Jason Whitmire

How Industry Software Expertise is Helping to Solve the Android Fragmentation Dilemma

2009-12-07T12:37:15-08:00

It is no secret: While Google continues to push for wide adoption of smartphones driven by its open source Android platform, most industry pundits know that manufacturers typically need upwards of a full year of development and productization effort (and often Google’s help) to develop an Android phone. Not surprisingly, it takes much longer for an OEM to reach a level where they can irrigate the operator ecosystem with differentiated phones based on Android (this of course applies to most new mobile device software stacks). At the same time, we are all aware that there are multiple parallel efforts to enhance Android that have led many observers to believe that fragmentation is inevitable. Ultimately, it is said, this will become the bane to developers who will struggle to reach an economy of scale on a moving target where multiple variants of the Android OS co-exist.

That said, a handful of companies are seeking to close the gap in Android fragmentation diversity by providing the ecosystem with tradecraft skills, tooling and testing that allow for an unprecedented degree of platform validation that can act as a common denominator on the latest versions of Android for the many combinations of open source configurations, IP changes, and hardware revisions. Indeed, one of the biggest advantages of the diversity in Android has been that manufacturers are not tied to the success or failure of an individual hardware platform, meaning that today there are dozens of hardware programs in downstream Android development.

This, when overlayed with Google's official Android versions and integrated with the multiple moving parts of open source code and 2nd party/3rd party subsystems and applications, has created a "thicket" of software code and hardware that is difficult enough to manage inside of one manufacturer, much less between device makers and developers. Indeed, there is a growing recognition that companies are challenged to cost-effectively create a commercial handset product based on something that's inherently unstable or changing too rapidly, especially for mass market.

Wind River is one of the companies with the deepest credentials in the Android compatibility space, having been Google's lead Linux commercialization partner for Android starting in early 2007 and having earned a seat at the OEM and operator support table by creating the most comprehensive Android “test and fix” program in the industry. This has included deep modifications that conform with the OHA governance model as well as global support and maintenance to ensure reuse across a true Android lifecycle management program (in fact Wind River just announced its latest commercial Android platform optimized on the TI OMAP3 Platform).

Although there have emerged a long tail of professional services software companies that have announced OEM support programs for producing Android phones over the past two years, few appear to have recognized "the pain" that open source causes the manufacturer ecosystem and why a commercial platform eases that pain. They miss the opportunity to solve the business risk problem of open source by increasing predictability – many times the key issue with open source. Using a commercial platform, Wind River is offering that predictability, but without losing the accelerated innovation rate that a dynamic platform like Android is providing the market. Only time will tell which approach will prove out.

Open Source Symbian and the Inescapable Truth of Product Lifecycles

2009-06-16T11:51:34-07:00

The announcement one year ago that Symbian will be open sourced under a license free platform in 1HCY10 was heard around the world. If we are to believe game theory, the motivations behind this move are not a non-zero sum game but rather one of rational choice by its major stakeholders. But what does Open Source Symbian really mean for all of the players involved? Recent press commentary on the announcement might suggest that the leading ascendant contenders for the unifying Open Source platform – Android, Moblin, and LiMo – will somehow be cannibalized by a resurgent Symbian platform that is "free."

Indeed, in the mobile industry, invariably, there is always that big announcement that gains mindshare from industry pundits who can see the future (I recall WCDMA handset launches enjoyed similar attention in 2000). However I believe the opposite is true in the case of Symbian, that its demise as it nears an end to a natural product lifecycle will only be accelerated when it is made available under an open source license next year.

Here are 7 reasons why I believe this to be the case:

(1) Shifting of costs to device makers: A recent tour of OxMs in Japan pointed to the possibility that, although Symbian will not charge royalties per unit, development, support, upgrade, and maintenance costs in the Symbian program will likely be shifted to each respective manufacturer as the Symbian Foundation finds that funding a staff of hundreds of Symbian engineers is unlikely to be offset by membership fees. Indeed, by all indications an Open Source Symbian will require considerably more sweat equity and costly out-sourcing by OxMs to keep the platform viable in the face of accelerated competition and technology change. This means that droves of device makers depending on Symbian today will either need to pay more to play or consider investment in alternative open source stacks. Importantly these costs are not variable license fees but hard and fast personnel costs that are independent of shipped volumes.

(2) Developers are flocking elsewhere: Although the best of its generation, developers still generally consider Symbian an inherently buggy software, and there is no reason to believe that this will change with an open source release of the platform. Indeed, with the recognized limitations in the Symbian OS, developers are choosing other open source platforms three times as often. Ultimately, Symbian must be able to attract more developers via a new open platform or it will continue to dramatically lag communities like Linux, Apple, and RIM. This dilemma may be even more important for the Symbian Foundation to solve - there are many competitors luring (and funding) developers to new mobile platforms, and innovation driving differentiation is the key to an operator's embrace.

(3) No signs of a future proof architecture: If we move beyond smartphones, Symbian simply is not architected for next generation larger screen mobile devices and runs neither easier nor more cheaply. To make matters more complicated, Symbian will attempt combine MOAP, S60 and UIQ to create an all-in-one platform based on old foundational technology, whereas true open source platforms were architected as service delivery platforms from the start. Indeed, bridging the gap between Symbian today and Symbian tomorrow will require the kind of careful architectural planning that is rare in a new open source consortium that is based on a fundamentally non-open platform, and mitigating the risk of migrating to a platform that substantially contains legacy code while hopefully enabling new services is anyone's guess. Any claim to the contrary is pure Symbian Foundation defensive marketing fluff.

(4) Symbian is on a decreasing volume precipice. Although Open Source volumes are significantly smaller than that of Symbian, the unit shipment momentum around foundational Linux platforms appears to be the bane of Symbian. In addition to reporting a 12% year-on-year decrease in volumes in the quarter the Symbian Foundation was established, Symbian now shows a whopping 15 percentage points of lost market share versus other high-end OSs. This is strongly reminiscent of Microsoft’s recent announcement that Microsoft expects fewer Windows Mobile-powered handsets. I am not suggesting "game over" for Symbian, which is still the market share leader, but these are indicative numbers. Added to the dip in shipment growth, turnover has been falling rapidly and I believe the highly competitive market will make it more difficult for Symbian’s owner to indefinitely subsidize the Symbian Foundation for other manufacturing players who will have access to source code under a zero royalty license.

(5) Barriers to Symbian roadmap assurance for all members: it remains to be seen if the Symbian Foundation platform will offer a roadmap that allows for continued feature convergence, service delivery, innovation, and differentiation. Indeed, the cost of keeping a stack and platform current with ever-changing technology standards is immense, and it is unclear who will invest in this process in the Open Source Symbian platform. At the same time, the question of who ultimately will control the Symbian roadmap – with one owner essentially contributing most of the engineers to the new Foundation – is a valid one that underscores the fact that this Tier 0 ships circa 70% of Symbian phones. This could result in a Microsoft mobile philosophy of "you get what we ship you" and translate into limited maneuvering room for customization and differentiation for the rest of the crowd.

(6) How long will Helsinki hang on to Symbian? Rumors that Qt technology from the Trolltech acquisition is being architected in as part of a post-Symbian new platform generation (with Maemo as the testing vehicle which gave the company its first grounding in Linux) are likely far fetched, especially given the enormous new role Ovi and other initiatives will play in any future software architecture. Yet the fact that technology from the former Trolltech was excluded from the Symbian Foundation might suggest that Symbian is not the future software platform to solve the truly hard problems, and that value creation is going on somewhere else in Helsinki. Indeed, a roadmap where the S40 platform (proprietary technology) serves the feature phone market (with advanced features creaping down into devices such as the 6260 Slide) and where current generation smartphone software (Symbian) is replaced by a next generation is almost certainly in the works.

(7) The devil in the Symbian Foundation governance details: Finally, there remain a thicket of open questions around the operation of the Symbian Foundation and open source, not the least of which is what the exact support burden manufacturers will need to take on in both creating new designs and supporting legacy platforms using Symbian. Also, questions such as how will co-development take place when most Symbian engineers belong to one owner will likely accelerate manufacturing gravitation to alternative open source platforms. Also, as indicated above, quetions about how to align on a common Symbian roadmap in the brave new world of Open Source, who ultimately owns contributed intellectual property, how will code be contributed, and who manages Open Source governance on behalf of the device maker are ones that device makers are keenly waiting to be answered.

While I applaud the continued commitment to the open source movement, it is obvious that the pressure from the success of other proprietary handsets from Apple and RIM and open source models like OHA 's Android platform, Moblin and LiMo must weigh significantly to have a market leader turn its leading software product over to an open community. Contrary to the Symbian Foundation’s marketing campaign, however, I for one, do not think that the open sourcing of Symbian will encourage increased adoption of the platform as customers and partners seek out fresh options for differentiation and support. If history is a guide, I am betting that the market will migrate to new, sooner rather than later.

The Mobile Device Investor and the Bubblegum Theory

2009-03-27T15:51:08-07:00

While we still don't know the impact of Ovi, iPhone, or Android on the dynamics of tomorrow's device landscape, we know that "End Users" have evolved into sophisticated buyers of new devices, especially as subsidies gradually decline. Although I don't think anyone quite knows where the value is going in the new mobile ecosystem (is it migrating to software, devices, services, networks, content…?), everyone is trying to understand how to best monetize the new mobile economy as relationships between all the players - operators, manufacturers, software developers and Internet /media companies - shift. There are no spellbinding stories yet.

In my last blog, I tried to formulate the term "mobile device investor" to drive as large a wedge as possible into the idea that mobile consumers are simply End Users - people who are unable to multitask when chewing bubblegum and only in search of a good application or service to contribute to self actualization. In today's world, mobile device investors are typically not End Users praying for the next killer application (these, as far as I have seen, do not really exist in the mobile market). Rather, consumers today are increasingly acting like investors and have heightened expectations for mobile devices - they expect these to continuously improve and evolve (Apple and Nokia are two of the few companies that deserve an underscore on this point). In this sense, devices increase the value of customer ownership in a big way (especially when combined with brand & access).

Yet how can operators make this innovation process repeatable and scalable for an entire industry, and not just for one or two very large (extremely innovative) consumer electronics companies? To begin with, interest in many new device categories - Netbooks included - by mobile operators is not so much about a new play to open new markets, but rather a new way to focus on consumers that want devices that mold to their lifestyles. Many pundits in the mobile industry argue that this will ultimately translate into a world where we will see multiple-devices in each room, purse, pocket, car, etc. Clearly we are only at the tip of the iceberg in discovering which other device categories could emerge as revenue opportunities in wireless in the next 5 years, and connected consumer electronics companies have only started to identify what other opportunities exist beyond the phone.

Although the product experience has been the ultimate way for operators to retain subscribers (while creating sticky data strategies that generate new revenue), there are few examples of compelling new services that create a paradigm shift in attracting new subscribers. As a result, a global (not-so-silent) revolution among carriers is occurring on two complementary fronts: one where the operator is completely redefining its user experience by becoming a full software developer (and owning a significant piece of the open source software stack), and the other where carriers seek to develop & innovate "tail end value" in the mobile device itself as consumers increasingly demand devices that mold to their lifestyles.

With this in mind, the “consumer as mobile device investor” theory means that devices are not only the "killer housing" for the compelling user experience, but also a vehicle for operators to stay ahead of pioneering manufacturing and media/Internet players wishing to shake up the status quo. Indeed, waiting in an anticipatory mode for the next iPhone is likely not the way operators want to drive data revenues. For example, preempting the next big device is exactly what mobile operator 3 did by introducing handset maker INQ's so-called "Facebook phone," which integrates social networking information and status updates in its contact list and offers an extremely easy interface for people who have never used data-centric devices. This is not just an extremely special device, but one that is not possible under most current operating systems (Windows Mobile is too inflexible, iPhone too verticalized).

Now, as operators begin to discover where they can uniquely add value – and how to leverage that value -- service providers are increasingly aiming at more effective ways to influence the device investor. This includes developing more open network environments and, of course, embracing open source as a high potential customization phenomena. Enter Android, an operating environment that is rapidly morphing into a beloved ownership target for operators and producers of mobile devices (I will not attempt here to summarize why). This year, we hear, Android volumes will double (if not triple) the penetration that iPhone achieved in the first year - thus it is easy to imagine how dozens of Android enabled devices will ship in 2010, allowing operators to apply innovative business models in multiple ways and leverage Android as a strategic platform to attract mobile device investors of all shapes & sizes).

Not likely, you say? You recently saw that the iPhone claims nearly two-thirds of the mobile browser share? This data however offers only a snapshot of what is really happening, and does not say much about a platform's ability to natively, easily, and profitably deliver internet-based services, when, if we take Windows Mobile as an example, despite selling over 20 million handsets in 2008 alone, it still only drives some 7% of the mobile internet traffic, while Android, having sold about one million handsets in total, drives an equal amount of mobile web traffic. If you were an operator looking for a strategic platform from which you could attract new device investors, drive a new business model, new service revenue, or a new user experience, which would you choose?

The browser on the G1 may or may not be a pleasure to use, but when we look at which OS’s will dominate the ‘beyond the phone’ markets, it is becoming increasingly clear that the operator response to the device investor will decide the future, and the buyers of such devices are increasingly becoming long-term investors who can both chew bubblegum, search the Internet and make phone calls at the same time.

Will the Software Stack Make the Market for Mobile Internet Devices?

2009-02-17T17:59:51-08:00

I love the mobile industry because everyone, even my cat, has somehow turned into an industry sage, predicting that just about anything can and will happen in mobile as the dark clouds collect on the economic horizon. Are there any bright spots (to use an overused analogy this week) left in mobile after we hear of precipitous drops in chipset sales and phone volumes, slackening subscriber demand, and workforce "adjustments?" Well, while talking to a group of executives from a large global operator recently about "killer" things (the talk was about signature applications) I had an epiphany: isn't the recent creation of an entirely new device category that every single ISV, consortia, chipset vendor, consumer electronics company, OEM or ODM, and service provider are starting to coalesce around something to take note of? Clearly making a market and getting an entire technology industry to move on a dime is no easy trick, not even for companies like Google and Intel. Yet over the past two years, these companies have started to change the face of the mobile industry (I am not a sycophant in either camp so please reader, take heart). Indeed, Intel's creation of the MID category has turned on a perpetual motion machine that especially mobile network operators can no longer ignore given the enormous role that new devices play in adding new subscribers. Given that the MID software coming out is truly next generation (I have seen it), my view (pundits aside) is that MIDs will be the bright spot of 2010, as terminals with 4" screen diagonals fully cannibalize the ancient meaning of high-end smartphones and cause everyone from Apple to Orange to Nokia create slots for this device type.

The MID take-up issue is complex as no one (not even the 3G device fortune tellers in 1999) can predict anything these days with a high degree of accuracy. Nevertheless, as desktop sales rates slow we see categories of mobile devices below 7" screen diagonals gaining slots at major operators that are not so much about a new play to open new markets, but rather a new way to focus on consumers that are increasingly acting like investors - i.e., after emerging from the dark age we now have heightened expectations for mobile devices and expect these to continuously improve and evolve. Until now however most of us using a mobile device have been sorely disappointed. Let's face it: we are not talking about the iPhone with a brilliant industrial design (even if the business model did not disenfranchise the operator), nor the Blackberry (disregarding the alarming recent statements out of Waterloo that buggy software is a fact consumers will have to live with), nor Symbian phones (after 10 years still known among developers as the buggiest software on Earth). Thus it is no surprise that the quest to find the best next-generation software stack has centered on Linux (for reasons that will not be addressed here). If we dive down a few hundred meters its does not take a rocket scientist to see why a market around MIDs is being created with Linux at its heart - to take just one example, I stood in front of a terminal EVP recently who explained to me how Microsoft refused for nine months to allow a splash screen to be modified for that operator's regional variant.

As a result of years of thought into how to improve the user experience, I believe that the software stack will make the market for MIDs. The brilliant part about being able to architect a new software stack from scratch is that lessons learned from previous endeavors can be avoided. This is exactly what Google did with Android, what Intel is doing with Moblin 2.0, and what LiMo Foundation members did when creating their platform technology strategy in 2007. In all of these stacks, a specific focus on performance, capability and user friendliness (i.e., the reduction of the buggy experience) have been high on the list of prerequisites for the world-class concept engineering teams. While raised to some level of context these next generation stacks are all extremely advanced, each has a specialized focus depending on the target form factor device. If we take Moblin 2.0 as an example, a team of illustrious concept engineers managed to avoid the software limitations of previous smartphone generations by enabling a "smart experience system" engineered to display high-end graphics and video for a media and 3D visual experience that users from the tethered Internet age can actually understand and no doubt benefit from (this software can be seen for the first time at the Intel booth at the Mobile World Congress this week in Barcelona).

Yet even without the hand of companies like Intel and Google guiding next-generation software stack projects that will be consumed by a broad base of manufacturers, application developers can take heart in the fact that these solutions already stand a chance of mass market acceptance because of the sheer inertia for change at the mobile network operator. Operators know that the industry can do better than devices currently available and, as they seek to reduce churn by offering more reliable handsets that attract "device investors,” they are willing to take advantage of the MID future at their fingertips by offering slots that paint a MID century ahead. Thus, as the software stack takes center stage in consumer expectations for a better device, it will be the hidden force making the market for MIDs.

Operators return to Barcelona, (this time) armed with Open Source

2009-01-21T21:58:13-08:00

Scene Setter
26 years after GSM was created to design a pan-European mobile technology, Mobile World Congress number 13 is set to take place in Barcelona in February. This time around, as they did when GSM World Congress was first held in Madrid in 1995, mobile network operators will dominate the scene.

Next month, however, the topic of discussion will not be new network deployments, or the latest traunch of jazzy new devices, or the next best application. Rather, Open Source will be topic Number 1 on the operator agenda in 2009. As changing operator strategies include the need for a strategic terminal platform that they can influence, the tectonic plates that once defined how a device was created and deployed are shifting and fueling significant change in the value chain.

A Brave, New Ecosystem
Whether it be the proliferation of phone development activity around Google’s Android stack, the phenomenal operator gravitation toward the LiMo Foundation, or Symbian’s intriguing announcement to open source its end-of-life cycle stack, the mobile industry is breaking out of the traditional controlled development environment to favor collaboration that accelerates innovation. The use of open source software in mobile is exploding from the operating system all the way up to the user experience, and Linux-based open source stacks are moving well beyond alpha stage with backing by industry heavy weights.

Indeed, the ubiquity of open source is causing not only a fundamental shift in proprietary OEM software deployment, but also accelerating the opening of the operator walled garden. As VisionMobile’s Andreas Constantinou – arguably the industry’s most astute pundit of open source in mobile – has pointed out, strategic “shared” core software platforms are “in” (versus supporting and maintaining up to ten proprietary stacks in an operator portfolio).

Innovating on a Perceived Commodity
Given that almost every major operator has now launched some sort of Linux device, operator versions of open source stacks are entering the optimization phase, aiming to reduce costs of bringing new Linux devices to market, more rapidly evolve on-device and network-based services, and speed application testing and certification. These highly optimized stacks will allow the operators and their OEM and ISV partners to shift the focus of innovation from the baseline software to the applications, services, and user experiences that will ultimately provide the basis for differentiation and subscriber and revenue growth.

At the same time, the complexity of open source coupled with proprietary software assets has forced operators to quickly get smart – few companies in mobile offer the indemnification, quality metrics, warranties, and SLAs that were intrinsic to the fully proprietary software paradigm. Yet this is exactly what the operators and their partners seek to allow them to overcome the last business hurdle to open source adoption.

Take-aways, Before You Reach Costa Brava

A number of trends (community content, me-portals, WiFi, etc.) will accelerate the crumbling of once venerable operator walled garden.

Operators recognize that the mobile device software experience must improve across devices, with a critical need to bring all-internet experience to mobile devices.

Chipset manufacturers will continue to rapidly embrace open source stacks (Android, Limo, Moblin) as service providers send downstream requirements that reward pre-optimized hardware-software combinations. Expect multiple commercial devices and demos on all three software platforms in Barcelona.

As memory and CPU constraints disappear, open source will allow mobile device to become true application servers, not just smart mobile phones.

Fragmentation in mobile device software is out, shared core software platforms are in.

Nevertheless, fragmentation of developer ecosystems (LiMo, Android, Moblin, Symbian, Blackberry, iPhone, Palm…) will constrain the pace of innovation in the mobile market.

Operators will be making fundamental decisions about which stacks to deploy (Android, LiMo, Moblin, Symbian, etc.) while larger ODMs shift their attention to learn open source.

Operators will increasingly require commercial solutions that protect signature applications while leveraging open source’s innovation rate

Have fun !

An Industry and Technology Revolution is on the Horizon

2008-01-15T23:19:07-08:00

Limo, and in a slightly different way Android, have killed the standards-based approach to open source development in mobile. In the Linux world, creating an esoteric, theoretical application standard not based on market-driven code requires too much speculative investment without any clear mitigation of ROI risk for anyone to take up anymore. Indeed, the days of a bunch of representative techies flying to exotic locales to dream up the theoretical perfect system are over. It’s just too expensive to completely retool an entire stack without a known intrinsic return.

Because of the concentration in the mobile market (83% of handsets manufactured by five companies), when market leaders have invested in a stack, it is a standard whether certified by an arcane standards body or not. The Open Handset Alliance has created a de facto market standard not because a group of market leaders have adopted the standard, but because of Google’s overall singular market weight. The effect is the same (Trolltech and OpenMoko did the same thing that OHA did, and took it one step further by actually building a phone, but no one came running to embrace their reference designs because they lacked the market weight that Google has).

This is not to be confused with the need for technical standards that dictate interoperability, like GSM/WCDMA, TCP/IP, and WiFi (These were all the standards that LiPS cited as analogous reasons why there needs to be a theoretical application standard for mobile). These standards determine how unlike devices interoperate, which will always be needed. But within a device, the need for a theoretical standard is no longer valid. Developers will flock to what the market broadly supports, whether its because most of the Big Five support it or because of a sea-change in mobile computing brought about by an adjacent industry.

At the same time that LiMo and Android are setting a pragmatic, non-standards stage for significant consolidation in middleware/apps frameworks, a second major reason for mobile Linux fragmentation is arguably the lack of one common Linux distribution to work from (unlike the singular Symbian OS or Microsoft Mobile, or low level RTOSs such as OSE or Nucleus). Indeed, some commercial Linux vendors have traditionally leveraged only the kernel in a product offering, yet these vendors were too small to handle complex, global mobile phone projects for the big players. As a result, Tier 1 OEMs and semiconductor companies had to build costly Roll Your Own in-house OS development groups to handle Linux — a decidedly non-core silicon or OEM competency — thereby proliferating the number of uncommon Linux distributions and raising costs associated with upgrading and maintaining them

Today this landscape has started to fundamentally change. Larger software players now bring significantly greater value propositions and delivery capabilities to mobile Linux, while there is a growing perception that a common public Linux distribution accessible to all players in the value chain is a critical least-common-denominator running across multiple Linux middleware choices. Indeed, while earlier commercial efforts focused on providing know-how to the kernel, the remaining 95% of what is required to build a Linux device (a common Linux integration environment, a single cockpit tools suite, deep mobile Linux engineering skills in hardware and middleware integration and testing, broad global commercial support, warranties and maintenance, et al.) was missing.

As a result, 2008 signals the start of fundamental changes to the mobile software market as the industry begins the next generation of Linux platform deployments.

The Check is in the Mail, Do No Evil and Other Matters of Trust

2007-12-03T17:48:18-08:00

All will agree that mobile Linux suffers from fragmentation today, and that fragmentation
• creates significant challenges to Linux adoption in mobile phones (lack of interoperability et. al.)
• presents barriers to innovation
• increases the carrier cost to Linux terminal deployment.

For Linux to succeed in the mobile market, we need to minimize fragmentation and its resulting incompatibility. In the early days of the PC revolution, this type of incompatibility was similarly rampant, and the Wintel monopoly provided the standard. More importantly, the Wintel monopoly created the incentive to rally around the standard.

But suggesting that the industry set up Google as the mobile Linux gatekeeper, including issuing all the keys to the various feature phone middleware/applications framework kingdoms (which account for about 90% of all phones deployed today), to take on the monumental role of software guardian for mobile Linux, is possibly antithetical to the open source movement, regardless of Google’s motto. And perhaps this is not the role that Google ultimately seeks in the mobile market. Indeed, there are multiple thrusts to Google’s mobile terminal strategy, all of which are underpinned by the principle of radically improving the efficiency and experience of the end-user’s mobile internet time.

That's why the market needs LIMO as well as the Open Handset Alliance. Google has the muscle to help rein in fragmentation forays from OEMs and operators, and has chosen the Android platform as they key vehicle to accomplish this ambitious goal. At the same time, the mobile market-based backing of LIMO is needed to keep the ‘open’ in open source. Indeed, LIMO is building baseline technology that will be openly shared among what many Tier 1 OEMs expect to be a platform standard for the feature phone segment. This effort could dovetail nicely with the Open Handset Alliance’s Android platform, which is attracting significant interest from application developers eager to take advantage of the Android SDK.

Might this lead to continued fragmentation, rather than unification around a mobile Linux standard? What is needed now is for the mutual members of the two consortia to help forge the bridge between the two, so that both fulfill their technological and market roles and extend benefits to the overall mobile market. Starting with areas of complementary technology, and working toward areas of overlap until a symbiosis evolves that will benefit the entire ecosystem, this could be a convincing way to navigate today’s many waves of mobile Linux.

Open Handset Alliance and LiMo – Why both initiatives are here to stay

2007-11-05T18:04:57-08:00

It's easy to take the fragmentation of the mobile phone industry for granted. With over 40 different proprietary and Open Source Middleware and Application Frameworks addressing Ultra Low Cost, Entry, Feature and Smart Phone market segments, software costs have exploded and are expected to hit some 25% of the entire Bill of Materials on a mobile phone this year. No wonder mobile network operators are asking the industry to stop the madness and consolidate around a limited number of pre-defined platforms.

Many operators very clearly see Microsoft, Symbian and one to two versions of Linux as the only future software platforms that will comprise their terminal roadmap. Linux is unique in that most Tier 1 OEMs – with the exception of Nokia – plan to gradually replace the proprietary software addressing the feature phone segments (where by far the most volumes of phones are shipped today and in the future).

With this in mind, two juggernauts – Open Handset Alliance and LiMo – promise to alter the landscape for the third software platform – Linux – for good. The LiMo Foundation’s goal is to defragment the Linux handset market by creating a Linux-based mobile platform that lowers development costs, increases flexibility, and yields differentiated devices. The goal of the Open Handset Alliance is to deliver solutions to enable complete open software, open devices, and an open ecosystem. Are these movements destined for perpetual conflict?

Not exactly. Both have vastly different implementations that complement the end-goal of the mobile operator (to consolidate the industry around one to two Linux platforms). Both the Open Handset Alliance and leverage open source business models, and both rely on industry leaders to contribute market-proven technologies to open source community. Many of the players/members/founders are the same OEM and silicon companies in each camp to remain relevant to operators who narrow down to a single Linux platform, whichever they select.

LiMo and the Open Handset Alliance will likely both achieve many of their consortium goals in the market, avoiding a zero sum game. In fact, it doesn’t have to be that Open Handset Alliance is the exclusive platform for any OEM or carrier, or even exclusive Linux platform, but very clearly the open source counterbalance will be a LiMo compliant platform. Linux fragmentation still exists and will for some time Outside of the Linux world, however, competition from other platforms including Symbian and Microsoft is immense, intense, pervasive, and won’t sit idly by as the Open Handset Alliance and LiMo try to gain traction. For either partnership’s long term survival, its imperative that the two determine how to co-exist and even mutually benefit from one another at the expense of the non-Linux and fragmented Linux parties.