(”Where we pick up a few loose threads, and figure out if mobile transmissions via semaphore really is worth all the noise.”)

In the never- ending series about OS- upgrades, we’ve been through how phones are programmed, and how they function. We have looked at the purpose of the various platforms… such as providing common OS functions for less than impossible software development (or as an alternative to making everything open source, in the hopes that someone will rescue your code for free). We’ve described the parts needed to create an OS, as well as some useful abstractions for any OS meant to be used on more than one single hardware- setup. All in an attempt to describe what is necessary to allow software- development - independent or in- house - to eventually improve on mobile devices. As well as explaining how ambitious UIQ was in the process.

Now, after UIQ was declared a failure by Sony Ericsson, we can see the problem independent sofware- development is facing on mobile platforms more clearly than before, perhaps. But at the same time, there is always this question of how viable smaller handheld mobile internet devices (MIDs) really are. Outside the “I switch phones every month, because … Oooh! Shiny buttonssess! Hm, what were we talking about!”- market. ..Or when discounting the loud- mouthed tech- fetishists. And whether new and better programs really is enough to carry these devices economically - if they would ever pay for the initial development costs, never mind make a profit. Do people really need all the functions in a smartphone, etc.

Last week ARM announced that they will be partnering up with Canonical Ltd., Ubuntu’s sponsor (link. And it means this discussion is over, and not really interesting any more. There will be, within the next six months, an official Ubuntu- release for ARM (and with that, an ARM linux core). Where the motivation for ARM as well as Canonical, is to compete with smaller locked down MIDs and smartphones on program availability and quality. While competing with both larger and smaller x86 based netbooks on power- consumption and layout flexibility. They will probably succeed completely.

But while I savour the image of crying phone- company CEOs, and a certain Sony Ericsson chief committing seppuku with a spring- loaded clamshell - let’s dwell on why this will all be an awesome success a little longer.

As my intro suggests, none of what I have been writing about OSes is particularly controversial. What has always been controversial is the need for extra programs, or functionality beyond voice in the mobile world.

–

So one says: “I complement you on your grasp of business- mechanics, obviously, by not rolling my eyes out of their sockets in way of a response.. But, you know, why not abstract away and improve the schemas used for mobile- network communication, and let us design an improved base- station model that would improve the data- transfer by orders of magnitude - as we’ve demonstrated in theory here *waves at pile of paper*, and in practice on this locked wireless network. The only difference between the test and the appliccable scenario would be the distance covered, as well as the smaller impact from radio interference, due to the dissimilar wave- frequency properties. At the same time, our friends at the business- class have helped us show that your network will not be able to handle your own predictions for the amount of concurrently served mobile clients by 2010, which is.. ..er.. Why don’t you have some more coffee, sir?”.

And the other says: “…But why? Why should we preempt a crisis - and a big need for huge and new investment in the mobile sector, that we will receive the benefit of regardless, by trying something risky now? We are making money already, you see”.

The first one says: “…why? But, but… it’s cool, right! ***ing awesome with multiplayer quake through your tiny little phone- hub chip module, connected to your foldable key-board/Mobile PC with a composite digital video output! *ahem* I mean….you could talk to your wife in full video, with voice- and video- streaming, you know..?”.

And the other says: “…boy, why would I want to see my wife in full video?”. The first one says: “..I see your point, sir”.

—

In other words, it could be the difficulty with defining next generation devices is not just that it’s risky to aim for something we lack the technical capability for at the moment, either because we do not have the physical chips, or the processing power, or the physical lines. Or because we’re facing a very long development track that can see no clear application beyond “it’s awesome!!!111elevenses1!! - which no one wants to sponsor (this, obviously, happens all the time in the computer world). Oh, no. The difficulty is that merely looking at numbers scrolling ultra- fast down the screen does nothing for your average consumer. Who knew. While at the same time, it might be the difficulty we have is also that you cannot infinitely hope to renew a business dealing with tech, without injecting something new once in a while.

So perhaps it’s time to take a look at what we’re really doing - that new devices and programs must be defined in terms of the service or task they are supposed to perform. Specially if that means traversing certain technical boundaries in place at the moment, whether they are physical or not. So the question will always have to be: “does this device perform the tasks I wish of it?”. Since it won’t be possible to trust that as new tech arrives, new products will magically appear.

Because what we’re really offering, even if it’s in video and sound or on broadband, is not a new product, but only a means of communication. It’s not really possible to create a new product from redesigning the layout of “the e-mail”, now is it. Instead it’s the skill you deliver that service with that sets what you offer apart from the competition.

And this is why the ARM- approach with Linux will Succeed. Instead of creating, as we have been now for a long time, traditional square block computer devices - for purposes of using “the computer” - there will be more flexibility on the device- construction. Because of lowered size and heat dissipation requirements. As well as possibilities for leveraging complex computations with a very small power- requirement. Also, there will be a distinct lack of overly restrictive licensing. Which will allow producers who know what they’re doing to tailor devices for particular purposes. Be it reading books, listening to music, taking notes, displaying slides, taking down and digitalising information, displaying network- resources, or providing a means for using cross- platform server side applications (i.e., making phonecalls).

At the same time, software will be developed commercially and otherwise - without the option to compete any more if you are not choosing multiplatform formats, and implement them carefully. Cross- platform suddenly means good code, instead of ported code with additional quirks per platform. And the limitations will be given from proper design of an OS, instead of the usual mish- mash of bad program design, and requirements such as that it should cost money for each button- press.

We’ll see what that means in a short while. And who knows - perhaps we’ll be able to coax some responses from our friends at SE and the main division at Nokia too (..well, or not).