PalmOS, Symbian, Windows Mobile, Linux

I have a couple questions for the group.

1) What are the pros and cons of each of these operating systems?

2) Which of these PDA/Smartphone operating systems is the most likely
to be the dominant player in the portable computing market 3 years from
now and why?

-Jonathan

---

› See More: PalmOS, Symbian, Windows Mobile, Linux

[email protected] wrote:
> I have a couple questions for the group.
>
> 1) What are the pros and cons of each of these operating systems?
>
> 2) Which of these PDA/Smartphone operating systems is the most likely
> to be the dominant player in the portable computing market 3 years from
> now and why?
>
> -Jonathan
>
1)
PalmOS lacks development drive. PalmOS 5 seems to be static and no
company seems to be licencing PalmOS 6. PalmOS 5 lacks solid multitasking.
Technologically the other three are stronger - proper multitasking
kernal's and presumably better hardware abstraction.

2) Windows Mobile (or it's successor) will be the dominant player simply
because of Microsoft's marketing drive and advertising budget. The other
three do not have enough money behind them.

For interest my PDA history:
Psion II -> Psion 3a -> Psion 5 -> Palm V -> Palm M505 -> Palm T3 ->
Palm Lifedrive.
But I am still betting on Microsoft!

Regards,
Keith

Palm OS is virtually dead. Palm source is focusing it's efforts on Linux
based systems. Symbian is still the dominant player by far but will likely
suffer the dreaded installed base curse. (E.g First you pray for an install
base, then you curse it.) In order to keep up with the latest cool stuff -
after all that's what is selling phones since they all do, you know, "phone
things" - it's the extras that are growing in sales. The Symbian OS was
never designed for that sort of thing. I think industry is gearing up for a
new battle between MS and PalmSource with it's Linux based offerings,
assuming they can get their act together and create a workable business
model based on Linux.

--
Steve Maillet
EmbeddedFusion
www.EmbeddedFusion.com
smaillet at EmbeddedFusion dot com

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I have a couple questions for the group.
>
> 1) What are the pros and cons of each of these operating systems?

It depends on what you want to do. You also left out RIM (BlackBerry) which
is its own OS/UI.

PalmOS: dominant PDA in the US. Really good as of several years ago with the
PDA application. Not a lot of uptake on mobile phones.

Symbian: high-end phone US used by Nokia, SonyEricsson and others. I've
never seen it in a non-phone PDA. Not a bad 32-bit C++ environment.
Development environment based on Borland tools and others. Mostly C++. Best
for high-end phone stuff (sync, etc.), especially where you are buying apps,
not writing.

Windows Mobile: offshoot of the lightweight Windows CE portable environment.
Heavy on CPU and RAM requirements. Great development environment, if you
like the Microsoft toolset (some do, some don't, some for technical reasons,
some for religious reasons). Easiest to develop for, especially for new
programmers or light apps. C++, C#, VB. If you're syncing to Windows Server
stuff (SQL, Exchange) a slam dunk.

Linux: darling of the ABM (anything but Microsoft) crowd. Low licensing cost
(free, that is). High ram and CPU cost (for a phone). Easy to program, in
everything from PERL to C++ and ANYTHING in between. Not a lot of phone
apps. Haven't seen it much in a phone or PDA, but in a lot of appliances
(TiVo, EMPEG car radios, MP3 players, firewalls, routers, etc.). Great for
alternative desktops (if you don't need MS Office and OpenOffice meets your
needs), servers or network appliances.

RIM BlackBerry: best UI I've seen for handheld email. Absolutely second to
none. If Symbian (or other Nokia phones) license the RIM email package, turn
out the lights on Symbian UI development as well as RIM hardware. That could
be a winning combination. Haven't seen any custom apps on BlackBerry, but
believe they have a developer's kit.

> 2) Which of these PDA/Smartphone operating systems is the most likely
> to be the dominant player in the portable computing market 3 years from
> now and why?

#1 Microsoft: they have an annoying tendency to win in the end. Because they
have an almost unlimited pot of cash, and, if they believe it's strategic,
they keep plugging away at it until they get something that sells. They
understand usability. But, stretching the Windows metaphor to the phone
really makes it hard to use. They also have the tie in with development
software (Visual Studio), servers and the dominant commercial email software
(Exchange/Outlook).

#2 RIM BlackBerry: currently the market leader in 'executive jewelry'. They
have a nagging lawsuit that anything could come out of. Might move to being
a software supplier, if they partner with Nokia. Also, rumored in that past
that Microsoft might acquire. Fairly good integration with Exchange and
Lotus Notes.

#3 Linux: as hardware and RAM get cheaper and draw less power, the
disadvantage of Linux will drop. The licensing cost ($0) is a real advantage
in mass market. Still have to develop a unique phone UI for each
manufacturer, as well as a phone device driver.

#4 Symbian: I'd like to put it higher, as I carry a Series 60 phone (Nokia
6620) and like it a lot. Download a lot of apps (most developed in Europe).
Nokia is the main backer of Symbian, and their support seems to come and go.
Still only shipping Symbian on about 40% of the European phone models, and
25% of the US ones (not sure about market share). Nokia's also rumored to be
talking with RIM about licensing BlackBerry s/w for phones - not sure what
that means.

#5 PalmOS: Latest announcement of Treo running Windows means that PalmOS is
walking dead. Expect it to be gone from marketplace in two years, except
possibly as very low end standalone PDA.

>
> -Jonathan
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jim Burks" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Symbian: high-end phone US used by Nokia, SonyEricsson and others. I've
> never seen it in a non-phone PDA.

Symbion was the OS for the Psion 3, 5 and Revo--the best designed PDA's
I know of, and for a while a serious competitor to Palm.

I've been referring to the Nokia 9300 as "Son of Psion."

--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com

Steve Maillet (eMVP) wrote:
> In order to keep up
> with the latest cool stuff - after all that's what is selling phones
> since they all do, you know, "phone things" - it's the extras that
> are growing in sales. The Symbian OS was never designed for that sort
> of thing.

Just curious, what is this extra stuff you can do with for example a Windows
Mobile 5.0 phone you can't do with a Symbian phone? I have one HTC Qtek 8310
running on WM 5.0 Smartphone here, so I can try for myself. If I compare
this to a Nokia's Symbian phone, both are able to:

- read / send email (IMAP4, POP3, SMTP)
- browse the web (e.g. Opera)
- sync calendar and contacts with MS Outlook
- take pictures and videos
- listen to MP3/WMA music
- chat realtime or with instant messages (ICQ, MSN etc.)
- make video phone calls

> I think industry is gearing up for a new battle between MS
> and PalmSource with it's Linux based offerings, assuming they can get
> their act together and create a workable business model based on
> Linux.

Windows Mobile 5.0 is still too difficult for ordinary consumers and devices
are too expensive too, but I believe WM will be getting customers in
enterprises. Currently Symbian has about 85% and Windows Mobile about 12%
market share in smartphones in Western Europe. I believe Microsoft could get
around 25% if they play their cards right.

--
Tero Lehto
http://lehto.net/tero/

I'm talking from a software development perspective. UI and usability issues
are all aided or constrained by that in any system.

--
Steve Maillet
EmbeddedFusion
www.EmbeddedFusion.com
smaillet at EmbeddedFusion dot com

Steve Maillet (eMVP) wrote:
> I'm talking from a software development perspective. UI and usability
> issues are all aided or constrained by that in any system.

In that aspect I agree 100%. I've been involved in a mobile software
development project where the Symbian (C++) application took about six
months work of three people, whereas exactly the same features were built in
a couple of days using .NET CF and targeted for all sorts of WM 2003 SE
terminals (both Pocket PC and Smartphone).

But as this is a consumer service, low installed base of WM terminals means
it's bad/no business.

Do you have any insight into or opinion about why Microsoft hasn't still
been able to transfer their strength in development tools to gaining
significant market share in mobile devices?

--
Tero Lehto
http://lehto.net/tero/

"David Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ddfr-
> Symbion was the OS for the Psion 3, 5 and Revo--the best designed PDA's
> I know of, and for a while a serious competitor to Palm.
>
> I've been referring to the Nokia 9300 as "Son of Psion."

Wasn't the OS still EPOC at those days (Psion 3 etc)?
Turned into Symbian when the bigger players (Ericsson, Symbian) took over.

I think Psion has had very little (or nothing) to do with Symbian OS 7 or
later (so including 9300 also).

-A

Lack of developers in this area doesn't help the market. Also there is
no MS certification specific to mobile apps developers on this
platform. These things really hinder capturing a market. They need
the developers behind them and this market is growing rapidly. The
other thing that really doesn't help is the lack of support from the
device manufacturers such as HTC and lack of access to some of the
underlying device API's. But hopefully this will be resolved in the
future.

The other problem with device development is the number of hoops that
developers have to jump through to actually get software out into the
public domain for WM devices. First you develop the app. Then if you
are a good developer you get it tested and certified to MS standards.
Then before you can release it if it uses any connectivity such as GPRS
etc then you have to get it certified for use by each mobile provider
eg Orange, O2, Vodafone. It's not easy to satisfy all groups all the
time.

Alle wrote:
> "David Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-
>
>>Symbion was the OS for the Psion 3, 5 and Revo--the best designed PDA's
>>I know of, and for a while a serious competitor to Palm.
>>
>>I've been referring to the Nokia 9300 as "Son of Psion."
>
>
> Wasn't the OS still EPOC at those days (Psion 3 etc)?
> Turned into Symbian when the bigger players (Ericsson, Symbian) took over.
>
> I think Psion has had very little (or nothing) to do with Symbian OS 7 or
> later (so including 9300 also).
>
> -A
>
>
Psion split into Psion who did the hardware and Symbian who did the
software (like PalmOne/PalmSource). My assumption is that the Symbian OS
is an evolution of EPOC32 which was the OS for the Psion 5. I thought
the Psion 3 used EPOC16 (which may or may not be a different beast).
Anyone confirm or deny my assumptions?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Alle" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "David Friedman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-
> > Symbion was the OS for the Psion 3, 5 and Revo--the best designed PDA's
> > I know of, and for a while a serious competitor to Palm.
> >
> > I've been referring to the Nokia 9300 as "Son of Psion."
>
> Wasn't the OS still EPOC at those days (Psion 3 etc)?
> Turned into Symbian when the bigger players (Ericsson, Symbian) took over.

Judging by a little googling, you seem to be correct. EPOC release 5 was
waht the 5 and Revo ran on. Symbion v. 6 was the next release, sometimes
referred to as ER6.

The numbering suggests, however, that it was a name change, not a shift
to a new OS.

> I think Psion has had very little (or nothing) to do with Symbian OS 7 or
> later (so including 9300 also).

I don't know about development involvement, but Psion didn't sell its
stake in Symbian until after v 7 was released.

--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com

One also needs to consider that currently, most smart phones are
actually 2 units in the same cabinet. This is a must for palm and
microsoft based interfaces sicne their OS is not able to do hard real time.

EPOC-32 was originally marketed as being able to do this, but I am not
sure if any phone was ever built with EPOC/Symbian actually running the
phone itself.

Linux, from what I have been told, doesn't have hard real time
capabilities, but can be configured to do a pretty good approximation.


On the other hand, what is not clear to me is whether the USA vs intl
mobile standards (CDMA vs GSM vs UMTS (3G GSM)) require different
hardware or whether a software change alone is sufficient to change a
handset from one protocol to another. If they require different
hardware, then combining the phone into the UI may not be desirable.

But if the same hardware can be used to drive any telephone standard,
handset manufacturer may wish to have an OS that can handle both the UI
and the telephone which woudl allow them to simplify the handset
hardware and thus lower costs.

--------

On the other hand, the marketing department may dictate that having the
microsoft logo on the handset is a must and thus throw out any economic
or technical considerations.

Keef wrote:
> Psion split into Psion who did the hardware and Symbian who did the
> software (like PalmOne/PalmSource). My assumption is that the Symbian OS
> is an evolution of EPOC32 which was the OS for the Psion 5. I thought
> the Psion 3 used EPOC16 (which may or may not be a different beast).
> Anyone confirm or deny my assumptions?



the original EPOC, which ran on SIBO hardware platform was 16 bits. It
ran on the Series 3 as well as a bunch of industrial devices.

Then PSION set out to build a totally new 32 bit OS designed to be able
to run on phones. It created a new subsidiary called Psion Software and
released what was called EPOC-32. Then, PSION convinced mobile makers to
buy into it and Psion Software became Symbian with PSION retaining about
a 20% share in it. This was done at a time when EPOC32 was still
unfinished (versions 1.0). It took many years for the prpmosed features
to appear n the form of the ER5 version which, contrary to early
promises, was not available to the Series 5 owners.

Following this, no more work was done by Symbian on behalf of PSION and
Symbian was able to start doing real work on EPOC32 , now called Symbian
OS and started a pretty huge transformation process of the OS, adding
many features which PSION had refused to support (such as file converters).

And in recent year/years, PSION sold its shares in SYMBIAN to Nokia and
bought into some company Teklogix which makes industrial devices based
on Windows/DOS. The SYMBIAn OS is now totally independant of PSION and
majority owned by NOKIA. Some of the early adopters of EPOC32 such as
Motorola have produced non-Symbian based phones since this. So it isn't
a given that shareholeders of Symbian produce all their phones based on
Symbian OS.

David Friedman wrote:
> I don't know about development involvement, but Psion didn't sell its
> stake in Symbian until after v 7 was released.

Psion ceased its interference with Symbian once ER5 was released. It
sold its shares much later, once it was possible to sell them at a
profit. Between the initial released of EPOC32 and ER5, there was a long
gap (2-3 years) which has never been explained. During this time,
Symbian did nothing significant.

PSION just changed the CPU and found slightly better LCds wben it
upgraded the Series 5 to 5mx and got ER5 installed to support the
featues that had been promised when the Sries 5 was released. (just as Java).

Note that EPOC32/Symbian versiosn produced for hansets were compiled
with UTF character set support, whereas the PSION devices just has
microsoft's proprietary deviation from ISO-LATIN1 character set support.
So applications on one won't work on the other because of the different
character sets even if the OS is the same.