent routing? nope.

Maybe you are a bit myopic ;-) There are augmented reality applications for Windows Mobile and TomTom just sucks. But have you seen anywhere a truck navigation for any other platform than Windows Mobile?

Yes apple's OS can't multithread but people dont care about that when they want to say find a restaurant on a find-a-restaurant app, they want it to work. If it does that - good.

Finding a restaurant is nothing special. Every navigation software supports Points Of Interest. But being able to listen to music through bluetooth stereo headphones and having a turn-to-turn navigation telling you where to go *at the same time* is also what people want. Windows Mobile provides that possibility. iPhone OS doesn't (neither A2DP nor multitasking). There is one single device which provides all that power and possibilities to really use your PDA as what it is - a portable personal computer - and is not powered by Windows Mobile. And that is Nokia N900.

Re:From this point on....

[dredwerker]

I mean its not advanced with regards to the audience its courting - users and therefore developers.

But it is. Developing for .NET compact is much more comfortable than developing for any other mobile platform.

Do we see augmented/mixed reality on windows mobile? nope. Or tomtom with intelligent routing? nope.

Maybe you are a bit myopic ;-) There are augmented reality applications for Windows Mobile and TomTom just sucks. But have you seen anywhere a truck navigation for any other platform than Windows Mobile?

Yes apple's OS can't multithread but people dont care about that when they want to say find a restaurant on a find-a-restaurant app, they want it to work. If it does that - good.

Finding a restaurant is nothing special. Every navigation software supports Points Of Interest. But being able to listen to music through bluetooth stereo headphones and having a turn-to-turn navigation telling you where to go *at the same time* is also what people want. Windows Mobile provides that possibility. iPhone OS doesn't (neither A2DP nor multitasking). There is one single device which provides all that power and possibilities to really use your PDA as what it is - a portable personal computer - and is not powered by Windows Mobile. And that is Nokia N900.

kk you win - there are more win mobile devices than any other and it will take over the world in the next few years. Time will tell. I was only being myopic in the sense that I was picking on a couple of apps. Yes you have POIs but I was picking a type of app as an explanation. NM - we shall have to agree to disagree.

The real questions

[PCM2]

With Microsoft's OS lagging way behind the others in the mobile market, does VMware plan to convince Steve Ballmer that running other companies' OSes side-by-side with Windows Mobile will be a good way to regain market share?

VMware says virtualization can separate personal data and apps from work ones. But if the trend is for smartphone apps to be essentially browser-based, or at least built with Web standards, isn't running a hypervisor and multiple OS instances on a phone the very definition of overkill?

Equally important, if Apple is unwilling to allow even the Flash player onto iPhones, how does VMware figure it's going to convince Apple to run a hypervisor?

Oh wait, the last one is actually easy: VMware's release doesn't even mention Apple. Doesn't mention BlackBerry either. Or Symbian. Funny how this revolutionary, much-in-demand technology specifically excludes the top 85 percent of the smartphone market.

Re:The real questions

[sznupi]

It's not "top". It's simply...85 percent.

Re:The real questions

[PCM2]

It's the top 85 percent in the sense that the OSes with the largest market share are Symbian, BlackBerry, and iPhone, in that order. Windows Mobile, Android, and Linux combined barely rival iPhone's third-place market share.

VMware's software doesn't just run on also-rans; it only runs on also-rans.

Re:The real questions

[mjwx]

This will be useful for running several versions of Android on the same device without having to re-flash them and in some cases lose most of your settings. There's also Maemo and WinMo accounts for more then 15% of the mobile market, especially as outside the US hosted blackberry services haven't been as successful.

Re:The real questions

[PCM2]

There's also Maemo . . .

I believe that's included under the heading of "Linux/Other," along with Palm WebOS.

. . . and WinMo accounts for more then 15% of the mobile market

Care to back that up? No respectable figure I've seen puts it that high, and Gartner's latest figures suggest it's about half that. (And if you can't trust Gartner to inflate figures in Microsoft's favor, whom can you trust?)

Re:The real questions

[ElNotto]

Global smartphone sales numbers for q3 2009:

Symbian:......46.2% or 34% depending on source
Blackberry:...20.6%
iPhone: ........17.8%
Win Mobile:.....8.8% or 4% depending on source
Android:..........7%
Palm WebOS: 4%

Source: http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?937

Re:The real questions

[PCM2]

You're mixing two different sources there, and one of them is based on counting ads served to various platforms. Why not just stick with all the numbers from Canalys (the source for your figures on Symbian, BlackBerry, and iPhone)?

Symbian: 46.2%
BlackBerry: 20.6%
iPhone: 17.8%
Microsoft: 8.8%
Android: 3.5%
Others: 3.2%

As such, my earlier statement stands: VMware's product addresses less than 16 percent of the total smartphone market.

Re:The real questions

[mdwh2]

And note that Apple's actual mobile phone share is much smaller (early 2009 was about 1%), whilst Nokia are still around 40%.

("Smartphone" is illdefined, and it's debatable that the Iphone counts anyway, unless you use a broad definition that would include all feature phones - it's misleading to redefine the market to something smaller, but still including the Iphone, just to inflate its share.)

Re:The real questions

[PCM2]

"Smartphone" is illdefined, and it's debatable that the Iphone counts anyway, unless you use a broad definition that would include all feature phones

How's that? The iPhone is a vastly more capable device than any feature phone by almost any measure.

VMWare has its place

[MichaelSmith]

But it is also overused by people who don't want to configure their operating system. The big advantage they have is the ability to seamlessly move a VM between different bits of hardware. I don't see that being proposed here.

It might actually be handy to move an image from my eeepc to my openmoko, and then back again later. In practice I just run compatible applications where I need an interface to work. The wholesale copying of images would make merging a problem as well.

Who watches the watchers...

[lamapper]

I can not be the only person who sees a problem with a restricted virtual layer running underneath the operating system on any device that I own. I would not put up with tethering, I will not put up with that.

I do not have a problem with a virtual layer running under the OS on a system I own, as long as I have 100% access and control to that virtual layer. Meaning I can remove, reconfigure, reinstall and tweak it as I see fit. The last thing any of us need is for some entity to not only track us, but monitor our communications, without a warrant, 24 X 7.

Hey Intel (some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it. It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual, unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic. Pathetic but to be 100% secure absolutely necessary. (Fortunately a DD-WRT supported device! will allow you to do just that!)

So any cellular phone that had a "restricted" virtual layer would be foolish to purchase, bring home and use. Hopefully everyone has learned their lessons from useless tethering and other such restrictions.

Its not about FREE, its about control and access, that is your only security.

Do you have the ability to tell your phone that while you are at home you ONLY want to use your WiFi broadband network and NOT your cellular plan. A "smart" phone would give you that capability.

Re:Who watches the watchers...

[sznupi]

Uhm...mobile phones already must have a closed source code in them - the radio signaling stack. Mandated by FCC in the case of US.

(oh, if you are throwing away your smartphone because of what you've just learned...could you spend a little time and sent it to me? (only if it's a quad band GSM) I cover the cost of shipping of course)

Re:Who watches the watchers...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK "Neo", it's time for your thorazine.

Re:Who watches the watchers...

[Slashcrap]

Hey Intel (some of you reading this might not be aware of this fact) has processors that phone home and communicate without the user being aware of it. It would be pathetic to have to run a passive sniffer on your personal network to monitor for unusual, unscheduled or abnormal outgoing traffic. Pathetic but to be 100% secure absolutely necessary. (Fortunately a DD-WRT supported device! [dd-wrt.com] will allow you to do just that!)

If there's one moderation that Slashdot really needs, it's +1 Paranoid Schizophrenic.

Re:Who watches the watchers...

[lamapper]

If there's one moderation that Slashdot really needs, it's +1 Paranoid Schizophrenic.

You really did not know about the privacy issues with some of Intel's chips? Sad but true, hardly paranoid. Here is info about the Pentium III Privacy issues...even if its turned off!

Wikipedia page on Pentium III exploit.

Now like many others, I figured Intel got their issues fixed, imagine my surprise when I read this, this year:

This is the third vulnerability that Rutkowska's Invisible Things Lab has discovered in the Intel processor in the past 10 months; she presented a paper on weaknesses in the Intel Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) at the Black Hat DC conference last month.

and

"It seems that the current state of firmware security, even in case of such reputable vendors as Intel, is quite unsatisfying," Rutkowska said in her blog.

Why do people assume someone is crazy, or a conspiracy person; simply because the person mentioning it (me) is aware of facts that the dis- believer (you) had no clue about.

That's three security hits / exploits for Intel processors from June 2008 through March 2009

I bet you think the US Government has never experimented on its military...wrong, they did during the Nucleur testing.

I bet you think that JFK was killed by a magic bullet? Wrong again. Way too many facts have come to light disputing official accounts. Today we know what a poor investigation was performed and that many officials lied in reports. Not my opinion, fact. Because its happened before, governmental abuse, it will happen again. My suggestion to you, try believing them until you prove them wrong. You might find it enlightening. More important, the powers that want to divide you and I, only win if you allow the divide to occur. Next time someone attacks someone else, ask yourself this question:

What do they not want me to know about?
Is the dispute in question even possible? If so, perhaps some research is in order.

So the next time someone who knows something that you do not, why not state your reasons and facts that you believe disproves what they are suggesting/saying, without failing and resorting to Argumentum ad hominem. That is a logic fail for someone who has no basis from which to draw their conclusions.

You just might discover that you have more in common then you realize! You might actually have a new friend! Just a thought.

Help

[fucket]

Will this run on my StarTAC?

At what point does the VM become another OS?

[CodeBuster]

I know that we are talking specifically about phone based VMs here and that the issue of better OS vs VM has been discussed before, but I cannot understand why we need to virtualize any time an OS is involved. Perhaps I am missing something? If the hypervisor becomes, essentially, the operating system why is it not possible to integrate the process isolation and partitioning features of the hypervisor into the OS in the first place? Are these types of features even really needed on the more limited environments offered by phones (even smartphones)? I agree that virtualization is a valuable technology that has its uses, but sometimes it seems that virtualization and VMs are becoming the proverbial golden hammers (along with the ubiquitous "cloud" computing).

Re:At what point does the VM become another OS?

[rdebath]

I can summarise the problem in one word. Windows.

No! Stop! I'm not trying to bash Windows. It's a simple fact the Microsoft strongly recommend that you use one machine for one application and never add a second job and it's not just for license revenue. It's because problems leak between the applications. Registry "corruptions", "everything needs a reboot", DLL versions being always system wide ("DLL hell"). Some applications demanding particular OS configurations, others demanding the opposite (eg: exchange and network adaptors). Quite simply if I'm ever touching an SBS machine it feels like I'm walking on eggs or trying to sneak through a pride of sleeping lions.

However, for most users this Windows recommendation is very wasteful and a virtual machines reduce the costs associated with having lots of copies of the OS, it's even cheaper overall when you have to buy more processing power to offset all those copies of the OS that are running. Especially if you factor in system downtime and employee stress!

OTOH the only application that's normally put onto a different machine with unix is the firewall; then only maybe. With unix distinct machines tend to be used only for things like testing vs. live applications or company A vs company B where you have an actual security issue to address.

Still I expect Windows VMs are going to drop off a little now; Windows 2008 is often as wasteful of resources as Vista (despite "core" mode).

Re:At what point does the VM become another OS?

[maxume]

On XP and later systems, DLL Hell can be entirely mitigated by careful deployment (that is, an app can ship with and be sure to load exactly the DLLs that it was linked against).

Of course, lots of vendors still just hope that whatever visual C runtime they linked against happens to be present in the system32 directory.

Re:At what point does the VM become another OS?

[Rich0]

Sure.

However, as a company deploying (and for the most part not writing) applications, I don't have much of a say in how well-written the apps I buy are. Maybe I have a choice of two vendors to pick from, or I could go with some no-name product that doesn't fully meet my needs.

Chances are I'm already making tradeoffs when I select a software product to purchase.

The last thing I want to do is limit my already-too-small pool of possible solutions by imposing additional technical requirements on them, when virtualization can eliminate the problem at the cost of maybe spending 10% more on the hardware (which is by far the cheapest component of almost any large software deployment).

Mobile hardware already does this, sort of

[BodeNGE]

Most modern ARM/Snapdragon based devices can run either WinMo, Android or Linux. HTC as a vendor has been making the exact same hardware run with either OS for several years and only switched on Android when it was ready. They even could have dual booted their Shift device between real Windows and Windows Mobile except for pedantic licencing restrictions. I'm not sure a third pary software VM is really the best way of implementing this though, especially with sharred data storage and databases (contacts, etc) between the two. you also have the problem of hard resetting the device (and the data store) and upgrades to one or both of the OS'es.

Good

[Nithendil]

I can actually use this software. I was considering getting an Android phone but Epocrates doesn't make a version available for that.

better sandbox than Java VM on single processor

[ad454]

Unfortunately, wireless carriers and regulators want to put restrictions on the radio and other mobile smart phone functionality. The common solution on single processor devices is to run third party applications in a sandbox, like Android's Java VM, and require application signing.

Virtualization can be a provide a less restrictive common environment sandbox, that is not tied to a specific programming language, that can meet the desires of the carrier on cheaper (single processor) hardware, and still protect a software radio, DRM, and other functions from third party apps running in a VM.

However, it would not surprise me if practice future cellphones have an evolved hypervisor that provides different levels of VM based on functionality, with the lower VM levels restricted to carrier sign apps that can do almost anything; middle VM levels for manufacture signed apps that can access networking, gps, SMS, storage, camera, video/audio playback, etc.; and top crippled VM levels for unsigned apps that can't do much.

Unfortunately, history has taught us that the more control designers can put on a system, the more likely that control will be used to restrict the public at the expense of corporate and government interests.

Re:open source elitism

[Anonymous Coward]

tomato+openvpn mod is better than ddwrt and without the headaches.

Re:open source elitism

[mjwx]

My phone is smart because it runs software which syncs my music, podcasts, contacts, and photos with my computer. It's also jailbroken and unlocked, which means it is also not restricted, tethered, or limited, and I get root access which I never require...thank you very much.

My phone does all that and more, like multi-tasking, runs custom OS roms and doesn't require software to load media nor requires hacking before all functions are available to me. It also has MSC capabilities out of the box.

Re:Yo! JAPAN !! You want some more !!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. That war was over in 1975, nearly 35 years ago.

WTF?

[Logic Worshipper]

I didn't think cell phones were powerful enough to run VMs, or even full operating systems. That's what laptops are for. No, I don't want my cell phone to replace my laptop. Random shit I might need to do without my laptop, like check the weather, my email, or even read the paper, is nice on cell phone. Virtualization? What the fuck? You know they made this great invention - a full fledged computer you can fit in your backpack, it only weighs about 5 pounds, and does everything your desktop does, it's called a laptop, you can even install a SIP client on it and make phone calls.

Re:WTF?

[Jesus_666]

ARM processors are getting seriously powerful. A good example of just how powerful they are is the Pandora, a homebrew handheld about to be released: It runs on a slightly bigger version of the same processor as the Palm Pre (a Cortex A8-based SoC from TI with dedicated DSP). There already are videos on the net of Pandora test boards running early unoptimized versions of PSX and N64 emulators.

We're talking about a device using a slightly better smartphone CPU being capable of emulating the Nintendo 64. Today's smartphones pack some serious processing power.

Re:open source elitism

[Anonymous Coward]

Please explain, how having to "break" your phone just to get it to do useful things makes it smart? Sounds like you are the pot(head) calling everyone else a hippie...

intel vs arm

[StripedCow]

So this will allow my intel-based linux applications to be run on an ARM based smartphone?
that would be cool...

Re:intel vs arm

[ChunderDownunder]

No, virtualization != emulation. The performance overhead of binary translation from x86 to ARM would throttle your phone.

Instead one could run ARM linux applications on an ARM phone.

Re:intel vs arm

[StripedCow]

The performance overhead of binary translation from x86 to ARM would throttle your phone.

Ok, but you could perform a translation on your x86, before transferring the app to your phone, no?

Re:intel vs arm

[ChunderDownunder]

Compiling from source, yes. But that's not 'virtualization'. AOT translation of x86 machine code to ARM, no.

I'm not following what binary-only x86 software you'd want to run on a phone. ARM linux distros already exist, e.g. Nokia's maemo.

Re:intel vs arm

[StripedCow]

If translation from source to ARM binary code is possible, then why isn't translation from x86 binary code to ARM binary code possible? I mean, most programming languages are much more complicated than the x86 instruction set, right?

Anyway, there's of course plenty of non-open-source stuff that runs under linux. It would be nice if it could be transferred to another platform. Same holds for (x86) windows apps by the way.

Re:intel vs arm

[ChunderDownunder]

Because machine instructions spat out by a C compiler are optimised for each particular CPU. Writing a 'compiler' to translate binary x86 to ARM would be far less efficient than compiling source code for each platform due to the architectural differences between the platforms.

That's just life... Phones are generally less powerful than desktop machines that they often seem constrained running native software let alone running someone else's binaries.

open source elitism or just fiscal intellegence?

[virtualXTC]

Just because the poster is unwilling void his warranty to make his phone useful and be price gouged by at&t by a mandated data plan just so he can get some of the worst 3G coverage in the nation hardly makes him an elitist; In fact, I would say he's just smarter / more fiscally responsible than you for using just what he needs with out paying for extra.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is also overused by people who don't want to configure their operating system.
What?
What do you mean by that?
You may have a point, I just don't understand what you're trying to say.

Re:open source elitism

[Anonymous Coward]

I can make calls with my phone and the new battery lasted two weeks. Now, after 3.5 years, I'm down to one week battery lifetime. Oh, and I can take pictures, watch videos and listen to music with it. But I'm happy using it just as a phone.

Already most of the way there

[david.given]

Hypervisors are already widely used in mobile phones --- L4 is very popular. I think that this is largely because it allows the vendors to easily reconfigure the user mode address space to abstract over any platform-specific issues involved with a particular phone model. I've also seen some very neat tricks using L4 such as doing on-demand page fetching from a compressed NAND flash device. (In essence, that gives you the equivalent of executable ROM from a smaller, non-mappable flash part.)

So it wouldn't be much of a bigger step to use L4's other hypervisor features to support two different user space modes, each running a complete operating system. This has a lot of advantages to the phone manufacturer. Right now, most smartphones such as the G1 have a big chunky processor running the application OS and a smaller processor running the hard realtime radio stack OS. Using a hypervisor would allow them to run both operating systems on the same processor, with the hypervisor's own scheduler ensuring that the radio stack remains real-time no matter what the user OS is doing. That reduces the hardware complexity, and therefore the build price, while still maintaining the regulator-mandated isolation between the application processor and the radio processor.

VMWare phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any phone capable of running VMWare that doesn't place a restriction on what system profiles you can run is a BIG WIN in my book for users!

That was my initial thoght too...

[IANAAC]

But, (admittedly) technical users are seeing several different options now and each option has something the other doesn't, whether it's just a trivial game, itunes, better contacts/calendar, whatever. Like it or not, phones are used for so much more than just making calls.

I can see having the ability to use more than one of those options simultaneously as somewhat desirable.

But yeah, this would probably only be useful to the more power users.

Just call me David Lynch...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Get Off My Lawn!

The first time I heard that rant, I was kind of, meh. I wouldn't want to watch a movie on an iPhone, but it sounds kind of like a musician complaining about their art being ruined by people listening to it on iPods -- technology marches on, with or without you.

But... now I absolutely sympathize.

It's such a sadness that you think you need virtualization on your... fucking telephone.

How is vmware going to do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't sleep last night thinking about how it was even possible for vmware to pull off such a stunt. If you look at any smart phone on the market today there is typically just enough internal ROM/RAM to run a single image and store/run a few applications and associated data. There is not enough ROM on most current models to store multiple operating systems.

Cell phones don't have several GB of unused memory and disk space laying around they can devote to other things. How would you manage and load images?

The only thing I can see is swaping image data off an external micro SD card but then you loose important optimizations such as execute in place (XIP) and run into severe reliability issues with card removal.

I'm also not sure about virtualization layers and hardware... Phones are slow enough without adding more levels of abstraction that make them even slower.

I guess it can be done but for the life of me I don't understand what the advantage would be or who would care outside of a few developers. Even then my assumption is that most prefer to emulate smartphones on their desktop computers using vendor provided SDKs and real keyboards :)

Re:open source elitism

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering DD-WRT and the gang do not support N routers, I call shenanigans. Either that, or only the G part of the router worked.

resource starved

[farble1670]

cell phones are always resource starved devices. manufacturers put the slowest processor and least amount of / slowest RAM that they can possibly get away with. this is for good reason i suppose, because price is a huge factor the average consumer. it's also a factor to providers, who subsidize the costs down to a level to suck in new subscribers.

would a user pay 50%, 100%, %? more to have access to the features on another mobile OS? let's face it, across android, windows mobile, and linux 95% of the apps are there already on your stock phone OS.

would a developer pay more? there's this thing called an emulator that makes me think not. is a guest OS a better representation of the phone than an emulator?

Re:resource starved

[zix619]

I guess the main target of VMWare are corporates and enterprises. These corporates are ready to spend some extra dollars to be sure that their data is secure. Not to mention, the government and banking institutions which are ready to pay big bucks to be sure that there is no breach in their security.

Re:resource starved

[farble1670]

it seems unlikely that they would they be willing to pay device manufacturers to create special hardware versions that are beefy enough to support running guest mobile OSes. it'd probably be cheaper to just have two physical phones.

Windows Mobile and Android at the same time?

[Hurricane78]

What? So it can crash and be locked down at the same time?? ^^