It has been years since we have seen a full scale operating system war. Today’s announcement by Nokia that they will be open sourcing Symbian and making it available royalty free is the opening of yet another front in the blossoming mobile OS conflagration.

Mobile computing is a complex market with intricate relationships between the mobile carriers, device manufacturers, regulators, and their various suppliers. The best way to think about this is to see its similarity to the early days of the personal computer. In fact, mobile devices are getting to look a lot more like personal computers every day as Moore’s law continues to drive down the size and price of mobile device components while increasing their power. Most of today’s low end smart phones are far more powerful than a laptop from even just a few years ago. Think about a device that is priced at $199, has a web browser, e-mail client, word processor, calendar, video, audio, camera, etc. Sounds a heck of a lot like a laptop only it is cheaper and fits in your pocket.

So who are the early winners and losers in this war? More importantly how does today’s announcement impact other Linux mobile platform efforts out there such the Google’s Android, the Limo Foundation, ACCESS, and others? Finally how will this impact the proprietary hold outs in the mobile computing world such as Apple’s iPhone, RIM’s Blackberry OS, and Microsoft Mobile? Answering these questions requires a little bit of history.

History repeats.

Just like the early days of the PC, we are seeing a scramble from a variety of operating system vendors to become the mobile platform of the future. Back then it was PC/DOS, MS/DOS, Apple, Amiga, Atari, Commodore, IBM. OS/2. The winner of that war was clearly Microsoft and the reward was greater than anyone could have imagined. At around the same time we saw the Unix Wars with Sun, IBM, Novell, HP, DEC, Silicon Graphics and others all forming various “open” alliances (sound familiar?) such as the Open Software Foundation, Unix International, the Open Group and others which ended in Sun dominating the Unix market, the SCO Group descending into oblivion and Linux eating the Unix markets lunch. In server computing two winners are emerging from that war: Linux and once again Microsoft.

What is each side competing for?

Developer mind share. Becoming the defacto application development platform for mobile is the goal here. The more applications that are available on a phone platform the more interesting things you can do with it. With applications you can automate your sales force, track your friends locations, calculate currency rates, keep up with people on facebook, listen to music, watch a movie, etc. The more applications on a platform, the more people want to use it, the more people who use a platform, the more developers want to build applications for that expanding market, and so on and so forth. For Microsoft winning the PC war enabled them to become the defacto application platform for desktop computing locking users who had applications that only ran on Windows into their platform for years.

Wars generally produce one or two winners

Have you ever played three way tennis? It doesn’t work very well because eventually two players gang up on the third and eliminate him or her from the game. This is the basic rule of alliances; when the stakes are big enough alliances are formed in order to eliminate other players from the game. This is going on in the mobile industry right now. All the players know that they must form alliances out of necessity. Competing firms generally don’t join together unless they have to do it. When a rival threatens to dominate the world and lock others out often firms will join together to combat this threat. Combinations of alliances ebb and flow until the market reaches a reasonable equilibrium or until a single winner takes all.

Who are the players? How does this impact them?

Microsoft: Windows mobile has large and growing market share in the smart phone world. They got there by providing a experience on a mobile device similar to the one people are comfortable with on their desktop PC. Which means they leveraged their desktop monopoly in order to attempt to dominate the mobile computing world. This is their sole advantage in this war. Their problem is that they are using an outdated development model which requires a massive internal R&D effort, slows innovation, and requires every other player in the industry to pay licensing fees to Microsoft. Simply put; this boat is not going to float for long. In the cut throat, low margin, high volume world of mobile computing, device makers are simply not going to cede the high margin software business to Microsoft. Companies like Motorola, Samsung, LG, NEC, Panasonic, Nokia and others have their own brands and their own ambitions. In that context today’s announcement comes as a big blow to Microsoft as their only other major proprietary platform competitor has just announced they are reducing their license fees to zero and open sourcing their code. Ouch.

Apple iPhone: Apple produces a niche operating system on a single device with a very closed model. They do it extremely well. Their innovation and cutting edge consumer electronic design is unparalleled. However, by creating a closed platform Apple is repeating history by engaging in the exact same tactics that caused it to lose the PC wars. They may have a short term lead amongst a group of consumers who are will to pay a lot for elegant design and cutting edge technology, but sustaining this against a more open ecosystem is not a long term strategy for success. Nokia acknowledged this today. At the end of the day Apple is becoming more of a services company offering music and entertainment for a fee, something Nokia openly acknowledges they want to become as well and is certainly Google’s motivation behind Android. Which is yet another battlefront.

RIM: See Apple without the services.

Linux: Google Android, Limo, et. al. Now that Symbian will be open and royalty free one of the advantages that Linux had over that platform is gone. The only other advantage Symbian had was a large installed base and that will continue to serve them for some time. However, there continue to be some fundamental disadvantages relative to Linux that Symbian must deal with. First is their large installed base. While it has it advantages, it also locks Symbian platform development into the obsolete API’s that were developed for devices with obsolete form factors and significant performance limitations. Think of all the problems Microsoft has had with Vista and XP compatibility. Symbian also fails to benefit from sharing a code base across the entire pantheon of computing. Linux shares development with embedded systems, desktop devices, super computing and server side computing. Efforts to reduce power consumption in a large data center will benefit battery life on Linux mobile devices. Nokia has now put the Linux mobile community on notice that it needs to rapidly produce the development tools and testing infrastructure that will enable the creation of an ISV ecosystem. Expect both Android and the Limo Foundation to meet that challenge quickly. Finally, Linux supports more device components than any other platform in the market. One can simply walk down the streets of Guangzhou and assemble a Linux based device with almost any set of commodity components.

Waiting in the wings: Abobe Air, Microsoft Silverlight, Java Mobile, Google Widgets, and the web browser. These development platforms lie one layer up from the operating system and seek to abstract away the relevance of the underlying operating system. Why write an application for Windows, Symbian or the iPhone when I can simply write an application in Adobe air and it will run across all three.

The hope: Open Systems

Today’s announcement is further acknowledgment that the future of computing is one of collective innovation. It is testimony to the fact that while the old model of hiring the best people, locking them away in a lab, and zealously guarding your code may have worked before but that long term it simply is not going to work. The hope is that a mobile platform can be developed and offered by multiple vendors with application compatibility across their competing devices. In this world the consumer wins by being able to get the most innovative device from a variety of competitors without losing their application investment if they want to switch. To do this will require five things: open source reference software (ie; Linux and Symbian), an open standard which defines a mobile platform, a set of tests that device vendors can use to insure the operating system they use is compatible with the standard, a set of developer tools that make it simple for new applications to be created for the platform, and a trademark indicating compliance with the platform “Built on Android” or “Powered by Symbian.” It appears the industry may have the will to do this.

Nokia should be lauded for its step in the right direction. It should also be noted that Nokia has its feet firmly planted in both the Linux and Symbian camps as members of the Linux Foundation and as creators of the N Series Mobile Linux device.

Popularity: 22% [?]

The New York Times reports today a hard rebuke from European Union’s competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, against Microsoft’s tactics in Europe. In her speech she offered up some advice worth heeding; “I know a smart business decision when I see one — choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed,” Ms. Kroes told a conference in Brussels. “No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one.”

Certainly when using any software this matters, but let’s take a closer look at how this advice relates to open source. Evaluate the following statement for accuracy. True or False? “[Open Source] severely limits the possibility of proprietary “lock-in”–where users become hostage to the software vendors whose products they buy.” If you answered “true,” you’re not alone. This was published recently in the MIT Business Review and is a commonly held belief by computing professionals everywhere. In fact, it’s one of the most misunderstood aspects of open source technology. Unfortunately, this misunderstanding can prove costly and dangerous.

First let me be clear by stating that I am a sincere advocate for open source software. It is a superior development model which accelerates innovation, makes for superior peer reviewed code, increases competition and more. For some users having access to the source code of software allows them all the freedom they need. However, for many users the open source development process and its open code format do not guarantee the long term ability to easily or freely choose a technology solution. It’s only half the equation: If the cost of moving from one open source solution to another is prohibitive, you’re just as locked in to open source as a closed source solution. Only open source combined with open standards delivers freedom of choice. I would amend the E.U. commissioners statement to read, “choosing BOTH open source and open standards solutions is a very smart business decision indeed.”

Open standards are vitally important to ensure interoperability and reduce your risk as a technology user. A report titled “Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems” developed at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard law school suggests that corporations and government policies should “mandate technology choice, not software development models.”

The report defines open standards, which it distinguishes from open source, based on six elements including the nature of its control, evolution, and availability. While propriety software can exist within an open standards environment, the combination of open source and open standards delivers the best choice for freedom from vendor lock-in. In fact, I would argue that the OSS development model combined with a strong, clear, and timely standard produces an autocatalytic environment of broad choice and participation – both working together to make the other stronger. The report states it like this:

“Open standards and open source share common ground. Both result from a community oriented, collaborative process in which anyone can contribute and access the end product — either standard specifications or source code. There is a complementary relationship with the implementation of an open standard in open source, which promulgates adoption of that standard.”

The report recommends “mandating interoperability in procurement language, preferring open standards when applicable and adhering to the principles of openness whenever possible.” It also provides an example of how the government of Japan has developed software procurement guidelines that dictate that open standards and open document formats shall be given priority in government contracts.

Fortunately, there are many open standards implemented in leading open source products (Apache and HTTP for instance). For Linux users there is a widely supported open standard that forms the foundation of most Linux distributions. The Linux Standard Base offers corporate IT a no-cost solution that delivers freedom of choice. So why exactly should you care about Linux standards?

Improved Interoperability. By following the LSB, distribution vendors and ISVs improve portability between applications and compliant operating systems. It also enables end users to choose the distribution that best meets their needs.

Reduced Risk. The more your organization deploys and supports open standards, the less dependent you are on any one vendor. The Linux Standard Base – or any open standard with similar support – is a simple and effective risk management strategy.

Improved Functionality and Choice. Open standards will make it easier for ISVs to port their software to the Linux operating system. This will increase the number and type of applications available for the platform.

So How Do You Take Advantage of Linux Open Standards?

For IT users of Linux, it’s very easy to support open standards for Linux or any other technology. You should simply mandate open standards-compliance into your procurement contracts with your software vendors and ISVs. Many organizations have already done this with the Linux Standard Base. By stipulating this compliance in your contracts, you’ll ensure a degree of portability unparalleled by Windows and other systems ; either closed or open (think OpenSolaris).

You can also join standards organizations such as the Linux Foundation, the Open Group or OASIS and give your feedback directly to consortia members. This will enhance existing standards and make sure your concerns are addressed in the future. Furthermore, for any custom development your organization does, you should follow leading standards and best-practices to reduce your support and training costs and guarantee you can deploy your application on the platform of your choice.

Developing standards hand in hand in the wild and woolly world of open source is no easy task. The LSB project continues to develop and has not even come close to its full potential. However, I hope it’s clear how important open standards are to the success of your Linux strategy. Without them, as Commissioner Kroes points out, you – and your organization – may be in for a costly awakening.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Open Source is still a disruptive idea. It has moved beyond that in server operating systems, of course, with Linux on 20% of servers shipped these days. That’s known as being “mainstream.” But the effects of open source development and business models continue to be heavily disruptive as they spread into new technology markets. Disruption often benefits consumers directly.

Cell phones are the next device that will move to open standards. Whether the big providers like it or not.

Can you remember doing business before there were cell phones? Neither can I. It’s one of those technologies that became truly indispensable. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7432915/) Indispensable but not invincible. Quality of service is somewhere near early-adopter stage even after over 15 years of mass adoption. Intentionally obtuse billing. And from a technology standpoint, there’s vendor lock-in, monopolistic advantages, and a resistance to new disruptive technologies. Still, being able to do a phone call from virtually anywhere is extremely valuable, so the consumers put up with a lot.

If you can do phone calls from anywhere you should be able to do computing from anywhere. Reading email, browsing the web… you’ve become dependent on those apps at your desk. In the rest of the world, you’re used to it on your phone now, too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_mobile_phone_culture) In the US, the cell phone carriers and manufactures misguided attempt to control everything has left consumers short and arguably not served their shareholders as well.

Open source is about to hit the cell phone industry hard. It may even take with it one of the early darlings of US smart phones — a halfway station to open cell phone technology — the iPhone. Apple will be announcing the results of opening up the iPhone to third party developers next week at Apple’s WWDC 08. But the iPhone SDK is accessible only to existing Mac developers. That’s not open enough. ABI Research is estimating that somewhere near one quarter of the world’s smartphones will be Linux-based in 5 years. (http://www.abiresearch.com/abiprdisplay.jsp?pressid=1109) This is the iPhone’s real competition: Linux.

Where Linux goes, the consumer wins.

Popularity: 18% [?]