Let’s talk about mobile tech

Now that I have had this post sitting in my ‘drafts’ section for some time now, I felt it was best to finally finish it. With the updated iPhone rumors, RIM slander, and Touchpad love/hate, I couldn’t see a better time to write. There has been an immense tug of war amongst blogs as of late, about the fate of certain companies, the superiority of certain mobile operating systems, and just the overall direction of mobile technology. Bloggers constantly reach for content, which is for the worst, because it ends up giving false speculation on current and upcoming products. Its okay folks, you don’t need to post something every single day.

Mobile technology appears to be transforming at a faster rate than it really is, it’s a smoke and mirrors effect due to the vast marketing efforts of competing companies. There is no truly superior platform, as each platforms users would like to suggest, there is only the superior platform for each individual. Everyone has their own needs, the handset and operating system that best addresses a single users needs is the best operating system for them. With that being said, let’s jump into each operating system and it’s OEMs to take a look at the true direction that our pocket-tech is taking us.

RIM — BlackBerry

RIM is currently being consistently ruled out, ‘open letters’ are being written by employees and publicly posted on popular blogs, and investors are jumping ship. Does this necessarily mean that the company is about to plummet? Simply put, no. What everyone seems to forget is that the only place that RIM is losing footing is in the USA; the company is thriving internationally due to the smaller data footprint, secure messaging features, and corporate interoperability. The BlackBerry is still the corporate work horse and will be for some time, due to the already-implemented BES systems and system control that corporate administrators are able to achieve. This is a system that will be required to be phased out, it’s not a transition that will be overtaken overnight. Due to this, it gives RIM the ability to further develop QNX as a mobile platform and push out new devices that will have both corporate and personal appeal; BES services may cost companies more to maintain, but I see that also changing as technology adapts and their competitors continue to chip at their corporate market-share.

QNX as a whole is a fantastic backbone, as anyone can see on the Playbook, it has incredible potential for a handheld platform — to an extent. From what I’ve been told by Steve Troughton-Smith, a mobile application developer, QNX is only used on the back end, the front end is actually Adobe Flash based. This may be why it is taking RIM so long to release a hand-held variant of the operating system, while it looks good, and functions well, it may be a hindrance for a smaller package. While it’s a giant step forward from their current java-based platform, this may be a move that leads them into a similar position that they’re currently in, when Flash as a whole is phased out, a push that companies like Apple are attempting to make.

QNX is RIM’s wild card, it’s going to make or break their stand in the consumer market; while they’re struggle to maintain relevance, they aren’t currently sinking. RIM has yet to find themselves in the position Palm was in, I feel as if they may have found their savior before it was too late, especially seeing they already have sound relationships with carriers, they won’t be releasing a poorly-crafted product on an inferior network as their save-all.

HP — WebOS

Let me start this off by saying that WebOS has always been my favorite mobile operating system, I always felt it was unfortunate that it had such a terrible start due to it’s tremendous potential. I was one of the first to ever have hands-on time with the initial Palm Pre and WebOS offering by Palm, by gaining access to an advocates handset. I absolutely hated the Palm hardware, but the OS itself was magnificent. Palm was stuck in the past, their Palm OS platform was terrible compared to modern technology, there was no way for it to evolve and carry itself as a true contender. Palm was diminishing as a company and needed a savior, so they turned their focus to developing an all-new platform, WebOS.

WebOS as a platform is a winner, unfortunately for Palm, they took the operating system in the wrong direction. By attempting to do what Apple and RIM do, although it may have been the proper approach, it was poorly executed. Their hardware was a joke, it was cheap plastic, you could tell as soon as you picked up the handset that it just felt cheap. The keyboard was awful, it just wasn’t enjoyable to use. They also decided to make their sole launch carrier Sprint; I can see the ideology behind pairing up with another struggling company to attempt to keep you both afloat, but at that point, they needed to focus on their survival only. This cost them severely, to this day, I don’t know a single person that chooses to be on Sprint; if their prices weren’t so competitive, they’d probably lose every subscriber that isn’t an illegal immigrant. Their laxed credit policies and cheap rate plans are what keep them in business, but that’s neither here nor there, if Palm would have partnered with AT&T or Verizon, or even released on all carriers initially, they could have had a hit on their hands.

Palm thought they could essentially pull an Apple, how Apple formed their exclusivity agreement with AT&T and received portions of the rate plans as well as catapulting year-0ver-year sales. What they didn’t take into account was the following that Apple had prior to even releasing a mobile phone, Palm was starting from scratch, which is why they inevitably failed. Fortunately, WebOS lives on through HP, which recently ported it to a tablet form, and is soon releasing the Pre 3. While it still has a ways to go as a platform, it’s difficult to recover from the rough initial start and bad impressions of the hardware, I have hope in the platform.

I’d like to see WebOS licensed as a platform instead of maintained on HP-only hardware, let’s face it, HP was never a real mobile contender, even in the Windows Mobile days. If Microsoft wouldn’t have convinced Nokia to lock-in on their Windows Phone platform, I feel that WebOS would have been a perfect harmony with Nokia hardware. While licensing may push WebOS into the same fragmentation struggle that Android currently endures, I still believe it would be a better route for the platform than for HP to continue to refreshing an already abysmal handset just to carry the platform. That form-figure doesn’t give the platform the respect that it deserves. Not everyone wants a physical keyboard and not everyone wants a slider handset; give the user options, not a set-preface — the TouchPad shows what WebOS is capable of as a touch-only interface, let it shine.

Google — Android

Android is a fantastic operating system at it’s core, unfortunately it’s just a little confused in it’s current state. OEM’s such as HTC, Samsung, and LG continue to bastardize the operating system with their own skins which causes for a confusing, non-fluent user experience. If you give the same person an HTC Evo 3D and a Nexus S, they probably wouldn’t be aware that the handsets shared the same operating system. OEM’s try too hard to separate themselves and create a following for their products that it’s causing a real fragmentation struggle. This is where the upside to producing your own hardware, like Apple, HP, and RIM; you’re able to eliminate this problem entirely, due to the greater control, even though it may limit production and opportunities.

Due to the severe level of fragmentation, 90% of current handsets use a version of Android that isn’t current and will remain that way until the OEM decides to update it. Updates aren’t frequent and the user is forced to oblige due to the fact that there’s nothing that they can do other than sit and wait. The Nexus S debuted video-chat over Google Chat, it’s still currently the only handset that supports it, this is ridiculous. There’s no reason that there isn’t an easier way to update the back end with out jeopardizing the OEM skins. If you’re not willing to stop OEM’s from manipulating your product, you need to at least make updates possible behind the scenes. You shouldn’t tie your users hands because you’re not willing to take control of your operating system.

Outside of the fragmentation struggle, Android is a fantastic operating system with a tremendous future. The platform is next to none if your life evolves around Google, as mine does. Every Google-related application is superior to all other devices due to the fact that it’s their product. This is great for the majority of consumers, because let’s face it, who doesn’t use GMail in 2011? Even corporations are transitioning from Microsoft Exchange to Google Apps just because it’s more cost-effective, controls are simpler, and it just works. If Google is able to take control of their product and eliminate the fragmentation issues, find a way for all devices to get current, timely updates, they have a real power-house on their hands. Sure they already have a strong market share, but compared to what it’s capable of achieving, they still have a long, steep road ahead.

Microsoft — Windows Phone

Another company that was forever stuck in the past, not only with their mobile platform, but their desktop platform as well. Microsoft has never adapted well with change, although they — like Palm — realized they needed to act fast if they wanted to continue to partake in the mobile sector. They finally scrapped the over-re-used platform that Windows Mobile 6.5 was and started from scratch, this donned Windows Phone 7. While my initial impressions of the platform were far from great, I still feel that it has potential. It may be visually different, whether that is good or bad is up to the user, but once Mango drops I’d love to give it another chance.

The difficulty with creating a new platform is finding support for it, consumers want a plethora of applications, if you’re unable to provide a solid ‘App Store’ at launch, the struggle to gain support is immediate. Windows Phone launched with similar hardware partners to Android, Microsoft wanted to license the product and do what they feel they do best, which is software; which is debatable in itself, but that’s an entirely different rant/editorial. They introduced a tile interface that wrapped around a ‘metro’ interface. While all-new looks and system-navigation’s were created, it still maintains a Microsoft touch.

Now that Microsoft has found a way to strong-arm Nokia into signing an exclusivity deal with their hardware, to help bail them out of their Symbian struggle, Microsoft will finally have unparalleled hardware. Everyone is always looking to compare everyone’s phone to the iPhone, Nokia hardware has and always will be the only thing that will be capable of comparing to what Apple produces. This should lead to an interesting future for the platform, starting with the release of Mango. Microsoft just reached a mile-stone with their app catalog and are seeing significant growth, which will continue as Nokia transitions, due to their foreign market-share. I’m looking forward to where this leads, I’m not a fan of Microsoft products, but I feel that they have a real contender on their hands as it continues to evolve.

Apple — iOS

I saved this for last because it’s always everyone’s ‘glory’ device, as if it were the Lord’s penis reincarnated as a mobile device. Yes, it is currently a highly-dominant platform, due to all of Apple’s industry firsts that drew in consumers and developers alike. There is no platform as profitable as iOS, this is why there are so many developers producing quality applications. It will be difficult for a competitor to ever achieve the quality of applications that iOS offers due to the head start that Apple has had, the fluidity of the operating system is a great help to this. Applications just look good and run well, the entire platform is developed around user-friendliness.

By Apple creating and maintaining their own hardware, they’re able to offer advantages over their competitors. The services you’re able to receive from Apple stores, for example. If you’re having issues with your handset, you take it in and exchange it on the spot, there’s no need to mail anything, or wait to have a working phone. They’re also able to negate fragmentation by offering simultaneous updates for all variants of iOS devices simultaneously; when you control the hardware, you control what version of the operating system it runs. There aren’t a multitude of display resolutions, everything is consistent.

The reason Apple is capable of having such a strong hold on the market is because they consistently release a product that just works and is enjoyable to use. It may not have the deep levels of integration that competitor platforms offer, but that doesn’t stop people from buying it. Apple will continue to not only revolutionize, but steal and improve features from other operating systems to improve upon their own. There’s nothing wrong with that, by perfecting something already available, you give the end-user a greater experience. There’s no reason to consistently re-invent the wheel when there is current technology that is capable of being re-tooled.

Apple was able to leverage their existing products like other companies are incapable of, it’s rare to find someone that doesn’t use iTunes or use an iPod, by integrating both into a phone, they were bound to have a hit. Not only did they have an initial hit, they continued to perfect it to a point that left users asking ‘what could possibly be improved?’. Even though hardware upgrades may be incremental with Apple, releasing refreshes every other year instead of entirely new handsets, the refresh is always enough of an improvement to get the majority of it’s consumers to jump ship for the latest and greatest. There is a lot of behind the scenes ingenuity that competitors could learn from how Apple operates, you don’t need to release a handset every two-months to maintain relevance in today’s market, you just need one or two devices that are capable of holding their own, regardless what another company may release.

Wrap up

While each individual operating system has it’s own user-base and following, there are as many similarities as there are differences amongst them. As far as I’m concerned, we’re in a technological grid-lock in terms of what direction mobile devices may take in the near and distant future. When you break everything down, you see that it’s a constant evolution, someone could come out of left-field tomorrow with a new platform that no one has ever heard of and it could be a hit, there’s just no knowing what’s next.

Each individual platform will continue to maintain its set strengths while trying to create new ones as a form of adaptation and attempt to steal consumers. When you move past marketing gimmicks and novelty technology such as 3D, at the core of the battle, each company is working diligently to come out on top, which does nothing but benefit us as consumers. We’ll always have new options, we’re able to sift through a plethora of devices to find that one handset that works best for us. Change and options are a good thing, there’s no reason to bash someone for the phone that they use, or to bash a company for their business model; not everyone needs to conform to the same process, everyone can take something from each other to perfect their ways of business; but if everyone operated in a similar fashion, we’d be stuck in a monotony of never-evolving products.

While I wanted to address carrier wars and the constant 4G battle, I just didn’t see it as being relevant as of yet. The common consumer doesn’t know the difference between LTE, HSPA+, or WiMax; this makes the Android leverage of the ’4G’ factor less-relevant. Most users pick a phone that does what they need done the best, not because of how fast their data speeds are when it isn’t noticeable on mobile browsing. This falls under my aforementioned ‘marketing gimmick’ stipulation. If Apple and AT&T proved anything, it’s that the handset is more relevant than the service provided.