tote_b5 | 22 April, 2008 02:50
I've just finished knitting the brows after reading it in the news that IBM launches an initiative
that has something to do with the mobile world. "It seems", I thought,
"that there's so much money in mobile business that even the Big Blue could not resist".
But
now I'm totally down on the floor with the idea of having more than
one, potentially completely different, operating systems on the same
device. I've just read that Motorola invests in VirtualLogix, Inc. whose "VirtualLogix
VLX enables multiple operating system environments to run concurrently
on shared hardware and provides a range of performance, fault tolerance
and security options to address specific market requirements".
In
my opinion, the whole solution abounds with challenges. Technically,
from usability/business point of view, whatever. The thing is that each
member of the value chain must learn/tackle something new. For example,
- Device manufacturers must be prepared for having to integrate such hardware elements in the same device that enable multiple operating systems to run in parallel also considering the cost of virtualization (in terms of time, but money-wise, too). These pieces of hardware must give the best performance so that the user experience is constantly good on all platforms.
For example, whilst a ~500MHz CPU performs well on a Windows
Mobile-powered device, it's a dual 330MHz CPU that gives the same
performance on an Nokia N95 8GB. Of course, this applies not only to
the CPU, but to memory, persistent storage, etc., too. Thus, hardware costs will definitely be higher than for regular phones.
- Of course, there will be a constant fight for giving the same performance as on a normal device and also keep the price of the device as low as possible. As to software vendors,
- Writers of guest operating systems (each operating system will be guest, by the way) must prepare for a new challenge, namely that scarce system resources will become even busier and harder to get access to.
- Some
weird situations could also occur, for example, when a resident
background application would be waiting for an incoming call, which
would eventually be "stolen" by another virtual device with a higher
priority.
- In addition, it would result in a much better user
experience if commonly used resources, such as persistent storage, were
shared. For example, the file system:
- One use case would be to allow the user to seamlessly move files between OSes.
- Another to allow browser applications of the same type running on different platforms (e.g. based on WebKit on Android and S60) to share cookies, forms data, etc.
- On
the other hand, mobile OS vendors should be careful about what they
would give access to: a secure platform cannot afford making a security
hole by letting other platforms access sensitive shared files (such as
DRM-protected content) unless a satisfactory level of protection is
applied.
- I'm not sure as to how network operators could
be affected by the introduction of a multi-OS mobile device other than
having to adjust something in their administration system. Oh yeah, a
seamingly not so important question: branding should apply to ALL operating systems
running on the same device. Anyway, I think these issues would be less
important and easier to solve than the challenges described above.
- Not necessarily a content provider issue, but it rather concerns the content consumer
who would not like to pay for the same content twice in order to be
able to use it on the same device, but on a different platform. For
example, I wouldn't like to pay again for an MP3 music that I've
already downloaded to my Windows Mobile device, but would like to
listen to it now on my S60 phone (remember, we're talking about the
same phone!).
- Finally, the user:
I think the experience, as such, would be new to the user. The feeling
that she can choose which device she'd like to work with today.
However, it's uncertain at what price this feeling would come: in terms
of user experience, reliability, price of the device, etc.
Personally,
I think it's not the right time to introduce such an advanced
technology, not as if it was a question now. When smartphones are still
often considered as a
toy used by mobile geeks, when most people still want to use them
only for voice calls and text messages, when
enterprise infrastructures rely on/users committed to either Windows Mobile or Symbian, but not both - there is simply
no business demand and serious reason to hurry. It must be a long-term plan, though I still wonder if/how/when it will work out.
Originally from mobile-thoughts.blogspot.com.
My two cents,
Tote
tote_b5 | 11 April, 2008 16:24
Though I've already heard that
Windows Mobile SDK offers true phone emulation,
however, only now have I got to the point that I ask for your opinion:
why cannot we do the same during Symbian software development?
Note
that you might have also heard that iPhone developers can also rely on
this useful service. Nevertheless, don't forget to bear in mind that
they must be working on the same platform, i.e. MacIntosh OSX. That is,
there's not too much to emulate there.
But Windows Mobile is
different: you develop on Windows presumably on an x86 architecture and
produce binary code for another processor architecture (ARM) that you
can even debug on. How? Why on Earth cannot we do the same?
Tote
tote_b5 | 10 April, 2008 16:13
Very interesting
patent from
Apple (thanks to
Unwired View), I wonder how it would work in practice.
Generally
I can see it's a viable idea, however, also wondering how roaming
charges can compete with any networks' own tariff. I understand that
there would be a competition between available network operators,
however, roaming charges still remain roaming charges.
Tote