Convergence Conversation

Open and shut case - the future for mobile is open

Open source is a force on the server and a force on the desktop. The vast majority of Web servers, for example, run an open source operating system, server, database and programming language, known as the LAMP bundle. And on the desktop, we have things like the Ubuntu (Linux) operating system, Firefox browser, Open Office, Java, Jabber instant messenger, VLC media player and thousands more.

Open source is far more prevalent than most people know, and that's if they understand what open source is in the first place. The VLC media player has, for example, been downloaded over 200 million times.

Now the mobile is the new PC. And there are many parallels between the way in which it is evolving and the way in which PCs evolved. Let's focus here on the operating system.

The contenders for mobile operating system of the 21st Century include Symbian, OS X iPhone, Android, Linux based LiMo, Blackberry OS, Windows Mobile, and BREW. Other options are typically Linux variants (just like Android and LiMo).

Of these, LiMo started life open. Google stated their intent to open source Android, and have done so, albeit not quite to the satisfaction of open source purists. They still need to open source the software developer kit (SDK) for example.

In 2008, the Symbian Ltd. majority shareholder, Nokia, bought out the other shareholders (Ericsson, Sony Ericsson, Panasonic and Samsung) and then promptly announced the formation of the Symbian Foundation "to create an unparalleled open source software platform for converged mobile devices".

The other mobile OS remain proprietary, but can they survive in the long run against the incredible community power of open source? Take OS X iPhone for example. There is no denying that the iPhone was a 'game changer'. Whilst possibly not the best phone, it is an awesome personal Internet connected computing device.

But if you want a mobile ecosystem to thrive, then you need to be ulta-friendly to the software developer community. To a small extent, you are already starting on the back foot versus open souce by saying, effectively:

"no, sorry, you can't see the code, but here's a tightly defined restricted way we want you to develop please, and here's a rather stiff legal contract, and by the way you have to share part of your revenue with us."

 So you'd think Apple would do anything and everything it could, well except for opening up, to make developers happy. Unfortunately, they are not.

According to AppleInsider, "many developers are pulling their hair out by the roots" as the process for having Apple staffers rubber stamp things has stretched out from days to months. Ars Techica reports that "Apple seems to be caught flat-footed and unprepared for the upcoming deluge of developer renewals for its iPhone program".

It's problems like this that helps Informa Telecoms and Media conclude that Symbian will be number 1, Android number 2, and OS X iPhone number 3 in 2012.

As a geek, I am drawn to the compelling arguments for open source, at least for 'foundational' software such as operating systems and browsers. But the market won't be swung by geeks... I have tried to explain open source to my next door neighbour but it's clear the mass market couldn't care less. The proof then is the pudding. Does an open community end up creating a more enticing end-user experience. Yes, then open source will win out. No, then it won't.

Right now, it's clear that Apple isn't helping itself.