The mobile phone market doesn’t need yet another innovative device design. We’re well-served by RAZRs and Treos and Dash’s (oh my!). But it desperately needs innovation in the smartphone OS area.
[Sorry for parking this in the Java area for now, but technical difficulties leave me no alternative.]
The hype about the upcoming “iPhone” from Apple keeps harping on the hardware design that is sure to emanate from One Infinite Loop. It’s assumed that Apple’s play here is similar to the iPod - wow them with innovative device design, with a simple, intuitive, “for-the-masses” user experience. But I’d much rather see what Apple (or a similar organization) could do to plug a big gaping hole I see in the mobile OS market.
I am a hopeless sucker for gadgets. I have developed an unsurpassed ability to concoct a “need” for just about any shiny new toy. “If I’m ever trapped in a restaurant during a power outage, and I need to finish working on a presentation, and my laptop batteries are all dead, that ultra-light cooking-oil-fueled generator would sure come in handy.”
So when the latest line of Palm Treos were announced (the 750 and 680 models, specifically), I couldn’t resist. After all, my current phone at the time (a Treo 650) was almost 2 years old [gasp]! That fact, coupled with the aforementioned creative justification skills, made it inevitable that I upgrade to the latest and greatest. Unfortunately, that upgrade meant I also had to switch mobile operating systems. I have been a happy Palm OS user for many years, but Palm’s current strategy (along with several other key phone manufacturers) is a clear move to Windows Mobile for its high-end phones, leaving gadget snobs like me with little choice but to make the switch.
As many people had warned me, Windows Mobile requires noticeably more clicks and pushes to get anything done. Menus, a relatively rarely-needed tool in Palm OS, are needed for many more actions (it seems) in Windows Mobile. Windows Mobile has multitasking, long an elusive dream of Palm OS users. But this technical benefit also introduces complications — checking what’s running, switching applications and quitting them requires even more clicks and pushes, unless you add your own third-party utilities to simplify things. This “lack of an easy exit” issue has long been decried by Windows Mobile users. Finally, Windows Mobile exposes its underlying details to the user much more than Palm OS. Applications and data are stored in a file structure reminiscent of desktop Windows (those old friends “Program Files”, “Documents and Settings”, etc. are back), and you occasionally need to make forays into the file system (using the File Explorer) to get things done. At one point, to get a Bluetooth device to work properly, I had to actually set up COM ports on my phone. COM ports! My mind rushed back to the dark ages of IRQ conflicts and device resource hacking. [shudder]
Granted, the new Treo uses the Pocket PC Phone version of Windows Mobile, not to be confused with the Smartphone edition (though Windows Mobile variants are, indeed, inherently confusing). The Smartphone edition has a simpler, more phone-friendly interface, but lacks some capabilities that the Treo definitely needs, like touchscreen support. In addition, some of the painful aspects of Windows Mobile make some sense when you think about where the OS came from, and Microsoft’s strategy for their mobile platform. Some integration and unification of the Windows desktop and mobile environments makes sense from a technical standpoint, and can also be seen as an attempt to provide some “contextual continuity” for Windows desktop users.
But for me, the usual giddiness I feel when getting familiar with a new gadget was tainted by a decent amount of frustration. Eventually, being the devoted techno-weenie that I am, I’ll get over the hump on the Windows Mobile assimilation curve, and I’ll be effortlessly cranking out emails one-handed while waiting to get a coffee at [insert your favorite caffeine vendor here]. This is not bragging, mind you, just an admission of an abnormal affinity for bending my lifestyle to suit my gadgets. Normal human beings would prefer to avoid this learning curve. They want technology to work for them, not the other way around.
All this led me to conclude that there is a large gap/opportunity in the mobile computing world. The world seems to need a mobile OS that navigates that tricky line between the social, business and design issues inherent in the smartphone market. I want a mobile OS that is visually appealing, has wide adoption (with business and consumer users), desktop integration, enterprise integration, and a great user experience. Palm OS was arguably the closest thing we had to a “sweet spot” solution (simple enough for the masses, scalable enough for the elite), but through a series of technical and business (mis)steps and twists of fate, it’s now in a state of limbo. Access Co. Ltd. now owns the OS, having purchased it from Palm at the end of 2005, and is actively migrating the OS to a Linux base. While this is an exciting prospect, the next-generation of Palm OS (now called Access) is in the distant horizon. Meanwhile, the seemingly dominant mobile OS vendor (Microsoft) has little impetus to innovate in terms of user experience (or much else). Windows Mobile 6.0 doesn’t offer much new features for consumers, and rumors about Windows Mobile 7.0 are fuzzy at best, but point to a 2008/2009 timeframe before anything is ready for actual devices - so the coming 3-5 years of mobile OS innovation looks to be pretty stagnant, unless Symbian has something up their sleeves, or Access somehow pulls a rabbit out of a hat. That’s Not Good for the market, and definitely Not Good for users.
This sounds like a job for Apple, no? I mean, what other company has done a better job of navigating similar waters in computer hardware, desktop OS and media player markets? Of course, diving into the mobile OS market is not an obvious business win for anyone, even a clever fellow like Steve Jobs. Orchestrating hardware vendor and telecomm carrier relationships is very challenging, not to mention enterprise service vendors, media firms, application vendors, etc., etc., etc. But if anyone is well positioned to take on this challenge and turn it into a growth opportunity, Apple seems the best suited to the job, right?
P.S. My apologies for posting this in the Java area, but hopefully the blog masters will figure out how to cross-post this to the proper topics…



I don't have a SmartPhone (here that, Santa?), but if I were going to bank on any super-duper-innovations in the portable gadget department in the next few years, I'd put my money on the iPod. That may not be smart money, but the simple games that Apple's selling for the iPod (plus phone rumors) make be think we'll be seeing SDK's for the iPod soon. If that happens, and I can't really see it not happening with Zune-foll already discussing it, maybe that middle ground your after will be filled.
Wow, you got all the way through that without mentioning the Newton!
Honestly, I don't really care much for the SmartPhone market in the whole. I would rather my phone be a small, utility device with limited but well designed functionality. If Apple can successfully merge my phone and iPod Nano, bully for that, but it has to wrok as well as each of them individually.
I will say this, however, about PDAs. I can't stand where we have ended up. Aside from depth and weight, the Newton is still, IMHO the right form factor. I want something with a large enough screen that reading it is comfortable and a decent about of data can be displayed on the screen. Moreover, I want "forgetaboutit" battery life. One of the things that strike me about the Table PC vs PDA market is neight of them are using digital ink. If someone would give me a machine that had a 4.25x5.5 digial ink screen, a powerfull-but-not-battery eating CPU, and iPod levels of data storage that still had a 8-10 hour active battery life -- meaning interactions with it, not long running operations; take advantage of the digital ink -- I would love that device so much.
Let it bluetooth to my phone for connectivity. I just don't like using something of the "phone" form factor for my interface to the "world".
>>
Palm's current strategy (along with several other key phone manufacturers) is a clear move to Windows Mobile
Andrew: Interesting prediction, that may be the angle Apple is going for. Turn the iPod platform directly into the iPhone media/phone/gaming platform. Not exactly what I'm looking for, but could be a winner for them.
cooper: I think the problem with PDAs is that they try to be everything to everyone, and that's not possible in my opinion. The Newton is way too big for me, but I did own one for a while and liked it. The "right" portable device(s) is a personal thing, hard to canonicalize.
AJ: True, Palm is a multi-OS vendor and will likely stay that way, but I don't think the current PalmOS will be part of the picture after this generation, and they won't want to support more than 2 platforms, so it's going to be Windows Mobile plus Symbian or Access or their own Symbian/Linux variant. And it sounds like you're lining up behind Andrew in terms of the iPod direction for the iPhone. Probably a safe call.
Does anyone else think Palm can bring a new mobile OS option to the fore? I have my doubts - they have great hardware designers, but they've never really shown their chops in software user experience (those folks went to the Palm OS side of the split). Do you think they'll target the mass market and leave smartphones to Windows?
Honestly apple has always been close on integration with software and hardware.... I dont think apple will release an iPhone without its own proprietory mini OS anyway... there not going to take someone elses. I think the environment for apples smartphone is going to closely resemble that of OS X .... I broke my phone about 3 months ago... and im not getting nothing until this iphone comes out... whatever the cost.... I will have one... I really hope I can just swap the sims.... im really tired of having to wait 1 year to get a phone from the states available in canada... I think ill travel down there and pick one up
This is my dream iPhone:
1. Unlocked phone
2. Wifi & bluetooth
3. Instant Messenger
4. iSync
5. 2 to 3 megapixel camera
6. 4 to 8gb memory for: data / voice memo / mp3 /iTunes / Quicktime
7. 2.5 to 3" Screen
8. Each functions available with one button touch.
9. 12-14 hour battery life (w/ user replaceable battery).
Anything beyond these features would be icing on the cake for me.
Ever heard of Symbian? Nobhead.
I'd hope for a range of devices, from a Nano+phone+light games up to a smart phone. One prediction I do have is that even if it's not OS X-lite, they'll obviously use WebKit (already mobile) to deploy widgets onto a phone - widgets seem to be a perfect match for a phone level of functionality (i.e. display rather than interactivity centred).
I want a mobile OS that is visually appealing, has wide adoption (with business and consumer users), desktop integration, enterprise integration, and a great user experience.This sounds like a job for Apple, no?
Er, no. Take the title of this post, replace "iPhone" with "MacBook" and "Mobile" with "X for PCs":
Forget the MacBook - I want "MacOSX for PCs"
I believe the main argument for that being a bad idea are:
the supposed increased development and support costs (and reduction in quality) for supporting more varied hardwarethe limited market, i.e. the number of people who actually switch operating systemsthe supposed lower profit margins on software
Any reasons why these arguments don't apply to mobile devices just as much as PCs? (I'd suggest the second applies even more.)
The hype about the upcoming "iPhone" from Apple keeps harping on the hardware design that is sure to emanate from One Infinite Loop"
Really? A lot of the hype I've read already focuses on Apple's user interface design skills. We're all crying out for a phone that isn't a pain to use. We just assume that we'll only get the Apple UI goodness via new Apple hardware, just like, well, almost every other Apple product ever created.
Still, keep dreaming.
My apologies for offending Symbian fans by not mentioning it. I have used several Symbian devices, and I wouldn't consider it an ideal smartphone OS (at least not yet). I think they could be a contender, though - there seems to be a fairly deep bench behind Symbian, on both the technical and user experience front.
pauldwaite: If you're saying that it is futile to attempt to develop a multi-device mobile platform, I think you'd better talk to PalmSource/Access, Microsoft, and Symbian. They're neck-deep into this already, with their stuff running on multiple vendors' hardware. They haven't done a superb job at this, but they've definitely shown that it's at least feasible. I agree with you that it's a long shot for Apple to dive into this business model (as I stated in the piece), but I'd like to see them or someone like them try to get it Right.
>The mobile phone market doesn't need yet another innovative device design.
Yeah, and nobody needs more than 32k of ram.