Mark Wilcox's Forum Nokia Blog - An Open Mobile Software Foundation?

Structure vs appearance

Thanks Nigel, it's nice to get more than one comment after writing all of that!

Yes - sorting out languages is something I've been thinking about a bit too. At the moment I'd pretty much discount Java completely as it takes so long to standardise everything in the JCP that it's always behind the times.

If I have to pick from the current crop of available run-time environments I'd go for Flash Lite for the UI, Python for the application logic and C++/assembler for the bits that need performance or access to system APIs that aren't already available to the other run-times.

I can completely understand manufacturers wanting differentiation but getting that with separate UI frameworks seems like complete overkill to me. It should be perfectly possible for one framework to support two completely different appearances. The interface to a window or widget doesn't have to influence what it looks like.

As you point out, it isn't really in many of the player's interests to make a completely common application framework. It makes another step in the direction of comoditising the handsets.

I'll keep working on reducing the chaos but judging by the level of response to this post I think you'll be long retired before it's sorted out, let alone paying off the mortgage.

Well it would be a “nice idea” to get everything sorted out and running smoothly. One thing would be to start converging on languages. You could use something like assembler/C++ for the lower levels where bits and bytes matter and something like Java (or even some dodgy 4th generation language) for the presentation…

It is always a “pain” that the same app written on two handsets with the same OS have to be basically re-written. (I am talking UIQ and S60 here. I know you can have a common engine, I do this, but unless you are doing some serious number crunching this doesn’t often gain you a lot. It still seems that most of the time is spent on the UI and your app logic comes second.) If we can’t get two handsets running the same OS to converge, what are the chances for the whole industry?

The world of software could definitely be reordered to make sense to the rest of us. However, I remember the discussions when the Symbian OS was originally split into its different DFRDs. The handset manufacturers didn’t want things to look the same. They didn’t want convergence, they wanted differentiation. They wanted the user to be able to tell a Nokia handset from an Ericsson one. The model seems to have served them well.

“nice idea” and “pain” are in quotes above because the situation you are trying to remedy reminds me of something a wizened old programmer once said:

PFC! == profit from chaos!

So, I will be glad to help you sort out the world, just as soon as the mortgage is paid off.

(Oh, by the way, I really liked your article, and contrary to what I just wrote, I like the order you propose. The internet with its RFCs is the finest example of cooperation/robustness and engineering I have seen and this followed the model you proposed. ish.)

Great to get the strong opinions out first!

Very important question - end users. I would hope this sort of organisation gets them more, good, cheap software for their phones. Not "free" (I wish they wouldn't use that term) software but sensibly priced.

In my opinion OpenOffice is not quite as good as Microsoft Office but if I personally had to pay full price for one or the other I know which I'd choose!

What I'm suggesting is just another option and I'd expect it to encourage more closed source development, not less. It's really about sharing the development of the common bits and letting people innovate with the cutting edge stuff (not that some of the new innovative projects can't be open too).

I agree that Fring is great. I use it occasionally to access Skype from my mobile over WiFi. This is just the beginning of Fring though, what's their business model, how are they going to make money? (you can bet they plan to one day!)
I prefer this sort of thing to be open. Skype started out very cheap and then when they'd sucked in enough users they started cranking up the rates for SkypeIn.

Kazaa was good and free but turned out to be full of adware/spyware - not so good after all. That leaves me equally dubious about the eventual fate of Joost.

I would hope the compromises in "freedom" that I'm proposing keep the zealots away. The public license I'm suggesting breaks part of one of the "four freedoms" (to sell your modifications without paying a royalty) and as such wouldn't be approved by the Open Source Initiative. I'm also suggesting we provide commercial licenses to anyone who wants one and they don't have to open their source, just pay for the privelege.

I think we probably have similar views on this - the vast majority of end users won't care about the "Freedom" that the Free Software movement is trying to give them. The "Freedom" is really only there for people who have the ability to understand and modify the code. That's a very small minority.

However, if the core components are open it allows the possibility of open alternatives to the adware/spyware or other more honest advertising supported channels. Or the build a monoply for free and then exploit it type of business model.

At the end of the day, it's just a suggestion though and how well it works in practice would be entirely determined by the people involved.

Nice but

Nice post, really well thought, will certainly spark some debate. I have a question though where are the end users in this equation?

Is open source software necessarily good for them? How? Why? Is OpenOffice.org really superior to Microsoft Office just because it's open source? Is Linux better than Mac OS X for the same reason?

Apple, Nokia, Microsoft, and plenty of other companies offer high quality software (many times for free or cheap) with whatever model they want to use.

At the end of the day, users only care about having a good product at a good price.

Fring for S60 is great, and free, do users care whether it's open source? No.

Quickoffice is great, costs money, do users care whether it's open source? No. They will pay the just value for good software.

Same with Mac OS X, same with Windows, same with everything else. A product being open source does not mean it's better than a closed source one; the other way around is also false.

All that matters is the end user. If s/he likes a product, free or not, open or closed source, anarchist or capitalist, s/he will buy it, use it and love it.

Therefore my opinion is no, we don't need another foundation to make things even more complicated and attract even more zealots who don't have business models for anything besides selling themselves as FREEDOM GURUS, and charging for people who want to take pics with them :)

Mandatory Disclaimer: Opinions stated here reflect my own personal opinions, not necessarily those of the company I work for.