Handset OS Fragmentation is Here to Stay

A couple of years ago there were a lot of hand-wringing comments about how the proliferation of handset OS's was harming the chances of any consistency in mobile applications development and uptake of data services. Operators like Vodafone (VOD) made pronouncements of how they intended to rationalise their software platform base.

At the time, I was skeptical that there would be any easy way to meaningfully reduce the number of smartphone OS's as well as proprietary featurephone platforms. And, if anything, the number has risen, with the continued growth of RIM (RIMM), the emergence of Apple's (AAPL) OS , Google's (GOOG) Android on the horizon and a continued plethora of other Linux platforms vying for attention. Meanwhile, none of the major handset vendors has committed to phasing out their proprietary platforms like Nokia (NOK) S40 or the various Motorola (MOT) / Samsung (SSNLF.PK) / LG [LGE] / S-E equivalents.

On the merchant-featurephone software stack there have been a few changes to be fair, with Qualcomm's (QCOM) BREW/UIone appearing on some more devices, but with TTPCom's Ajar being absorbed into Motorola's software maelstrom. Others like OpenWave, Obigo and Intrinsyc are still around too.

There is no obvious emerging contender to sweep away all others, especially at a global level. I can't see Nokia pushing S60 much further down into S40's domain. I can't see Apple or Google making a huge mark outside North America. I can't see RIM or Microsoft (MSFT) abandoning the enterprise sector. UIQ and a couple of the Linux players are not the strongest, but if they disappear I'm sure there will be plenty of newcomers to take their place - isn't it about time we saw a reincarnated Java/SavaJe-type player, for instance?

Meanwhile, all the real action seems to be migrating to the presentation layer - Webkit browser, Adobe (ADBE) Flash, Microsoft Silverlight and so forth. There seems to be at least a vague semblance of homogeneity emerging there, at least on high-end devices. Sure, even at that level there won't be "one platform to rule them all," but some variation of Web+Widgets+XML+various extensions is perhaps not as tricky as the current app-porting challenges.

There are some interesting side-effects of all this - even propagating through to the network side of the industry, despite the fact that it likes to think itself divorced from developments with mere handset software.

In particular, the industry seems to be moving even further away from fully IMS-capable handsets. Sure, in some ways the IMS client framework is starting to get a little more realistic, but with the shift in value (and certainly the shift in innovation) towards the browser it's starting to look a little irrelevant. Yes, we might get some IMS-based apps on the phone - IM, presence, even full VoIP - but that's not where the cool stuff is, and I think that the web aspects of the handset are moving too fast to be captured in even a next-gen IMS/Web architecture.

In particular, the chance for VoIP to become an "anchor tenant" for IMS has diminished, with the standardisation of the fairly-pointless MMTel Multimedia Telephony. As I've mentioned before, 3GPP has totally missed the point with MMTel: next-gen mobile telephony will be about integration, mashups and web services...not video-calling/sharing and other "media."

Given that some sort of VoIP is mandatory with LTE (unless operators want to run GSM/UMTS networks in parallel forever), somebody really needs to get working on a more useful mobile VoIP standard NOW, and work out how to implement it in phones. In fact, whoever does the work should start, from the standpoint of the user, with a phone in his/her hand and then work backwards to determine what the network has to look like to support a proper version of Mobile Telephony v2.0.

One of the themes I've discussed with a few companies recently has been the impact this could have on cellular network architecture. In particular, I've been looking at the current converging mess at the edge of the network that is some combination of SBC, security gateway, softswitch, GGSN and assorted other functions. I've been speaking to companies like Stoke, Acme Packet (APKT), Sonus (SONS), Nextpoint, Mavenir, etc., recently, and I'm starting to wonder if the required aggregation models will be driven indirectly by device type and usage cases as much as they are by infrastructure-based decisions for multi-access.

If the traffic delivered by handsets - and the capabilities valued by end-users - moves away from session-based services like voice and IM and towards more web/browser/widget functionality - what effect does that have on the boxes at the edge? I haven't got a full answer to this yet, but it's definitely something I'm looking into closely.

Comments

[Jon T:]

Blinkered, blind, or just stupid...?

"I can't see Apple making a huge mark outside North America."

Mmmm... let's see how different iPhone usage is shall we?

mmetrics.com/press/Pre...

2008 Mar 19 12:44 PM

[baba:]

I do not see how you can say that web browser stuff is the cool stuff over video/voice real time-telepresence with QOS as the first killer app...sure WEB 2.0 is needed but it can ride on top of IMS and imho needs to...
"driving the NETWORK ARCHITECTURE FROM THE view OF THE user of the HANDSET-and hence the myriad Vendors???? COME AGAIN???
Designed net SW for 20 years and the end device does NOT Drive network design...okay to some extent the media that flows over it does but the OSI 7 layer model is not obsolete and to say applications dictate the basic types of QOS streams/MPLS tags and real time vs. non-real time is to miss the sun for the clouds Dean- most respectfully...
Finally Apple OS as you call it is the UNIX Darwin kernel..
it is not far from Linux and is in fact an open architecture.. Apple has opened it up for developers already....you way underestimate the iPhone IMHO..it will surplant RIMM in not too distant future...tell me what MSFT apps one needs for business that one can do on a Blackberry that you can not do more easily and intuitively on an iPhone over a Crackberry? Again most respectfully..

You are still the best tech writer around on this subject so i hope you may reflect on my comments a bit..i think you are really not viewing IMS and WEB 2.0 correctly...they are not mutually exclusive..
baba

2008 Mar 19 08:57 PM

[F. J. Taylor:]

While Dean has a number of good points as usual, he misses several facts - here in Europe, iPhones are flying out the door - they cannot stock enough to keep up with demand. Even in countries where it hasn't been "officially" released yet, it is selling like hotcakes. I understand from friends in Asia that the same applies there - there are even iPhone knock-offs and look-alikes appearing. (Be careful of where you purchase them!)

The iPhone already number 2 or 3 (depending on whose figures you use) among smartphones - this is only 6 months after its release, and before the release of SDK, the 3G and MS Exchange-capable, increased capacity versions, etc.

All of this indicates by any reasonable standard that the iPhone is indeed rapidly changing the face of the entire industry.

As to the overall theme of platform wars, etc, I imagine that they will continue for some time, although it is my hope that the Unix-based platforms (esp. those who have embraced Open Source) will prevail, as they are quite simply the smoothest, most stable, most secure, and best.

For me personally, Apple will remain the platform of choice for all those reasons and more. I am just waiting to get my iPhone till they intro those items I mentioned above (probably later this year) and (hopefully!) drop the locked provider deal so I can deal with a provider of my choice.

2008 Mar 23 06:47 AM

[Dean Bubley:]

Let me clarify - outside N America I don't see the iPhone being particularly important in shipment volume terms, especially compared with high-end Nokias, and especially given the lack of subsidies. The revenue-share model also means that I can't see it easily being sold to the 70% of customers who prefer prepay to monthly subscriptions. It's also too large for many people who live in countries in which it's socially unacceptable to use a hip holster for phones.

On the other hand, I agree that the iPhone has had a fair amount of impact in terms of the industry's expectations. And yes, it has certainly driven more browser usage on handsets than most earlier phones.

Let's see if v2 or v3 iPhones are more appealing to people beyond the current fashion/tech-driven group, though.

Baba - interestingly, I've had a lot of discussions recently about the possibility that in future, yes, handset capabilities will drive the network rather than vice versa. There is already more "intelligence" at the edge than in the core measured in raw compute power - 3bn devices x maybe 150MHz processors on average, moving to 500-1000MHz in high-end devices.

In this case, the tail wagging the dog is inevitable, thanks to Moore's Law, especially where the devices now have multiple ways of routing voice, data or content (cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, USB, memory card etc) and can act as a hub for arbitrage and least-cost/best-perfor... routing.

Obviously, those markets with greater operator control over handset architecture & distribution will be able to retain more network-centric control, compared to those where the device & service provision are decoupled.

No, Web 2.0 won't "ride on top of IMS". In most cases, it is more likely to be the other way around. I'd expect to see an IMS Rich Communication client as a good FaceBook plug-in, for example.

Thanks

Dean

2008 Mar 24 10:05 PM

[baba:]

Dean,
Frankly you went from confused to very confused. Using the intelligent device as a hub
for ARBITRAGE and least cost routing? Come again? Are you sure you read networking 101? Dean, Arbitrage is NOT a networking term it applies to stocks and banking actuaries etc. An end device could certainly participate in getting its IP address via DHCP but other than that I do not think its running as a router from not the edge but attached to the edge- what next- run spanning tree on a bridge port attached device. IMS provides call control services and insures quality of service and underlying facility guarantees for a session/application that is presented on a weblet aka Web 2.0 Multimedia streams will utilize the control layers of IMS- NO THE APPLICATION and Presentation do not provide SERVICES to the session--again OSI model is still valid. Frankly the comment about the tail wagging the dog is not only showing of a complete lack of understanding of networks (and no they do not change all that much in spite of scale, size of bandwidthe used and the mediums) saying Bluetooth, USB, memory card-lol, USB etc. cellular WIFI are anything other than ways to talk DATA--its all IP DATA DEAN,,yep and some of it NEEDS TO BE REAL TIME..your disdain for oh so plain real time video/voice is clearly lacking of vision...are you saying if you could have a cheap version of Cisco TELEPRESENCE on a SONS driven IMS pure IP network with Cisco routers, a GOOGLE personal database running off an Oracle server housed in your Cell provider's Central Office and it provided a custom profile of content to you based on your profile and had all those data points at your fingertips-favorite restaurants, favorite people you talk to, allocated FAVORITEs mapped in quality of service tables mapped to different Service Level Agreements based on if you call WIFE, kids - voice/video REAL TIME. Your doctor calls the hospital to check on a patient- REAL TIME VIDEO AND VOICE IS NOT ESSENTIAL and it can be loaded by streaming non-real time at a 4 minute delay?
A quick meeting can tolerate not seeing the associates face just as in a meeting with only a POLYCOM vs. a Telepresence meeting?
Dean, get with the program. End devices that are built by stupid application widget C++ Object Oriented Vendors that still think using SKYPE VOIP is good enough are the bane of telecom as are the RBOCS and their snails pace...LOOK to British Telecom, and Carphone Warehouse to see the vendors that GET WHAT IT TAKE to design a NEXT GEN NETWORK.

You are talking about things that make absolutely ZERO SENSE and I have worked in networks for 20 years Dean, so either you are so far ahead of me that I am lost or in fact not a lot has changed in the OSI model and it still applies even if MPLS supplanted ATM for QOS on the core..intelligence has always been closer to the edge and will move closer but NOT INTO THE HANDSET- the handset is a CLIENT IT DOES NOT DEFINE AND ALLOCATE NETWORK RESOURCES even if its the most privileged IT guys handset...nope OAM, SNMP, Control is all on the CO side as are network services. I still respect many of your articles but this is pure spaghetti logic and totally wrong Dean.
Respectfully,
Baba

2008 Mar 26 11:04 PM

[Dean Bubley:]

Baba

Of course arbitrage is not a networking term. It's a general concept in business and commerce, whereby *users* or *customers* can play off differential pricing of what is essentially the same good or service.

It applies to handsets where there are multiple ways for the *user* to choose between to achieve a specific objective, be it making a phone call or downloading/sideloadin... an MP3 file. For a music download, realtime is (usually) not important, so the user can look at exploiting the differential pricing between an operator-mediated portal and transferring a file from a PC.

The *user* or the *user's software agent* is starting to call the shots, facilitated by ever-more powerful devices which when combined with IP networks & the Internet can decouple access from service.

Increasingly, real-time services are becoming less important than non real-time capabilities in terms of the perception of user value (and also payment). This is already true in the fixed line/Internet world, with the exception of voice. But to deliver scalable realtime voice it clearly is *not necessary* to have IMS. Existing circuit services, over-the-top VoIP, and standalone operator-managed SIP VoIP app servers work well enough already and scale.

In any case, we are already starting to see voice calls fragment between QoS-essential (999 / 911 calls, important B2B communications, medical etc) and QoS-optional calls (phoning a mate in Australia for an hour's chat). There's no point "wasting" QoS and network resources - consumers already know this, which is why they use Skype or SMS or VoIP callthrough instead of needlessly expensive cellphone calls.

Real time mobile video is near-irrelevant. There's no massmarket business model in mobile, and I haven't seen anything that even remotely demonstrates that this is likely to change. Video should be treated as an add-on, not a core design objective for mobile-centric NGNs.

Conversely, non-realtime applications - SMS, web access, email, music/content downloads, social networks, filesharing and so on - are becoming proportionately more valuable in mobile.

*Therefore* future network investments will start to become more *optimised* for non-realtime capabilities. Realtime will still be valuable, but over time it will become secondary. This in turn will drive network capex and handset architecture decisions.

Sure, we will probably always see some form of QoS-managed network for the stuff which absolutely, positively has to be realtime. But it won't drive the overall investment decisions & certainly not define the underlying architecture for the majority of traffic for which that would be over-engineered.

This is why various of the radio-access network evolutions are evolving to some form of split-access mechanism. The stuff that matters goes to the QoS-managed operator core. The stuff for which best-effort is good-enough gets piped straight out to the Internet.

And in many cases it will be the handset (& its software & above all the user) that defines any instance of communication in terms of whether or not QoS or realtime is important.

Dean

2008 Mar 30 06:26 PM