Nokia/Symbian - Enough Hype!

Well that got your attention didn’t it! Don’t get me wrong, I think the announcement yesterday was good news. Symbian has needed to go Open Source for a while.

For one reason it can be a real pain to programme for. I know. I have hired developers, and good ones to do it and everything about Symbian, from the documentation (which we found was out of date) to the SDK/Tools which often never worked or took days to get running properly.

Making Symbian open source for developers means that it should become easier and quicker for developers to build, bug fix and solve problems by looking at example code and code built by others.

But realistically what does this mean for companies developing applications and most of all for the consumer - the most important part of the puzzle.

I was approached a little over 18 months ago by a third party to put together a team to build an application that turned the Nokia N95 into a personal safety device. I conducted a feasibility study and one area we looked hard at was whether to develop the application in Java (J2ME) or in Symbian. The Symbian OS is actually best described as a base that Series 60 or UIQ sits on because some parts of the Symbian OS are not complete - notice today that they announced that some component parts are licensed in so that’s one of the reasons its going to take so long to make this open source, those parts need to be either re written or make the third party join the table.

Theoretically once written in either Symbian or Java it should run on other devices that run that OS/version. The reality of this is that very rarely happens. Hence why every site in the world asks you what handset you use, so they can send the right version of the application for your handset.

Other business considerations come into play as well. Symbian is much more complicated to code than Java, so developers are more expensive and because of its complexity it takes longer the develop. They both equal more $$$$. In the end we went with Java, yes it was a close call and I’m not sure if my answer would be the same tomorrow - it really is an ever changing environment.

One question I have asked is what does this mean for Symbian Application Signing. Before an application comes to market it has to be signed. This is to certificate its use in a device. Even then some operators ask for further testing. There are a few reasons for this but one of the big reasons is to address security issues.

If you install a Trojan on a p.c., the damage is going to be in time, maybe critical information (but you have that backed up right?) but if an application is added to your phone, runs in the background without you knowing and is continually dialling or keeping live that line to an international sex line in Hong Kong then you will only know when the bill comes. Or perhaps the application sends an SMS to everyone in your address book and then installs to their phones as well. This is why an application is signed, it means that the application has reached a certain level of operation and that it is safe to deploy.

There are only 4 test houses you can get the application signed and after the initial fee which varies between $200 - $600 then there is a cost per unit to take into consideration. Again between $50-$100. John Forsyth, Leader of the Symbian Strategy Group pointed out to me that “for certain types of application it can be as low as $20″ and Ewan Spence over at the great All About Symbian has a good article on this.

The point though I am trying to make is this, the software may be open source but the cost to market isn’t. Open Source will attract a lot of one band developers and the costs to market is still prohibitive if the application is going run on 20 different handsets. As John rightly points out this is all in the ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t bucket’ and John adds a really good point that I hadn’t thought of - “I admit we still need to think from a global perspective: $20 is a rather different figure depending on whether you are a developer in the US or Europe vs being a developer in, say, the Philippines, where per capita income is about 1/30th of that in the US.”

I for one am happy that making an app Symbian signed shows that it has been tested and certified to be deployed, after all none of us want the world of PC viruses moving to mobile phones but its still a cost that has to be included in the development budget whether it’s open source or not.

Finally, I want to address one area which I think everyone has forgot, the consumer. What does it mean for him or her? They don’t care whether its open source or chocolate cake! They want a device that works, is not too complicated but at the same time does everything they want it to do and doesn’t cost a small loan to buy.

We were told at the press conference that this will lead to cheaper devices due to the cost of development falling and the licence now being free. But I’m not sure it is as black and white as this. OEM’s, Operators and others already pay money for support packages from Symbian. Is this really going to change? I don’t think so, so we will still see a cost to market and a cost to deploy and sell. I’m yet to be convinced that this is just something else to confuse the consumer. While we are all shouting this is major breakthrough in the development of mobile technology I think the question the consumer will really ask is this? Does that device come in blue?