Fast Track to Nowhere
“Slide two: business strategy.”
The UIQ Developer Fast Track events that were planned to take place in Boston (15th and 16th May) and San Francisco (19th and 20th May) have been canceled unfortunately due to a low level of registrations.
(…)
We want to create the best environment for our developer community to meet people, interact and learn lots of new fantastic news and details and hence we’re already creating an event later in the year that you won’t want to miss! Your feedback and help in creating such and event is always more than welcome at fasttrack@uiq.com.If you have any question, don’t hesitate to contact us as fasttrack@uiq.com.
..I have a few suggestions for you.
1. Don’t hire Telecommunication business people into the company. Not even as figureheads. Paying someone a million dollars a year isn’t necessary for infinitely reinventing the importance of “subscription- based services”, “portal services”, the “pay per button- click” concept, or for making sure UIQ pays proper homage to the customisation needs of the telecom suits. Neither is it necessary for divining the whims of the telecoms in general. Yes, I know you’ve all been lamenting that you don’t have the ability to sell yourselves to the telecoms and still maintain your dignity - but what UIQ needs to do is to grow out of the idea that it’s impossible to create a good product, and then shape the market without the help of the telecoms. Specifically, a company that can lead when it comes to using available technology in a smart (bleh) way will not need to finance itself (in the short term) by crippling the functionality of an otherwise well- constructed framework before it hits the market - and so telling the general developer- community and the users UIQ wants (and needs) to charm, to f.. look elsewhere.
2. Maintain ability to release new OS- versions directly to devices. Waiting at least a year before releasing a device with the newest UIQ version is one part of what will keep UIQ in purgatory - the other is allowing it not just to be branded by phone- makers and telecoms, but crippled by their requirements of centralised release of software (a demand they cannot, and are not willing to meet at the moment, nor in the foreseeable future. Something that UIQ discovered years ago). Neither of these are strong selling points on their own, and worse than the sum of their parts together. So why maintain a collaboration that serves no one?
Does changing any of this mean concessions, or maybe “welcome consolidations of interest” on the part of shareholders and the involved telecoms? Does that mean increasing the company’s number of employees? Does it mean expanding the 3rd party development into forbidden ground such as the phone- tools, and even the optional portal- service programs? Obviously - but on the plus side, maintaining the ability to release versions directly to devices will ensure minimum platform- breaking limitations (for as long as the partnership lasts), and a modern platform and developer framework that makes use of the latest technology and the latest standards. It will also place UIQ in a position of being able to influence the direction of the underlying platform: UIQ will be able to suggest the requirements for such and such technology, and say that if we would like to see this type of animated red button in 3d on the devices, then we need this and that to effectively make it happen.
Example: using the programmable areas on the ARM architecture for native implementation of certain standards - how much is that actually used on Symbian- devices currently? Not a whole lot. What about OpenGL ES through the PowerVR instruction set? The iPhone demonstrated some possibilities - but where are the rest of the “giants” on this one?
Also, what about looking ahead for new platforms and platform- configurations in general? Instead of deploying these technologies at random in the hopes that someone will happen to use them, like the phone- manufacturers are doing now - UIQ has an option to shape the way this is done, and use it effectively. And - perhaps - actually manage to make that technology accessible, fast and supported on the devices UIQ is deployed on, to: *cough* “further enhance an outstanding product”, and [insert favourite trope here].
Deploying directly to devices will also, magically, do wonders for the licensed deals involved with certain developers of in- built software, as the companies who program them won’t be dissolved and their ledgers won’t end up on a flea- market, before their programs are actually used for more than a concept- demonstration.
3. Talk to customers.
4. Listen to customers. (And answer your mail once in a while.)
Hello
that`s a pity for us UIQ3 users!
But as mentioned before, I feel, that SE UIQ strategy is not professional enough ! Software-makers need strong hardware sales figures and in order to achieve this, competitive phones and a convincing strategy from SE is necessary !
Some examples of SE is making mistakes:
1. Why do/did SE not relaunch the P990 with a big memory (like P1i) and make this wonderfull handset a success ? (I am still convinced of the concept with the flip, but with the small memory the P990 is rather useless for a power-user).
2. Stopping the real P-line (and leaving the P-community in the rain) is defenitly more than a stupid mistake ! The P1i is not a real P-member, but should be called M6** or so !
3. It is known that SE is smaller than Nokia, therefore resources must be used at an optimum ! But why the heck SE develops a M610 and P1i in parallel, and realize about this fact only shortly before product introduction ? SE could have used these resources to relaunch the P990 with bigger memory and the desaster would have been forgotten…
4. Why SE introduce a high-end smart-phone with WM ? This gives to most of the potential buyers the feeling and taste, that the UIQ3 is inferior. (We can see what may happen with this, when we have look to Palm !) I consider this mistake as the one with the highest (negative) consequences.
(A little bit off-topic : 5. Even in the “bread and butter” segment Cybershot and Walkman, SE is not as strong as before. Trying not to be too competitive against SONY´s own Cybershot and Walkman, Nokia is now at the same level (or even better ?) than SE.)
I was a Siemens user, then moved to Nokia, and convinced to move to SE thanks to the P990. (The best phone to meet multimedia and business uses in a single machine). I am now using the P1i, because of the memory problem with the P990.
But I am starting to have doubts seeing the competition getting stronger and stronger (I-phone, S60 with touch, RIM with touch, Google phone etc.) Would I be interested to look for new UIQ phones from SE ? What is the advantage of the Paris versus P1 ?
(D-flip versus Jog-Dial ?). Would I keep the P1i for longer ?
Or will I be attracted by I-phones or other smartphones announced for H2/08 ?
SE has to launch soon attractice phones (both in UIQ and non UIQ), otherwise SE will disappear in this competitive market.
Sorry to say it so harsh !
Br
Gerhard
I agree with most you have said - along with the P1, they could easily have launched a P990 with more RAM i guess.
Regarding lack of UIQ hardware sales, i think g700 and g900 will represent a significant improvement, and developer will have more incentive to work on UIQ3
At the same time, SE should not go away from it did in the past - be a leader in technology - and right now, they are just folowers in alot of things.
At the same time, nipsen is spot on in saying that even with existing tech, they are not doing enough…the 3D hardware acceleration that exists in EVERY single uiq3 phone could be used to much more than games. And adding real features via software/firmware updates is also a must.
Nipsen, sorry to say so, but most of what you say is just gibberish and has no value, because based on wrong assumptions and incorrect facts, you are putting everything and everybody in the same bag, and try to make us believe you ave some answers when your supporting facts and arguments are not correct.
I don’t mean to be picky, but your rhetoric just annoys me.
Fact 1: the UIQ Fast Track is an event for developers
Fact 2: they asked for feedback related to this, to make it more interesting for developers to attend.
So now let’s look at your suggestions
1. Not connected to the Fast Track.
I’m sure it is not UIQ who appoints the chairman.
2. Not connected to the Fast Track
UIQ Technology is not writing the OS.
UIQ Technology doesn’t choose which UIQ version is used in the UIQ-based phones.
“release versions directly to devices” what does that mean? In any case, we all know that firmware and software upgrades are not up to UIQ
3. Not connected to the Fast Track
UIQ Technology’s customers are the phone manufacturers, they made it clear many times, and most of us here know that. So they certainly talk to their customers
4. see 3. I’m sure they listen to their customers.
More over we have proof that they read their mails and answers to us (their non-customers), what what are you talking about.
Finally, regarding the Fast Track, they are openly communicating with their developer audience and asking for feedback, what more can you ask for?
Get you fact and you context straight before going in a such a long posting that is not connected to the subject. Even if they were connected, I feel there is too many second-guesses imaginary concepts and unverified assumptions to be of any value.
I think, when we write something in those blogs and forums (especially when it’s supposed to be directed at SE or UIQ), we should keep in mind that they might read it, so we must be clear in what we suggest and what we want, because I really wouldn’t know what to do with your post if I were them, hence ignore it, and probably make you even more frustrated.
Hello, fan.
Ad hominen attacks should really have a good reason. You’re simply saying I’m writing gibberish without an actual explanation. Bad form.
Your entire argument rests on the suggestion that it is illegal to argue as if concepts should be different than what they are - no matter how that argument is structured, or what it actually says. Which is the same as saying discussion is not allowed. Worse form.
Also, I insist that customer relations and developer relations are connected. You state that they’re not, using UIQ’s position on how their “customers” are the phone- makers as proof. Which means you are mixing the concepts, like you accuse me of, without even explaining why or how. Since you’re dismissing the developers and their customers - the ones who actually use the system - in favour of the phone makers. Which was the susbstance of my criticism. That UIQ dismisses those who actually uses their program. Even worse form.
Lastly, you argue as if UIQ owns the language, and that I have no right to question them. Or even worse - use rhetoric. But that’s not an argument. That’s just complaining that I’m questioning the assumptions.
And if you can’t see the point of doing so, and even categorically declare it should not be done - your argument falls on it’s own unreasonableness.
(Also - yes, I do know they’re not answering their mail to mere users. Specifically, when it comes to concerns about whether or not Opera 9.5 will ever be made available on UIQ3 devices legally, due to their licensing scheme that prevents Opera from selling it separately for all supported devices. Or to as many customers as possible.
But we already established UIQ is beyond reproach in everything they do, so this is of course all completely immaterial. My sincerest apologies for at all bringing it up, dear fan.)
But we already established UIQ is beyond reproach in everything they do, so this is of course all completely immaterial.
Who is “we”? And what exactly do you mean with “beyond reproach”? That “we” should give up all hope about UIQ?
Anyway, I got curious from these postings: Could you please give an example of two of companies in the mobile space that you see as doing decidedly better than UIQ?
We is werty, and werty, of course. I don’t think they’re beyond reproach, and while I think much of the effort from UIQ is commendable, I would like to see them do a real effort to make their company realize some of it’s potential - which having the opportunity to deploy to devices would go a long way towards doing. The construction of UIQ at the moment doesn’t make that impossible either, since the ROM- updates could assume the phone- maker dependent tools exist. But in my opinion, they should move towards an independent release model in the future, and provide working phone- tools and today- screen customisation examples. I’ve no hope that this will happen - but that’s what I think they should do.
And no, I can’t think of anyone doing a better job than UIQ on the market now, in offering a customizable and expandable platform (even if their documentation could do some work) - which is why I own an UIQ device, and don’t really consider anything else as real competition (when seen as a platform - in practice things are different, of course). But that doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvement, even on the things UIQ does right. Such as reaching out to the developers, and having independent developers as a vital part of the company efforts to promote the platform.
But I mean - let’s face it.. the mobile industry in general is lagging behind when it comes to pda and personal computer philosophy. And is mired where they are because of how phone makers insist on selling feature phones, where they control the content that comes with the phone exclusively. And the smartphone concept is appealing to most phone makers only because it allows them more flexible deployment, and allow them to develop software solutions more easily. And when that encroaches on their right to control the content, then they’re losing interest. Which is, to put it mildly, a bit backwards.