Forbes Article on Battle of Open Mobile OSes

Article here:

www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/android-symbian-limo-technology-wireless-android_print.html

My thoughts on this subject matter:

LiMo

• I have a feeling a number of carriers are in this so that they can have customized OSes for their own phones, as part of their continual "I don't want to be a dumb pipe" struggle.
• Still not clear how apps will be developed, but it's going to be a major challenge and I doubt the SDK will be as easy and powerful as Android's. It will probably have a steeper learning curve like the iPhone, but at least the learning curve for the iPhone is worth mounting.
• I don't think LiMo is ever going to be establishing itself as a consumer brand, considering how carriers are already planning to use it to put their own branded OSes and app stores.
• I don't think any consumer is ever going to care whether their phone is LiMo or not.
• From the consumer perspective, quite pointless. Having the operators control mobile computing platforms simply do not benefit consumers at all. Can you imagine PC computing with the ISPs controlling everything that goes onto your PC?

Symbian

• It's an OS with a lot of legacy.
• It's not going to be easy to develop apps on it compared to the other platforms, having to code in C on a platform with a lot of legacy and having to deal with fragmentation too.
• Mainly Nokia driving this, everyone else is probably half-hearted in this.
• Compared to the modern platforms like iPhone and Android, this isn't a very smart smartphone platform anymore. It's probably more suited for feature phones rather than smartphones moving forward, unless they make huge leaps in the development.
• I don't think many consumers will care that it's a Symbian phone. Most Symbian phones are sold on the back of the Nokia brand rather than the Symbian brand.
• Has single-minded "Banzai" style backing from Nokia. While Nokia might have the clout to give this a reasonable amount of success, much of it unfortunately is just going to be "artificial life support". In and of itself, Symbian really can't compete at the moment.

Android

• Modern smartphone OS developed from a "clean sheet of paper".
• Powerful SDK that's also easy to work with. Uses Java but without the performance penalties associated with the JVM.
• Appealing to operators, since they get to keep 30% of Android Market revenue, also because they can customize the OS.
• Established as a brand in itself. Operators are less likely to want to rip the guts out when customizing it, hence retaining some level of standardization.

What about Windows Mobile?

• While it is not open, it competes in a similar space as the above 3 OSes (being a horizontal rather than vertical platform).
• MS totally and utterly missed the boat on smartphones. Up until the iPhone was launched, all MS had in their mobile arsenal was an OS that's still built for PDAs and you need a PC to do really basic things like downloading and install apps!!
• Their only competitive advantage here really is all the syncing it can do with MS Exchange and MS Office.
• The OS requires a license fee, while the rest are free. Handset makers are all going to be thinking twice. Mobile operators won't even consider this OS.