Ubuntu phone?

It looks like an Ubuntu phone is going to see the light of day. While I really want to see this launch be a success, the description of the phone by BBC News has me less than blisteringly hopeful. And not because the offering is a low-end device. Rather, it's because the phone won't have the most valuable distinctive feature promised by the platform--conversion to desktop mode when hooked up to external devices--and it will place front and center a largely app-less Scopes UI--which seems to try to be different mostly for the sake of creating some kind of distinction.

I think history has shown that different for different sake doesn't work out well in crowded, high-tech consumer markets. Different in and of itself doesn't offer the user value. In fact, different in and of itself represents friction for the user, a friction that something of greater value must overcome--be it improved performance, better usability, increased visceral appeal (with longevity), or useful new features. In addition, the problems of being different are amplified when when it comes from an upstart that lacks the marketing muscle to boom-crash-firework users into thinking it's not what it really is.

Yes, you need product distinction to succeed in a crowded market. But it has to be a distinction that represents value, not novelty. Inaugurating the platform with  a product that's crippled in the way this one is may forever give the platform a bad reputation--which would suck.

Then again, maybe Scopes solves a problem I didn't realize I had. Which would be pretty cool.

The first Tizen phone

TechCrunch, Ars Technica, Gizmodo, and The Verge today have sizable articles discussing the the first Tizen-powered phone to hit the market: the Samsung Z.

The range of tone and angles in the articles is fascinating. They also aptly demonstrate my third law of the Internet: For every opinion, there is an equal and opposite opinion. For example, The Verge says, "The phone will have a major disadvantage right out of the gate--[it] won't have access to the vast ecosystem of Android apps that has been built up over recent years." But TechCrunch reports, "The Z will include access to a Tizen app store, which means buyers can expect a few thousand native apps. [The] Open Mobile application compatibility later [sic] will enable the handset to run Android apps too."

I wasn't expecting anyone would actually ever bring a Tizen-powered phone to market, so I haven't been following development of this open-source mobile OS. But I will now be doing so and am wishing the phone well.

Firefox OS falling into the OEM trap?

Marty Eich over on RootzWiki deals with an issue that I mentioned in my previous post--namely that "open" in the mobile OS space has so far mostly been implemented as "open" for handset makers and carriers but not for end-users. Marty points out is that Firefox OS might have started pursuing this model as well, and that makes him (and me) uncomfortable.

I understand that without manufacturer and carrier interest any new mobile OS will be dead in the water, but let's not lose sight of the need to have a platform that's open for the end user. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive!

Why we need another smartphone OS

I'm going to step a little out of character in this post and respond to what might be nothing more than trolling. And in so doing I will probably engage in some myself. I am referring to a piece run on CNET today that asserts, "No, we don't really need another smartphone OS."

The work reads not unlike a piece of corporate protectionist propaganda, serving up the familiar, "It will be impossible for any newcomer to the mobile OS space to gain critical mass so they just better not try," stuff we've heard before. So, there's really nothing new in the content. What is new, or at least noteworthy, is the claim to address whether we need another smartphone OS--rather than how difficult a task it would be to build one--something that it pretty much fails to do. It entirely avoids the megaton gorilla that is the reason why we do need another OS: we currently lack a credible, open mobile platform. iOS is nowhere close to having any semblance of open; Android is effectively open only for vendors (not users)--and even then the OHA limits what you can do; and to the best of my knowledge Microsoft's and RIM's efforts are completely closed.

The rebuttal to the above is that, "Users don't actually care about open/free/libre/whateverness." And indeed this might be true. But it doesn't diminish the need for it. Honestly, I wonder if the titans of tech journalism are functionally concerned with the requirements of a healthy computing sociology or whether they are content acting merely as industrial spokespeople.

Jolla's Sailfish: MeeGo resurrected

Looks like today is mobile OS day. A little earlier I posted about my kindling interest in Firefox OS, and now I just read stories on Slashdot and Engadget  about Jolla's pending release of their MeeGo-based Sailfish operating system.

While sources claim Jolla's efforts are open source, I'm concerned about a line from a source linked to in the Slashdot article that states, "Jolla's plans will not include open sourcing [Sailfish's] user interface layer that it is building on top of the operating system platform." Which, of course, means that whatever Jolla ships won't be FOSS. At this point I have no idea if the non-FOSS UI layer is simply widget styling and branding (not a deal breaker) or something more crucial (potentially a deal-breaker). I hope to see this clarified soon.

An interesting difference/similarity between Firefox OS and Jolla is their marketing strategies. While Firefox OS seems to be targeting Sino-centric markets only obliquely (by targeting low-end hardware), Sailfish is targeting Chinese handsets directly. Just how this plays out globally will be interesting to watch.

Penguin meets canine: Firefox OS

I was originally somewhat dismissive of Mozilla's Firefox OS (née Boot to Gecko) as just a Google Chrome OS wannabe, but I've read a few things recently that suggest it's a platform with some good ideas that might actually gain some traction. While there seems to be limited buzz about it in $illyValley, and some are predicting very low penetration next year, I want to be optimistic that it will develop into a platform with some relevance.

I'm attracted to Firefox OS because unlike Google Chrome OS or Android it's all open all over the place, and unlike webOS it actually has institutional backing.*

FfOS's strategy is to target low-end smartphones and featurephones--a place that iOS will likely never go and where Android is going with only limited usability success. In addition to phones, I am wondering if FfOS might also be applicable to general embedded device development. Qt+QML seems to do nicely in this space, but I am more than slightly concerned about the future of Qt since being dumped by Nokia. webOS seems a good candidate for embedded work as well--as long as you subscribe to the webOS UI paradigm.

In any case, it's always nice to have viable alternatives, so I'll be rooting (!) for the ruddy canine.

*Looks like I might be wrong about this.