Slashdot Mirror
Intel CEO: Nokia Should Have Gone With Android
nk497 writes "Intel CEO Paul Otellini has said Nokia made a mistake choosing Windows Phone 7, and should have gone with Android — but admitted the money on offer may have been too much to ignore. 'I wouldn't have made the decision he made, I would probably have gone to Android if I were him,' he said. 'MeeGo would have been the best strategy but he concluded he couldn't afford it.' Otellini said some closed mobile platforms will 'certainly survive,' but said open systems will 'win' in the end."
Reader c0lo notes a followup to yesterday's news that open source software was banned from Windows Marketplace. It seems even Microsoft's own MS-RL open source license runs afoul of the Application Provider Agreement (PDF). The article suggests that these rules should give Nokia pause about their new partnership.
Intel should not speak. They are the one's putting drm into their chips....Talk about being open. Ass hats!
http://gigaom.com/video/intel-chip-drm/
They aren't prohibiting "Free Software", they are prohibiting software that is under a license that requires the distributor to pass certain rights along to the recipient. Hence GPL like licenses that require distribution of source code, and that you grant redistribution rights to everyone you distribute it to are being explicitly prohibited. (And in fairness I can see why those licenses would cause problems for Microsoft as distributors) On the other hand BSD like licenses that allow you to repackage and distribute without source and without passing rights forward are acceptable.
is banned from the Windows market. I'm also curious as to why he thinks open systems will win in the end. Apple's walled garden is doing pretty well and my "open" vibrant is hardly open at all. T-mobile and Samsung do their best to conspire keep it closed.
Unfortunately, writeups like these play to the slashdot crowd but the issue is bigger than "ZOMG OPEN PHONE GOOD!!!" Why is my android phone so locked down that I can't do basic things with it like I could with a PC?
The real issues is that all these companies, including google, intel, MS, Apple, etc all fear the basic commodization of their technology. Phones don't need carrier branding, carrier apps, etc. They really just need a decent data connection. Lets us use our own VOIP apps and don't put undeletable carrier bullshit on our phones.
In the meantime we can't have those things because its so much more profitable to pretend phones are premium items. Its no wonder that people aren't seeing faux openness as the same as owning an Apple or a Win7 phone, because at the end of the day its all the same. Joe User isn't installing custom ROMs. He just wants something that works and that he can afford. I suspect in two years iOS, MS, and Android will be neck to neck in marketshare regardless of who is technically more open than the other.
MS is the kiss of death for Nokia
Hope is the currency of fools
The guy's more comfortable with Microsoft, he's got shares in it, he talks to the people, he knows Microsoft. Now, Google is a totally different beast there - they're doing exactly the same thing, i.e just make an OS, but they're not really Mr Elop's circle.
And oh, yeah ... it is also a very distinct conflict of interest when SEC stops him from selling all his MS Stock and buying NOK instead. It's like the rules tilted this particular crusade to a windmill.
I love my Nokia phones and I've never bought any other. For the brief period I worked for Ericsson, I was shocked to realize the depth of their patent portfolio, especially when it comes to UX stuff. I can guess those guns will be aimed at Apple first, while it's leaderless without Steve, but eventually the aim's going to turn around and point at Android.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
Even the stocks do..( fell by 20%+ on the announcement )
but said open systems will 'win' in the end."
I agree! Open source Oracle's Niagara will win in the end and Intel and their proprietary technologies will bite the dust.
...because GPLv3 would require Microsoft to disclose the signing certificate keys for DRM'ed apps. Apparently Microsoft isn't the only group capable of spreading FUD.
I thought it was only GPL Version 3 that was banned. My understanding is the third revision added restrictions that conflict with the app store policies.
is banned from the Windows market. I'm also curious as to why he thinks open systems will win in the end. Apple's walled garden is doing pretty well and my "open" vibrant is hardly open at all. T-mobile and Samsung do their best to conspire keep it closed.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=739304
Yeah, they really have that phone totally locked down.
Nokia should not "choose" an operating system. Make a phone, and make it available with any and all operating systems (Windows, Android, maybe even Symbian). Sell them all on the open market, and give the *consumer* the choice.
From TFA:
"Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses"
Pundits like to state this, but I always wonder how Windows is an open system? Don't get me wrong: I love the various *nixes I run -- which includes Linux and Mac OS X (one open and one closed) -- but the only clear winner in a previous epic battle was Windows over Mac OS, but neither was open. And so what does Otellini base his conclusion, apart from the wishful thinking of individuals with whom he'd rather not deal in most cases? (E.g., the various open and free movements that have an uncomfortable relationship at best with IP-warchested Intel.)
I suspect that intel(speaking as a hardware manufacturer, and to a hardware manufacturer, not as an end-user) is speaking of "open" in the sense of "the software is freely(or RAND-ly, Intel isn't averse to paying for things if it suits them) for use and modification by multiple vendors" rather than "open" as in "not Tivoized"(which is really only the user's problem)...
Because iOS is soooo much better! Oh wait...
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
I'm by no means an MS or Nokia fan-boy but this kind of nonsense sound bite really grinds my gears.
No references, no sources, and a CEO from an outside company (regardless of his industry contacts) making sweeping statements about the inner workings of another. Please.
Qt could have been the key to retain developers. Also, partnering with MS is a sure-fire way to get fucked in the butt. Finally, firing your in-house developers and outsourcing it to India is a sure-fire way to fuck yourself in the butt.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Well in fairness to them, who will assist them more Google or MS?
Microsoft has to really make some huge inroads into the territory after losing so much of the market to Android and iOS and I think they will do whatever it takes. So yes, technically Android is probably a better choice. But business-wise? Who wouldn't want MS coming in as a pinch-hitter? You're already up against the wall and MS has a track record of going the extra mile for its partners both financially and technically. Even if you "lose" you've won and you walk away richer.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
"The Application must not include software, documentation, or other materials that, in whole or in part..."
Which also means that applications linking (part) to LGPL licenses are incompatible. So that community port of QT (LGPL) to Windows Phone 7 doesn't matter as applications written in QT will be banned from the store. Don't you love Microsoft and their tricks ?
And this is also one of the many reasons we as an userbase or group of developers should mistrust Nokia in everything...
The press round the whole move of Nokia to M$ is very focussed on Nokia's choice. It could also be that Microsoft chose Nokia as an attempt to obtain share with a reputable hardware vendor to gain some share in a segment that they clearly see themselves losing this time round. Who is the bigger party here? Who needs this most? Sure, Nokia is also falling around on its feet and had an eight count a few times in the last decade, but from the way I see it, this is a deal driven squarely by Microsoft.
!
I still do not see any sense in adopting the least mobile OS sold last year. Well, actually, I see that MS is willing to pay billions to impose a market share of mobile devices.
(There is also another layer to consider: When Intel's CEO comes out with a public statement, odds are that it is neither a candid exposure of his innermost feelings nor altruistic friendly advice. In the PC and server market(particularly in the past few years, as AMD's lead from the A64 vs. Netburst days has faded), there are a number of companies generating enough profit to stay in the business; but the fight over the real margins is basically between Intel and Microsoft. AMD has some aggressively priced value offerings; but Intel has the high end and laptop-friendly thermals largely buttoned up. RAM, shitty onboard sound, mediocre ethernet, etc. are largely commodified. Thus, the big contest going on behind a shipped machine's BOM is how MS and Intel are going to split the juicy slice of the profit... In this case, it seems logical to assume that Intel would really prefer that Android take over, since that is the most plausible path to a situation where handset OSes can command very little of the handset's overall margin, which leaves more for the hardware guys. More broadly, if MS's attempt at the mobile market ends up being more money pissed down the rat hole, that weakens their overall grip a bit, which presumably means that more x86s, especially in servers, will ship with linux or heavily-discounted Windows, which will allow the margins to flow to Intel... FUDing Nokia a bit costs Intel very little, and might hit Nokia in the stock price, and/or require MS to dump more cash into them.)
I know Android is developed and driven by Google. This is a general comment I keep having lately... When will vendors understand that carefully written and a hundred times re-read open source code is always the logical and better solution than any relatively rushed closed source corporation's code... I am a computer science student, and sadly, being used to good code, the disillusion of corporate programming quality is immense, let me tell you. It's unbelievable how you get dropped into a world of incompetency and unreliable developing once in the "real world". :(
Nokia's cost problem is the old fashioned, traditional, Olly Wight consultants can talk about it till the cows come home, one of far too many products with far too little differentiation. Nokia's hardware offering is fragmented to hell and back. Apple produce one phone at a time. HTC produces only a few.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's bizarre they didn't choose Android. There would have been plenty of room for customizing the experience while sharing the core functionality with other phones. They could have decked it out with a Symbian like icons & front-end, rejigged the settings to be more familiar, tossed in Ovi store and anything else they cared to do. Very little of that will happen with WP7. They're just one of Microsoft's bitches now and must come to heel when they're called.
You can root an iPhone too, that's not the point. Regular people don't do stuff like that, and hackers will find a way to root almost anything no matter how open or closed it is at "base". For regular day to day users of an Android phone there is very little difference in the "openness" vs. and iPhone or WP7 phone. Some of them (not all) allow you to install non-app store apps without rooting, and a very small number allow root access by default (I think, I'm even sure about this), so it's accurate to say that *some* Android phones are more open than iPhones. The majority however, are not. Yet these faux-open Android phones sell. iPhones sell. People don't, in general, care.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
A better option, IMHO, would have been to approach HP and try to form a WebOS based partnership.
HP need to get it out there on handsets and Nokia need to have a decent OS. Win Win!
...this, so bad.
I welcome WP7 if its on this phone, anything is better than Symbian
So? Is the iPhone any more locked down? You can root that too and jailbreak out of the walled garden.
The point is that the step shouldn't even be necessary on Android-based phones - the platform was designed to be open from the beginning, but in reality is not all that different from the iOS ecosystem in many cases, with only a couple of main differences; the ability to sideload apps without using the official market and the existence of some properly open phones like the Nexus One.
What does a carrier locking down certain features on phones they support have to do with Android? Android is open, the carrier modified version running on your phone may not be. But you can put another OS on your Android phone if you don't like the one it came with. If I don't like iOS on my iPhone, what other options do I have? If I don't like Win7 on my Windows phone, what other options do I have?
"But this one goes to 11!"
.. after years of experience with them.
I owned an HTC Mogul, HTC Touch Pro, and HTC Touch Pro 2 up until last December. All three phones ran Windows Mobile (which I kept updated). What I came to learn was that windows mobile is the best way to waste the great hardware that the phones were equipped with. All three of those phones were top notch upon release and could have been mind blowingly close to their advertised usability. Instead, and all because of the OS, they were so clunky and crippled it was (and still is for those using them) more of a bother to use than a pleasure. The only way I was able to rescue even *some* of the phone's intended power was to run custom roms that would remove unnecessary bloat-turd-services and provide some overclocking.
I ultimately gave the Touch Pro 2 to my father and I am astounded at what a piece of crap it is, all the while knowing that if the same hardware were running Android, the phone would be a pleasure to use.
And so while windows mobile 7 is the latest offering from microsoft, and I have yet to use it, I cannot and will not allow myself to support it with my dollars. I will not vote for more of their crap with my dollars. They (and Sprint) ruined my smartphone experience that I thought I was paying good dollars for. Instead my good dollars went to support an OS that cripples and ruins the phone experience, leaving the phone to not actually operate as advertised, or even comfortably.
In short: windows mobile is junk, and wastes the great hardware you pay for.
It's repeated in the PCPro article linked to in the OP, that Nokia is migrating to Windows Phone 7. There is a great deal of evidence that this is at least partly misleading. Nokia's new CEO (and former Windows exec) Stephen Elop has been careful to never, not even once, in print or via interview, say they are going to move to Windows Phone "Seven".
There is good evidence to suggest that whatever Windows mobile OS Nokia adopts, it will be different in significant ways than the WP7 available now. Nokia has committed to releasing just one Windows Mobile OS phone in 2011, and that is not slated for release until October 2011. There have been hints that whatever Windows Mobile OS it does have, it will be worthy of at a minimum, a 7.5 version number, although knowing Microsoft, that won't stop them from going all out and calling it version 8. It could even be a true version 8-worthy release. In any case, the feature set is expected to differ from the current v7x offering.
The "real" adoption of Windows Mobile and significant new phone releases won't be until 2012 at the earliest.
Like many people, I have serious doubts about the strategy and believe there is great danger going forward for Nokia. However, it's my opinion that there are some rather broad hints from both Nokia and Microsoft that whatever happens, it won't be Windows 7 as we now know it that powers the devices it eventually does release.
GPL3 is cited as an example, not as the only specific case or as one of a set of specific cases - the more generic wording found around that example would exclude quite a few licenses for the same reason(s) it is not compatible with GPL3.
It is the year 2011, and still there are no open source friendly graphics chipsets? Intel needs to pull its head out of its ass, and do something more for the community than profit mongering whatever small improvements they can make to the CPU. (Yes, I see you have some open source developer job posting for Hillsboro. Something you should have done 5 years ago.)
Sandybridge! Congratulations! Disty is now almost completely devoid of anything based on sandybridge. I'm considering buying a musty old Nvidia chipset based motherboard, WITH AN AMD PROCESSOR, just to avoid another company (ATI) who cares little for open source.
Remember the Intel network product division that would never release good docs on the EtherExpress chipsets? Remember the network switch line Intel dumped?
Remeber Xscale, and how that was pissed away? Now there is money to be made off ARM, and Intel has... Nothing? Atom? Power hungry.
What little credibility Intel gained from Centrino (which was marketing and OEM arm twisting) doesn't transfer to phones.
Sure, these may be heady times, with Obama visiting today. But until Intel does something smart for a change, you strategic track record is bad enough, you are not in a place to tell Nokia anything.
..should probably keep their trap shut. When I think about companies that have really capitalized on the rise of the mobile phone market, Intel is top of the list...[sarcastic snicker]
Other visionary insights from Intel's CEO: the sky is blue, water is wet, and money actually can buy happiness.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
There's a short-term window in which this matters, but I would fully expect that in the 5-year timeframe, running virtual machines on your phone will be the standard, and you will be able to select what OS you want on any compliant handset. Except possibly in the U.S., where the public still for some reason permits the carriers a bizarre amount of control of the business model.
Is that laughing I hear? It's already starting.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
From TFA:
"Excluded Licenses include, but are not limited to the GPLv3 Licenses"
That's called "fail-bait", note the "but are not limited to" - it's specific enough to argue but generic enough to argue, the result is that the better lawyers win.
I realize that Android is 'open source' but it isn't really; and it really isn't like a trustworthy distro.
For instance, when Ubuntu pushes an upgrade at me or when I get an application using apt-get, I trust that I won't get malware.
When people download random apps for Android, they can easily get their phones pwned.
When I can get real open source apps (including, of course, source code) for Android, then I will start trusting Android. Until that time, I will stick with my trusty (ie. really old) Blackberry.
Its interesting to see responses regarding windows dominance or even x86 as an advantage esp in this context. Intel is watching from the sidelines. It simply does not have a CPU+GPU that can compete in the mobile market. Chances are that you next device will be ARM
I certainly hope with him that the most open systems will win in the end. But this is all bla-bla, in the end it's just business. For a given price point every player try to get the maximum share. You do this by commoditizing the others:
;) But with more thinking it's hardly surprising. Just follow the money.
- Intel loves linux based x86 systems as it creates more competition at OS level. Less money for the OS, bigger share for their CPU for a given price;
- I'm sure Microsoft will love ARM. Sure, it's a port and they will have to make the porting super easy for all MS based software developers, but they benefit from a very competitive CPU ecosystem where CPU cost will be lower than with just Intel/AMD. And a bigger pie possible for them in the end.
So you can see why Intel and MS are not chum anymore. The time where PC price were so high everybody could be happy is over, now all fight for dollars.
Now where does this put Nokia? They may want to play in services, but viewing their dismal performance so far I don't think they'll get very far. My guess is that they negotiated a part of the WP license for them, based on some (real of phony) participation. Now consider the options:
1) join Android, and having to fight on an even field with ruthless competitors like Samsung, HTC & co;
2) join WP, and fighting them with a price advantage due to a share of the OS license for them.
Surprised at what they preferred? Well to be honest I was
Plus, as someone says, they target not WP7 but the next step when you're phone docked will be your computer. MS will offer Office and Outlook, and all the lazy persons will follow. Unless MS executes super poorly that's a real advantage.
We could have had a clean start with these new super phones, shedding most of the cruft accumulated over the years of PC evolution. I'm fairly comfortable we'll have a clean start with ARM (and its zillions licensees) on the CPU side. On the OS side, I guess MS will be here to stay... I just hope there will still be good linux based offering for those super phones --- and I don't count Android or ChromeOS as good enough, I want a local connected system and not do it all in the cloud thank you.
The GPLv3 is provided as an example. Actually, if you read the license, it's pretty clear which licenses are excluded (if you're curious, only copyleft licenses).
We are in a rapid innovation phase. Waiting for standards is sitting out the game. Innovating as fast as you can, delivering delightful new experiences is the only way to stay in the game.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Whatever operating system that IBM chose for the IBM PC and that Compaq would have chosen so they would have been compatible (along with all of the other clones) would have been the dominant operating system. It wasn't MS-DOS that caused the penetration of PCs, it was the penetration of PCs that caused the proliferation of Microsoft operating systems. And, IBM almost went CP/M which would mean there wouldn't be a Microsoft today, at least not the one we know.
As for settling on some other architecture, there wasn't one. The main manufactures pretty much used a 650x or an 808x processor. Sure there were a few z80s but not in the business world which is what drove pc adoption. You have to remember that the IBM PC/XT with it's 10MB hard drive was the price of a good used car. It wasn't until the clone makers drove the price point below $2,000 that the PC took off in other than business markets. The Apple II could be had for around $1,000 at the time, which is why schools sucked them up. But when the Mac came out, it was significantly more expensive.
Saying that Microsoft caused the market penetration is like saying gasoline engines caused the market penetration of the automobile. Henry Ford almost went with a diesel engine on his assembly lines. If he had pioneered relatively inexpensive mass produced diesel powered cars, that is what we would all be driving today. However, Ford standardized on a gasoline engine and so did everybody else to remain competitive.
Then Amazon is violating the GPL. If Amazon doesn't provide the source code, they will be in hot water for copyright infringement. Can you link the said software here?
It is not a violation of the GPL to sell open source software. Many places do it. If Amazon sells it, they do not have to give you one piece of source code. They are the retailer. It is the manufacturer/developer of the software that is responsible for complying with the license agreements for the code they used, not the retailer.
Did you even bother to actually read what they banned? They were going to ban apps under the GPLv3 or licenses similar to it. Qt is under GPLv2 and LGPLv2, neither of which contain the same clauses that caused GPLv3 to be blocked. Stop spreading FUD.
When porting tech to a new platform, tuning the code to work ideally is quite the trick. It's also about 4% of the work. Most of the work is getting proven reliable drivers for the other hardware. Linux has the advantage here because a lot of hardware vendors design with linux drivers to prove the product. This makes spinning a new HW platform an agile two week deal to get to the proof. Of concept stage, and does not require outside assistance. Microsoft's wp7 platform has so few drivers that they're trying to sell the idea of choice as a bad thing: "fragmentation."
Help stamp out iliturcy.
To be fair, and I'm no more an MS fan than anyone, the GPL puts an onus on Microsoft to do things that they don't want to be arsed to do. As the owner of the "store" Microsoft becomes the "distributor" of GPL software. That means if you, AC, put a piece of GPLed software on the store, you are effectively obligating MS to host the source code and GPL somewhere as the distributor. You can say, "Well, I'll handle that, they don't have to worry about it.", but they do have to worry about it. If you decided next month to stop "handling that" and the software is still on the store, MS is left holding the bag. By forbidding GPL code they are covering their asses.
This will become a problem as time goes on and more of these online "stores" pop up. As "distributors" these stores take on certain obligations that they may not want to deal with. Free software is easy enough to deal with when every computer has a compiler (or can easily get one). With the limited space and processing power on mobile devices "app stoes" make a lot of sense, but the GPL is decidedly unfriendly to the way most of them are setup. Maybe if the GPL put the onus on the developer to redistribute the code and license rather than the distributor? I dunno, I don't see Stallman changing the GPL to accommodate app stores, since he hates most of the companies that own them. It'll be interesting to see how it play out.
I'm not saying that either position is right or wrong, just that there are some intractable issues that may make them unable to work together.
Wrong, wrong, wrong! The store is not the distributor, they are the retailer. You can buy Ubuntu DVDs online, that does not make the person selling it responsible for the gpl, unless they are the ones who also put it together, in which case they are a developer.
If I repackage LibreOffice and call it MyOffice and I sell it to people online or in a retail store, I as the developer are responsible for adhering to the GPL or whatever licensing agreements of the components use, not the retailer.
Open source projects are fond of using "Free as in beer" as their slogan. You can go into the grocery store and by a case of it. If you then go and drink it all and do something stupid or even criminal, the grocery store is not responsible, nor is the brewery. On the other hand, let's say the beer was tainted with something. Again, the grocery store isn't responsible, but this time the brewery is.
GPL software works the same way. It is not the retailer (grocery store in the example above) that is responsible for ensuring the licenses are followed it is the author/developer. At most, if Amazon or anybody else was selling software that turned out to be in violation, they would need to pull it off their shelves (website), but they themself would not be liable or in violation of anything.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by standards.
I mean the sort of thing that PIC/APIC, PCI, ACPI, or USB does. Routing interrupts. Device discovery. Recognizing the Frob chipset from vendor X, where Frob and X are represented as 16-bit integers. Things that are well understood in operating systems theory and practice, and assist in writing drivers quickly, without having to rewrite critical parts for every device. These things can be standardized in a sane way that still allows plenty of innovation.
Also, innovation can go as rapidly as you like, but the software interfaces for sending an 802.11 packet or initiating a GSM call have likely been remarkably similar over the years. You'd be surprised how much "legacy" is involved in your new devices. 802.11 packets are still using ethernet MACs. It wouldn't surprise me if the phone calling interfaces still have that "ATDT" crap. Don't get me started on the complexity of the ARM instruction sets... (Yes, I say sets, plural, because there is more than one implemented on a single chip.)
And right above that:
“Excluded License” means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or
distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined
and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the
purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.
I hear a group of Young Investors (TM) are going to stage a Plan B takeover, Michael Bay style (since all actors have to be 21 to appeal to the right demographic nowadays). Mark Zuckerberg is going to make a cameo at the Nokia board meeting right before the Young Investors break for the day by skateboarding radical style down the front steps of Nokia HQ. Later, Young Investor #1 will meet up with his girlfriend, Young Angelina Jolie (complete with Romulan haircut) and make love to The Original Bedroom Rockers from the Hackers soundtrack.
People make a big deal about this, but I have yet to see any evidence that OEM modifications cause people to choose one android handset over another. People chose which android phone to get based on what carrier they are with, how well the device performs, what features it has (physical keyboard, camera quality), the price, and how good the manufacturer is at providing updates. I haven't heard a single person say "I'm going to get the CLIQ over the myTouch, because I like Motoblur."
Furthermore, the agreement that they have with Microsoft allows Nokia to customize the OS as much as they could with Android. I agree that the Android interface is closer to Symbian, and could be made to look more like it, but I really don't think that would help them much. Relying on Symbian loyalty is what got them in this mess to begin with.
Finally, the android market is already saturated. Nokia is late to the game with either OS, but with WP7 they still have a chance of being a major player. They have a better chance of standing out in the market running WP7 than they do with android.
IMHO, the problem wasn't that they chose to use WP7 over Android, it is that they decided to go all in. Choosing to sell WP7 phones to keep them floating in the short/medium term is a smart move. However completely gutting development of both of their internal OSs doesn't bode well for the long term future of Nokia.
Meego is too much like "Linux running on a cell phone". Android is a cell phone OS (and environment) based on Linux. There is a huge difference, and it's critical in the cell phone market. You need a consistent look and feel and a fairly structured (possibly even narrow) development environment or you end up with all kinds of shitty looking apps, broken conventions, poor look and feel consistency, etc...
iPhone takes this to too far an extreme, WP7 seems like it may suffer some of the same issues. Android IMO is a good balance, while Meego is way, way too loose and will never take off except for hard core nerds.
HP controls WebOS (ex Palm), which is a great OS in need of a company with the muscle that Nokia has in the mobile market to get it rolling. A deal with HP would have given Nokia access to an OS with a great foundation on which to build. HP is coming out with great tablets and a couple of nice phones, which if they teamed up with Nokia could be Great phones in 6 months or less. I dont know how cash strapped Nokia really is, maybe they needed Microsoft's $$ in a bad way, but I think a deal with HP would have been a lot better in the long run. Windows mobile has a lot of baggage and a really bad rep. No amount of money is going to solve those problems any time soon. WebOS suffers from none of those problems, and has the allure of the new and shiny.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...for a tech corporation on the way out. Make everything look fine and dandy in the short term by filling your coffers in any way possible (in this case, Microsoft's doing the pumping). Make a big announcement about some new product and/or "partnership". When the product bombs, as it will (Microsoft's underwhelming OS, bad rep in this market, limited app store, and ideological idiocy in regard to F/OSS), Nokia's new CEO and all his buddies will jump ship. Nokia's share of the market will rapidly decline, and Symbian and Maemo/MeeGo will go into the same dustbin as OS/2. The Microsoft parasite will then find another host to attach itself to, if it can.
We all knew making Symbian F/OSS was a last-ditch effort to make Symbian competitive for the future conflict with the rising Android, and that MeeGo didn't seem to be going anywhere. The press criticism of these OS's, from the same sources that loved the Nokia N900 (running Maemo) so much, basically amounts to "Symbian is soooo 90's and MaeMeego is not Android". What Nokia could have done is challenge that situation...they still have a helluva large chunk of the smartphone market. If Meego development, or updating Symbian to look more 2012, was really gonna dig into their pockets so much, then go with Android and be done with it. Windows Phone 7 is the Zune of cellphones. No one wants a Microsoft gadget now that the other options are so slick; if nothing else, Microsoft can't compete with the hysteria over Apple and Google brands.
Microsoft shipped somewhere between 1.5-2 million units of WP7, but that's not units sold and, if I remember correctly, a hundred thousand or so of those were given to Microsoft employees/partners. The number of handsets activated must be dismal for MS not to want to talk about it. In the same quarter, Nokia shipped 5 million Symbian 3 devices (on top of how ever many Meego devices they shipped). How is this a "partnership" again? MS is just riding the Nokia train as long as it can before it crashes into Android's foot.
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
Does this mean Qt will be band from nokia's wince phones?
When Intel is saying "open" in this context, it doesn't mean open to the user, it means open to the manufacturer.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It's GPLv3 and LGPLv2. See http://qt.nokia.com/products/licensing
Why is my android phone so locked down that I can't do basic things with it like I could with a PC?...The real issues is that all these companies, including google, intel, MS, Apple, etc all fear the basic commodization of their technology. Phones don't need carrier branding, carrier apps, etc. They really just need a decent data connection. Lets us use our own VOIP apps and don't put undeletable carrier bullshit on our phones.
because you pushed nokia out of the market. they've till now, always taken the user's side. symbian phones are by default unlocked and do not have any carrier pre-loaded shit. there is no need to 'jailbreak' them to install your own apps. but even though the self-signing process is a little painful, its miles better than not being able to run your app at all.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Well, apart from that "being able to install any app you want" difference.
Android phones usually have some form of security to prevent the operating system from being modified. That's regrettable, but hardly in the same class as being incapable of running software that doesn't fit the arbitrary whims of a hardware manufacturer.
BTW, T-Mobile even provides resources on disabling the firmware locks for its Android phones: http://forums.t-mobile.com/t5/Operating-System-Software/bd-p/AndroidDev
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Okay, they must have changed it without my noticing. Fine, use LGPLv2 and be happy.
Gee, do you think the CEO of Intel might have a vested interest, and since Nokia's don't use Intel processors - he doesn't want competition for the Windows market...