Open operating systems, for most folks, means that the operating system is essentially free. The average computer user knows that Linux is free, as in beer, while Windows costs money. The case is the same for mobile OSes although, until very recently, the idea of purposely using an open OS has been a fairly nebulous concept.
To be clear open mobile OSes have been around for years, starting most prominently with the QTopia project that ran on ARM hardware found in many PDAs and phones. The Linux kernel plays well with almost any platform, making it ideal for small installations.
With the announcement of an “open” version of Symbian coming soon, let’s take a look at what open means to the average consumer.
Android - Google’s smartphone OS is probably about as open as you can get. It’s designed to run on almost any hardware and includes a fully open and free UI complete with source code. It costs nothing for carriers to use and if, if used in its official form, simply brings Google apps and content to the fore at opportune times. To the average consumer Android should be able to add smartphone functionality to a number of odd devices, including phones that once depended on proprietary, no-name operating systems like the Motorola RAZR.
iPhone OSX - iPhone’s OSX uses a Mach kernel which, like Linux, is fairly open and well-document. Unlike Linux, however, the price of the iPhone’s kernel is bundled into the cost of the actual phone and cannot be sold to third parties. The SDK or programming tools for the OS, however, are quite popular and are free. This ensures that programmers can harness the full power of the OS without having to dig too deeply into the core. As a whole, OS X is as close to being open as you can get without really being “open” and fully cross-platform.
Windows Mobile – Windows Mobile is a closed operating system. The common user interface remains unchanged across devices, however, third-party applications can be developed by writing programs using software like Visual C++. Windows Mobile also makes use of the .NET Compact Framework, which is similar to the .NET Framework found on Windows-based PCs.
Symbian – Currently, the Symbian operating system is not classified as open source, although with Nokia’s recent announcement, it will soon be available under the royalty-free Eclipse Public License. As it stands now, though, handset manufacturers that make use of the Symbian operating system are only provided with certain parts of the source code. It is expected to be fully opened up within the next two years. Symbian is the most widely used smartphone operating system in the world today.
As a whole, OS X is as close to being open as you can get without really being “open” and fully cross-platform.
——————————–
Surely this is very far from true. You cant even execute code on the iPhone without Apple’s permission, and the license of the SDK is as closed as they come, even forbidding open source software I believe.
e.g.
With the release of Apple’s SDK, the development community has come to the rude awakening that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be with its restricted features, hidden methods, and heavy distribution scrutiny. Nobody had imagined that a development platform would be so heavily DRMed, but it looks like the linker even includes DRM from crt.o. Where does this leave developers? Well, it looks like it’s impossible (without hacks at least) to build anything with the Apple SDK that is DRM-free, possibly requiring approval from Apple just to run once the production builds hit iPhones.
http://www.zdziarski.com/papers/iphone.html
As a whole, OS X is as close to being open as you can get without really being “open” and fully cross-platform.
This sentence doesn’t make any sense. By this definition, the Windows based devices are also “open”. The fact is OS X, like Windows, is NOT open source and so should not be considered in the same league as either the forthcoming Symbian, Android or the ones you apparently forgot to cover, LiMo and OpenMoko.
I guess it depends on what the meaning of “open” is, er, is is. Ok, nevermind. The battleground of the future, even for enterprises. Mobile workforce, hello! So its a game of open in the sense that its readily accessible and simple/flexible for others to contribute without fear/concern/care of ownership, right? At least Google entering directly to the fray with Android (once they get it right) really should be an interesting match vs. Win Mobile. Kinda like Sharapova vs. Ivanovic — now THATs interesting.
“Symbian is the most widely used OS in the world today”
Simply nonsense. There are almost 1.2bn phones sold this year and Symbian has only ever been on 206m phones cumulatively, ever, in its history. That is a Symbain number by the way - check the Q1 report.
“Android has been designed to run on almost any hardware”
Again - very misleading. You need a minimum of a 266MHz ARM9 and at least 64Mb RAM to run Adroid.
My point here is that the media gets caught up in what is sexy to write about and misses out the big picture. Most phone sold are mid to low end. All the the OS options above require big processors and big memory. This means expensive phones. They are simply not in the vast majority of phones sold to day because they can’t be built to the right price point
Sharapova vs. Ivanovic…sorry but that would be more interesting than Android vs. Win Mobile.
Plus it would be in HD baby