The people who work at the Symbian Foundation do not know all the answers. Speaking personally, I definitely do not know all the answers. However, the community that gathers round the Symbian Foundation is much more knowledgeable. It’s the intent of the Symbian Foundation to bring that collective knowledge and insight to the fore, for mutual benefit, through open dialog. That will often mean that the people who work at the Symbian Foundation will get some big surprises.
For example, I confess to being surprised by the depth of feeling expressed in the comments to my posting Introducing the release plan, over the topic of software upgrades. Many people said, in essence:
- We like the idea of new software;
- We don’t want to change our hardware (perhaps for cost reasons, and perhaps for attachment reasons);
- Can we please have the new software on our existing hardware?
In retrospect, I should have anticipated these comments. The reality is that I didn’t. But hey, that’s why we have an open dialog.
Software upgrades come in different forms:
- An over-the-air (OTA) update – sometimes without the end-user being aware of what is happening
- An upgrade that takes place via a PC Connectivity software application: the new software is downloaded to the PC, and is then “side-loaded” from the PC to the mobile device.
Software upgrades also vary in scope: some just deliver bug fixes, whereas others deliver extra functionality.
Symbian OS phones in Japan, running on the NTT DOCOMO network, often receive OTA updates. This system has been in place for a number of years, and works well.
However, there can occasionally be technical complications with an upgrade (especially when significantly new functionality is delivered). Users will typically want their add-on apps to continue to work, after the upgrade takes place. They’ll also want to preserve the data on their devices. There have been cases when upgraded software has got itself confused when it runs into data created by a previous version.
- In principle, the answer to this kind of issue is well known. Data formats need version labels: new software should be prepared to run into data created by previous versions, and to cope with it. But you have to think about this kind of thing in advance. In other words, the software has to be designed with upgrades in mind.
- So far as I’m aware, the bulk of the software inside the Symbian Platform has followed that design principle, and is therefore “upgrade ready”. The same may not be true, however, for all the additional software which gets included in actual phones.
A bigger set of issues is to do with the business model for upgrades. If new software can be downloaded onto old phones, it reduces consumer interest in buying new phones. Phone manufacturers therefore risk losing revenue. I see several answers to this point:
- In some cases, users might be prepared to pay for upgrades that provide significant new functionality;
- New software could result in more data traffic and services revenues – in principle, a portion of that could be provided to the handset manufacturer;
- Other things being equal, handset manufacturers who fail to provide software upgrades will, over time, lose out to those who do provide it.
One final twist is that, when Symbian OS had a licence fee attached to it, manufacturers would have to pay Symbian extra if they installed a later major version of the software onto an old phone. Because the Symbian Platform has no licence fee, this consideration will no longer apply.
I’ll be interested to hear of people’s experiences with software upgrades!
Footnote: Mon-Wed next week 23-25 March) I’ll be attending the IIR Mobile Internet 2009 conference in Vienna. If anyone reading this is going to be in or around Vienna at that time, I’ll be happy to meet up, to continue this conversation, or to widen the topic to all aspects of the future of mobile.
[...] Wood of the official Symbian Foundation Blog, posted a bit of info about this topic, today. Many people said, in [...]
> In some cases, users might be prepared to pay for upgrades that provide
> significant new functionality;
Is it practical that for each handset, two or three new Symbian OS can be upgraded for free, and after that, only bug fix offered.
Another thing I cre about is the app capability.
Because of the speed up of Symbian OS release, will app capability be a problem for both users and developers?
Is Qt for S60 going to be the primary framework for S60 app development? So that developers don’t need to modify their code too often to fit the new released platform, or to use the new APIs just by compiling one more time?
The fact that people who 2 years ago purchased an iPhone, will be able to get all the user improvements that are going to come with iPhone 3.0, for free, should be the benchmark of the type of experience Symbian should deliver.
Now I know, it is easy for Apple with 2 SKUs versus 100+ (maybe even 200+) with Symbian, but as a benchmark I would have to say look at the iPhone.
For any company who even remotely claims that they put the user at the center of their objectives, this question of upgrades, free upgrades even, isn’t even a question to begin with.
This is a complex subject with no easy answers. Your summary is excellent, David.
Another key factor is the operators. Whilst updates are released on a regular basis for most Symbian phones, it is still up to the individual operators to decide whether to release these updates to their customers. The burden on operators to test releases before approval often means that either software updates are delayed significantly or aren’t released at all.
As an end user myself, I love software updates. Any additional functionality to a device that I’ve already decided is good enough is very welcome. Who doesn’t like something for nothing? These acts of generous build brand loyalty.
@Stefan Constantinescu
Interestingly, not all of the functionality in the new iPhone OS is compatible with first gen iPhones. Some of the features are not available for hardware reasons (i.e. A2DP) whilst other features are excluded for reasons not currently known (i.e. MMS).
Apple has done a great job. However, even with a limited portfolio of devices, they are already hitting the difficulties associated with providing software updates to multiple devices.
Apple only cripples the first gen Iphone upgrade to make people with contracts buy a new one…i don´t see any hw differences to justy lack of MMS, at least, and even a2dp is doubtfull
still, they are providing a a big update to a 2 years old device, and that is something to praise…specially for me that had the bad experience with under a year of support from Sony Ericsson to the P1 and P990
Hi Aaron,
>Another key factor is the operators. Whilst updates are released on a regular basis for most Symbian phones, it is still up to the individual operators to decide whether to release these updates to their customers. The burden on operators to test releases before approval often means that either software updates are delayed significantly or aren’t released at all.
So far as you know, are Apple’s iPhone software upgrades delayed by this same kind of operator testing and approval?
// David W.
AFAIK, iphone software upgrades are released at the same time everywhere in the world…that never happens with Nokia or SE symbian phone
Having owned an N81 for a while I’m all too familar with being abandoned for long periods of time in regard to updates.
Everyone would prefer a smooth upgrade, but I would be happy to do the upgrade even at the expense of all my data if I was warned about it at the outset.
Hopefully a cloud based sync solution will fix the problem of data format skew, that way I could do an upgrade which would blow my data away and from then on my data would be synced up to a server somewhere and whenever I updated the data would come back from the server after the upgrade (syncing should not require the use of a PC/Mac/intermediary device).
This could also be seen as a “green” move. It would remove the need to dump one ‘phone just to get some the features of the next (e.g. newer flash support, etc., etc., etc.). I have never had a ‘phone that I’ve used until it’s stopped working, I have always ended up buying a new ‘phone to get some newer features.
I think the operator issue is an interesting one. As Aaron explained, firmware updates for Symbian devices sold through operators go through operator testing and approval which tends to delay or, worse, block the updates. I suppose part of it is down to the customisations operators tend to put in.
The iPhone is interesting in that Apple have managed to negotiate deals with the operators whereby the iPhone is a) not customised or branded in any way by the op and b) updates come directly from Apple so all iPhone users get immediate access to them.
Perhaps the Symbian Foundation & handset manufacturers need to negotiate similar terms in addition to solving any technical issues that may exist in order to deliver a similar upgrade experience to end users. Otherwise, as long as things stay as they are, that will always be a bottleneck.
Having said that, I think it makes sense for operators to buy into this way of thinking as:
- It prolongs the lifetime of devices so people will upgrade phones less frequently and they save on subsidy costs
- There’s nothing to stop them continuing to add custom services & content. It’s just delivered separately from OS-level updates. Symbian has a good track-record of maintaining BC so apps should continue to work pre- and post OS update in most cases.
- If operators want to roll out some shiny new app / service that has a dependency on a new OS feature they no longer need to wait until new phones have been sold since they can just encourage users to update existing phones.
Of course, handset vendors may not be best pleased about longer upgrade cycles but, as Stefan pointed out, perhaps that’s just a new customer expectation they have to live up to if they want to stay competitive. Besides, there will always be some fancy new HW feature (e.g. better camera) or resource-hungry killer app that entices people to go and buy a new phone (cf games and graphics cards in the PC space).
I agree with Stefan – Apple have set a benchmark in this field. Nokia et al have been bogged down in certification processes and the logistics of regional variants etc which doesn’t seem to have impacted Apple – although Apple do not (yet) have the fragmentation of devices that those other vendors have – this is starting to appear with the 2G iPhone not having MMS or A2DP support, but the fact that there will be an update available 2 years after launch is impressive. If Symbian Foundation can decouple the software release cycle from the hardware (or at least enable their customers to do so) then that will be a major achievement – however the details will be down to these ‘licensees’ to implement and control I would guess. Note Apple haven’t done OTA software updates which are a major technical achievement, however is this really really necessary – are end-users more familiar and do they feel ’safer’ with the ‘tethered’ model?
David Wood wrote…
So far as you know, are Apple’s iPhone software upgrades delayed by this same kind of operator testing and approval?
It’s hard to speculate. However, as far as I can tell, there’s zero operator customization on the iPhone. The firmware released is totally generic apart from the SIM lock.
Many operators tailor Symbian to their specific needs. This is one of the most obvious benefits of an open operating system. Operators need to make sure that their Symbian customizations, such as Orange’s home screen, work correctly with new firmware releases.
I get the impression that Symbian Foundation is fairly powerless to influence whether handset manufacturers will act to provide phones which are platforms which can be feature upgraded in the future.
It can only provide software architecture and tools to facilitate it.
Maybe in the future the point becomes moot, shouldn’t all my data and applications be intrinisically linked with the ‘cloud’?
Tony
While we’re talking about the future can we also consider stricter filesystem organization like in BSD and Linux? Maybe this requires more advanced notions of privilege.
Can we also consider making localization as simple as the iphone or at least slightly more modern? Is really shocking someone with a NAM device may need to turn on Pinyin in a few clicks?
Sorry for the tangent.
Back to firmware updates. I would like to get them directly from device manufacturer when I’m not on an operator branded device.
Sideloading is a massive mistake outside of a few wealthy nations where everyone has 3 computers. I’ve seen people rocking S60 devices with less teeth than toes. I’m pretty sure they cannot afford a windows PC for firmware updates.
- Eric
The point about operators needed to test/update their customisation to make sure it`s possible to upgrade the software is valid, but on the other hand since S60 phones are not network-exclusive there should always be a smart/small/cheap/generic MVNO who will put in this effort right away. And these times when even the big ones are struggling to differentiate and be more than a much feared dumb pipe they should well follow, or more savvy (~ higher ARPU) customers will leave them for the more diligent operator. As the example of the iPhone – or hey, even the Nokia 5800 – shows, software updates are starting to be much more than bugfixes. Oh yeah, kudos for the new global search added to the homescreen of the 5800, I`m impressed
So Symbian, I have faith in you, please reverse the declining market share of your OS and be nice, the 5800 is looking to be a hit device, give it the love for a few years. I say that not just as a user, but as a developer, I don`t like that currently S60 is fragmented not just with different hardware, but with different feature packs and whatnot. Let v5 be a fresh start where you selectively roll out new features to all devices. I don`t mind if not all the features will be available on all devices, that`s perfectly fine, but the ones independent from hardware should well be available. Oh yes, and OTA please, the only use case I accept sideloading is when I need to reencode videos, that`s a computer`s job
Take this example:
You buy a new computer with a xx OS. Then, 2 months later, the new yy OS is launched. Your PC manufacturer said: No, you can´t upgrade your OS, you must buy a new computer (even if your computer can run the new OS). You said: why not? my computer can run that new OS!.
The same thing happend when the cellphones become more powerfull like the computers. If “It´s what computers have become”, the the software (including the OS) must not be attached to an specific Hardware. That is necesary to become a computer
>”the software has to be designed with upgrades in mind”
It´s a shared responsability between the OS developers and the application developers.
>”Phone manufacturers therefore risk losing revenue.”
Where is the innovation here? The phone manufacturers build the hardware and customize the OS that the SF build. The phone manufacturers must focus on the hardware!
>”it reduces consumer interest in buying new phones.”
But increase the developers who wants to build for that OS’s. The people will keep their phones more than before, but more people could buy this phone rather than another (win without competing).
–
Pablo
Hi Eric,
>While we’re talking about the future can we also consider stricter filesystem organization like in BSD and Linux? Maybe this requires more advanced notions of privilege.
The Symbian filesystem already has variable access rights, through the notion of “data caging”.
Could you spell out what additional enhancements you have in mind here?
// David W.
Hi Pablo,
>…If “It´s what computers have become”, then the software (including the OS) must not be attached to an specific Hardware. That is necesary to become a computer
That’s a good point. So long as mobile devices remain “phones”, there’s less expectation from users that they’ll be able to significantly upgrade the software. But for mobile devices to become “multimedia computers” (or similar), the expectation is bound to increase for the software to be upgradeable (perhaps at a price).
// David W.
Hi Tony,
>I get the impression that Symbian Foundation is fairly powerless to influence whether handset manufacturers will act to provide phones which are platforms which can be feature upgraded in the future. It can only provide software architecture and tools to facilitate it.
Yes and no. Yes, if we’re talking only about the direct influence of the employees within the Symbian Foundation. But no, if we’re talking about the potentially much stronger influence of the entire community that forms around the Symbian Foundation.
It’s the goal for the Symbian Foundation to grow the world’s most influential community of developers and end-users – by providing the best mechanisms and culture for the collaborative creation of software AND the collaborative discussion of the future of mobile.
If this community reaches a clear view in favour of particular requirements for mobile devices, it’s likely that manufacturers will start to create products that satisfy these requirements.
// David W.
[...] Wood dal blog di Symbian Foundation, visto il grande interesse mostrato dalle utenze nei riguardi del precedente articolo, esponente la [...]
Here’s an interesting convergence:
Writing in PCMAG yesterday, Sascha Segan reaches many of the same conclusions as the discussion above: Analysis: Apple’s iPhone Shows How Upgrades Should Be Done
For lowcost phones missing updates are not a big issue.
But as a owner of a SE P800, then P1i I must say that the update policy is not good. I know also of a M600 owner, he has the same feeling.
We did receive 3-6 upgrades until the major bugs had been fixed (but still a lot remaining), not to mention for new functionality (like flash player, new opera mobile etc.).
Of course a new upgrade costs, but at the same time it reduces the costs for maintenance.
Say the phone A is delivered with OS V6.00 and this has some bugs.
Then in the OS V6.01…V6.03 etc. most bugs get resolved.
8 months later phone B with OS V6.10 is shipped, having more bugfixes over 6.03 and new functions.
Then there will be V6.11…V6.13 etc. bugfixes.
But now the bugs corrected in V6.11…V6.13 are probably also present in the V6.0x serie, so it would be just correct to also fix them with V6.04 etc., but as we know, that usually does not happen with symbian phones, just because this is also bound with costs.
If phone A could be upgraded to V6.1x, then symbian would not have to maintain the V6.0x codeline, that would be a reduction of costs AND happy customers.
I think upgrading over the air is nice, but upgrading at home via USB connection covers most needs.
And as to operator branding: That is what operators like, not what endusers like. (Look at the number of sites/instructions on how to remove branding)
> And as to operator branding: That is what operators like, not what endusers like. (Look at the number of sites/instructions on how to remove branding)
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, if people don’t like what operators do in the value chain then they’ve got to vote with their wallets and buy SIM free devices and a SIM only contract (the cheaper contract generally covers the cost differential on the device over the 12-18 months you sign up for, so it is just another form of credit really).
In the current environment I think matching the iPhone is too difficult (they didn’t need operator branding, since they only sold to one operator in each territory the differentiation that operators seek was already present). However, in the longer run I’d say that’s setting the bar too low.
Mark
Another thought – a website called xda-developers currently releases (illegal) homebrew ROM images for Windows Mobile phones. The motivation behind these custom ROMs is often to update older phones with the latest version of Windows Mobile.
Perhaps in future we might see enthusiastic Symbian fans releasing their own ROMs. I’d imagine that this would be a legal minefield even with an open source operating system though.
Regarding vendor upgrades and operator dependency. I cannot speak for Europe, but in the U.S. Nokia is selling Smartphones unlocked. As a result, this seems to me to take much of the Operator problem out of the mix. Is it possible to attempt to isolate the Operator dependent sections of the OS from the Application dependent section? Then rapid changes to the Application code (UI, Applications themselves, etc…) would not have as much dependency on the Operator specifics (GSM, 3G, etc…) which hopefully should remain more stable.
>> And as to operator branding: That is what operators like, not what >endusers like. (Look at the number of sites/instructions on how to remove >branding)
>
>I’ve said before and I’ll say again, if people don’t like what operators do >in the value chain then they’ve got to vote with their wallets and buy SIM >free devices and a SIM only contract
My last 3 phones have all been non operator branded, but I did not get more software updates.
Of course the iPhone with 2 hardware versions is simpler to support, but on the other side, linux does a very good support for most non ultramodern hardware. So it is possible.
This is a very complicated topic/discussion, requiring answers that go beyond simplicity.
But when you look at how Apple does it for the iPhone, it’s not as complicated as it may all seem – on the user’s side of the fence anyway.
When a software update is available for the iPhone, the Apple iTunes software will notify its user, upon detection of the device being connected via USB, if there should be a newer version of the firmware (specific to the respective device) available for download from Apple. And assuming that the user wants to perform the update, iTunes will immediately download the IPSW (software update) package, and apply it immediately after its completion.
This may not sound all that different to the other “software updater” applications out there, say the “Nokia Software Updater” (NSU) or the “Sony Ericsson Update Service” (SEUS). Both pieces of software will check what device (and specific release) is hooked up, search for the appropriate package, and finally download-and-apply.
But there is one detail of difference here. For Apple, they have just one single IPSW package per SKU – while for the rest, packages per SKU are aplenty!
Apple may have been able to manage this because of the lesser number of SKUs that they need to worry about (at this time). But what we are talking about here is one-package-per-product, and not one-package-for-all.
The Symbian Foundation is certainly in a position now to rewrite the rules of how software updates can be applied to upcoming devices supporting the Symbian^n releases. There needs to be some kind of standardisation, in both the platform and the technical aspects of the hardware running it, which will enable a single software package release to run on all devices throughout.
Again, taking Apple’s software updates as an example, some of the things that needs addressing (when looking at the software updates of current S60-based models) include (and not limited to):
- Languages support:
Given that every single iPhone supports the same extensive list of languages, for both display and input, it begs the question of “why have different software packages with different language offerings?” With today’s level of technology, and the fact that Apple has been doing this since the first iPhone release, there is absolutely no reason why this cannot be done.
- Operator customisation:
I am in complete agreement with people who uphold the belief that generic releases of a product yields more-timely software updates, as compared to those models released with operator-customised firmware that usually take longer. No end user should have to put up with this sort of scenario, but it happens because of a variety of reasons. However, if there was a way to introduce these operator customisations in the form of modules that can be slipstreamed into a software update, then this could probably work out better for everyone?
For example, Apple is able to update the “carrier settings” details, which are pushed through iTunes and onto the iPhone whenever necessary. Something similar could certainly be adopted for Symbian^n releases, which would again save a lot of trouble between the different parties in the overall value chain.
As one commenter noted, we should seriously start taking away the power from the operators when it comes to things like this. As every operator has their own way of doing things, it can ultimately affect the well-being of not just the product, but also the platform that operates on top of the hardware.
- Distribution:
This becomes far less of a hassle when you have devices that run on a single platform. Imagine developing a software update facility for the Symbian^n facility – one possible way is to have a common updater software, which works for all SKUs from different manufacturers. Once the Symbian^n device is hooked up to the PC or Mac, it automatically detects the hardware, installs the necessary connectivity drivers (where required), and searches for the latest software version available.
The most important thing is to make the process as transparent as possible to the end user. Proper failsafes must also be provided in the event that the update doesn’t go accordingly.
As for OTA updates, there are certainly opportunities to make this as seamless as possible, but should still be based on the same one-firmwware-per-device methodology. Something like the way in which the HTC Dream is getting its updates over-the-air may be something to look into for Symbian^n.
There are, of course, other issues worthy of discussion. But this is certainly an area of the upcoming Symbian^n platforms that should get some serious attention, specifically towards making the ownership experience a truly worthwhile one.
I agree with Kinny Cheng that this is indeed a very complicated topic. No-one has yet asked what is in it for the handset manufacturer? There traditional business model relies heavily on us replacing our handsets at regular intervals as it is only in that purchase that they make any money. Everything else, including providing firmware updates, is a cost which is used to provide less tangible results such as user retention. For the money men it is very hard therefore to justify providing regular updates other than bug fixes. Want a new feature buy a new phone has been their mantra for many years.
Apple has had to take a different line for at least two reasons that I can identify. First they were not in a position to provide new phone models on the frequency that the traditional phone manufacturers could and therefore needed some way of therefore keeping their customers loyal. Secondly they learnt that making a mobile phone is highly complex and to get a product out of the door inside their market window meant compromises. iPhone 3.0 really only plays catch up with features which many of us expect as standard, especially the mass market. I’ve had many conversations with people who bought an iPhone for style reasons only to be extremely frustrated that the basic features don’t work for them – why can’t they send a photo to their friends’ phones or copy that number in an email to send to someone else. To them these are just bug fixes also, not new features. As Apple increase their number of models it will be interesting to see the reaction from their customers as they stop providing updates to the first generation iPhone.
Just for the record, firmware updates over-the-air (or FOTA – not sure what happened to the U) were available (although not widely enabled) on the Nokia N80, one of the original 3rd Edition devices. However, again, a big issue is that network operators didn’t want Nokia controlling the firmware version in the device. They approve every version that goes on their networks. This is not primarily a technical issue but a political and logistical one.
I always have unlocked S60 handsets and generally get many more software updates than those with operator branded versions – in the UK, Vodafone seems particularly bad.
I personally don’t care about operator branded versions of the firmware because I don’t buy phones from them. I do hope that Symbian Foundation can push out more updates and upgrades from those of us with unbranded phones.
I can deal with backing up and restore my personal data if I need to. However, since I am tech savvy, it’s easy for me. For the average user though such a procedure is daunting.
Excellent Posting, David!
It is becoming clear that the iPhone sets the benchmark for tethered software updating on mobile phones. The Symbian Foundation has a golden opportunity to make this experience even better with a bold vision for software updating.
As David points out, DoCoMo in Japan has been doing software updates Over-The-Air (OTA) for close to five years. They run a very professional and comprehensive software update service:
http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/support/utilization/software_update/
The fact that this service is OTA clearly makes it superior to the iPhone experience in terms of both reach and usability. Which begs the question of why Apple is tethering their customers to a computer when they need to update. After all their App Store is completely OTA!
As I am not an Apple insider, I can only speculate. Here are two educated guesses:
1. Strategy and Control: From reading “Inside Steve’s Brain”, Apple has been focus on the Mac as the digital hub since 2001. By coming up with great products, like the iPod, there is no doubt this strategy has guided Apple to where they are today. Cable-updating of the iPhone could be a consequence of this strategy, I guess. The success of the iPhone and the general trend towards cloud computing must however be forcing a discussion within Apple as to whether this is a sensible perspective going forward.
2. Technical Constraints: When it comes to software updating, Apple has transferred their normal practices from the Mac world. In contrast to this, the mobile phone world has deployed delta-based updating, relying on clever algorithms to figure out how you can transfer the absolutely bare-minimum OTA to perform a software update. Spectrum is expensive, look at the astronomical sums paid in 3G auctions around the world. Network operators must use this expensive commodity as efficiently as possible. Using the right technology, you can reduce updates by 80-97%, making it possible to update even the iPhone’s 270MB software load OTA.
This brings us back to the Symbian Foundation and the path forward. The foundation is in perfect shape to enhance the iPhone update experience, this time OTA. Symbian OS already contains a Firmware OTA framework and a Device Management client to communicate with update servers in a standardized way. One can query from the server what phone and firmware version you are dealing with. This is important when you have a diverse set of phones running Symbian OS. With the royalty fee gone, business model issues are gone. The last remaining challenge is the software delivery processes between the Foundation and its handset manufacturer members. I hope this will be a focus for the foundation.
To take even a step further, the Foundation should work to tie the Package concept into the software updating framework. Software update is moving to SCOMO (Software Component Management Object). It is now possible to query any phone for its software inventory and update one component within the software load. By combining SCOMO and delta updating from the mobile phone world with the philosophy from Linux Package Management, the path between the developer and the mobile phone user can be shortened tremendously.
The Symbian Foundation is in the right spot to make this a reality.
Great points that you’ve raised, Morten – am certainly in agreement with you on several points there.
I believe one of the biggest hurdles here is infrastructure. What NTT DoCoMo has in Japan is workable is because of two reasons: all their handsets, irrespective of branding, is based on a single platform (Symbian – correct me if I am wrong here); and that they are in complete control of how software update goes.
DoCoMo’s business model has always been unique in many regard, as compared to the rest of the world. The ability for them to maintain control on almost every front (for both network AND handset) is what makes a lot of the things work.
However, when you try and apply the same backend infrastructure to most GSM/UTMS operators, this is not practically possible because of the many variables associated in getting specific things to work. And the willingness for operators to get behind an initiative is almost non-existent, unless there is some substantial (revenue) gain in the idea.
As per my previous post, the decision for Apple to maintain a tethered approach to software updating for the iPhone is because they can. The iPhone, as well as the iPod touch, are products based on (and part of) the Apple iPod Family – and over the many years, this is how the company has done it, and so has its many customers. The process is simple, and Apple has offered a straight-forward interface to make the process as painless as possible.
Why doesn’t Apple consider delta-based OTA updates? Probably because the iPhone doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to do that *just* yet. But there’s probably two other more important reasons associated with that:
1. “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broken”:
The Apple way of applying software updates to their products, including the iPhone (telephony) product, is probably the best and most reliable method I’ve seen and used – and many people would probably agree with this fact.
2. Operator resistance to FOTA-based updates:
Imagine operators having to come up with an agreement with the handset manufacturers to provide *free* (that’s “zero-cost”) data traffic whenever updates are to be pulled/pushed to a handset. Now, multiply that by all the handsets SKUs to suppot this, and then imagine again how it will spell out on the balance sheets of the operators?
While there is the network capacity there for this to possibly become a reality, the willingness for operators to take on such an idea is pretty much close to zero. Even with delta-based updating, which will most probably reduce overhead significantly on a per-update basis, I am sure the operators would rather the user themselves be responsible for the cost of these updates – hence, which is why we are still stuck with doing tethered updates through our computers.
It goes back to my point about how DoCoMo can make this work for their network – simply put it, this is because they are in full control of their own infrastructure.
I agree that the Symbian Foundation are in the position to rewrite the rules on many fronts. But there is still the challenge of getting it past the operators, who are the ones in the value chain who (pretty much) makes the decision of whether to carry a product or not.
At this point in time, building a good software update system using a tethered system should certainly be considered. I can see the Symbian^n platform to be a strong one, and hence a rigid infrastructure for all things that matter is crucial in its medium- to long-term success.
Hi,
I will be in vienna until around 20h in the night (but busy around 16h, editorial meeding).
I would love to meet you!
All the best
Tam Hanna
http://tamss60.tamoggemon.com
P.S. My mobile number is 0043/676/7886431
Forgot to add: if you want to meet up please email me and give me a ring!
in China,my friends and I got tired of changing new nokia smartphone to get the new os!!
lot of they change phone to the WM and IPHONE now!! just i am use the nokia s60 now!!
i just happy with the Introducing the Release Plan!! i just heard we can update the fw by the NSU every 6 months!
but now u tell us u don’t know!! i am so disappointed with the answer!
i don;t know why u do like this!!
look at the wm and iphone! why they can update ur roms!! why not nokia?
i can not understand any more!
if u just always like the old way to develop ur mobile,u will lost more users! i am sure!
look at the iphone!! it is instead of the s60 gradually!! i can see more and more people use the iphone around me! but not the s60!! why not think why???
is it true that my friends tell me the s60 get our of time! they change their s60 to other brand!
if nokia and symbian don’t get the new way to develop the s60,more and more people will not consider s60 any more!
in the early of 2009!i see the n97! i like it so much! i just tell a lot of friends,but all of them
advice me buy wm or iphone not s60 anymore! why not think about it???
the s60 lose appeal now??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
i have the n73 n78 n91 n95 n95 8g! only the n95/8g is the sign !!
the n96 is shit! like other brand use the omap3 in their new phone in thish year!
where is the nokia? the n97 will use it?? if not i think i will not consider the n97 any more!!!
we not just need the new phone!! we need the new service and the new mind!!!!
we want to get the real new feeling new hearing !!!
we want to get the real Nseries!
i wish the new Nseries can bate other smartphone! but u just consider whether should let’s get the new version !!!!!!!!!!!!!
that’s so funny!!!
You raise some good observations between the Japanese market and the GSM/WCDMA world, Kinney!
- You are absolutely right that language packs, operator-specific applications, and other localisation issues make it much more challenging to update phones in the GSM/WCDMA markets. (Although DoCoMo does carry Linux-based handsets as well!)
- You are also right when you state “the willingness for operators to get behind an initiative is almost non-existent, unless there is some substantial (revenue) gain in the idea.”
Over the last couple of years, some GSM/WCDMA operators have seen the light in terms of what software updating can do for them in terms of subscriber churn and new feature deployment, but most of the operators have been sitting on the fence.
We have therefore seen companies, like Sony Ericsson and Nokia, launch their own update service. There is an excellent video of the Nokia update process here =>
http://conversations.nokia.com/2008/10/29/video-mikko-kuusisto-and-phone-updates-over-the-air/
There are also some clever operators who have used the momentum created by Sony Ericsson and Nokia to launch their own services. T-Mobile is a good example. You can find their update website here:
http://support.t-mobile.co.uk/help-and-support/index?page=home&cat=SOFTWAREDOWNLOADS
As you can see under the software updates tab, they actually point back to the Sony Ericsson, Nokia, and Motorola update sites. Many (unfortunately not all) of these updates are done using FOTA and you magically get the T-Mobile specific SKU.
As far as I understand from the various Device Management conferences, the biggest issue is not technical in nature. The biggest issue is one of business processes. Operators are used to buying mobile phones with pre-integrated software. Software updating has been a question of warranty for them. They have in other words been charging the handset manufacturers for each update they performed. Not the best incentive to provide, if you want the latest and greatest services on your installed base of handsets.
There is good momentum in getting software updates deployed OTA. It would be a step back for the Symbian Foundation, if it reverted back to tethered updates and tied us all to our PCs.
“Things are developing nicely”, so lets make sure the Symbian Foundation (and the operators) raise the bar in terms of software update availability and user-friendliness.
@风之飘雨: Release plan != firmware update schedule
Nobody ever promised new OS upgrades via NSU (or euqivalents) every 6 months. What David wrote about in his other post was the “release plan”, i.e. how often a new version of Symbian^N will be available to the community.
There is a considerable amount of work to take that code, adapt it to your hardware of choice (i.e. add support for your phone’s DSP’s, camera module, etc.), add any vendor or operator customisations/tweaks (e.g. special N-Series exclusive apps or whatever), test it and then distribute it to customers. What we’re discussing here is what the Symbian Foundation can/should do to make software updates (including OS upgrades) easier.
I am not sure whether james’ comment was a response to my posting, but……I do believe the discussion is “an open discussion about software upgrades”.
There is a direct link between the deliverables of the foundation and how fast new and valuable software can get into the hands of the users (and developers for that matter).
Here are some of the areas that the Foundation can focus on:
- Package Management and Compatibility (including tools): Without solid guidelines and tools for software and data compatibility, you cannot deliver software to the user efficiently
- Technology enablers: We need delivery technology ( like Device Management with FUMO & SCOMO), security (of various kinds), installation frameworks (for both R/W file systems and ROM) to make software updating possible.
- Frequent release plan: they have this already, so no complaint here.
Delivery (whether Tethered or FOTA) can only happen if the upstream technology and business process issues have been ironed out. The Foundation has a big role to play here.
Whether a particular handset manufacturer decides to take advantage of these enablers is entirely up to them. If you are (as I am) a firm believer in the growing value of software to the mobile phone user, then it is more a question of how rather than if.
@Morten: Sorry, for the confusion. I was trying to respond to the poster just before you. I got the impression they were a little confused between the earlier release plan post and this “open discussion about software upgrades”.
@David Wood
As long as software update is considered, if the core OS doesn’t require new and/or advanced hardware,the newer updates should be provided to end user. Many times manufactures,even giant ones,stop making updates for their devices within a year even though there is enough scope to for new future on existing device.Take for example Nokia N70 which has the almost same hardware as that of N73,it was possible for Nokia to upgrade N70 to new OS they didn’t and still selling same phone with almost no software support.Whats the use of such device when it has many bugs?Hopes you’re getting me.Each software update should get feedback from user and based on that software should be improved.
have u found the model of the pc os??
whether u often change ur hardware to get the new windows????
we can use the windows new versions in the same pc!!
but we know that if u think ur pc is old(out of time) u will change it soon!!
but not force us to buy the new phone to get the new windows os!!
whay not mobilephones??
like the iphone and wm do it!! u can get the new os!! but if u think ur phone is old, i think everyone will decide to buy the new and powerful smartphone to get the quickly speed and the new experience from the hardware not always get the new phone with the same level hardware to get the new os!!
that’s so funny!!
i like symbian very much!! but if the symbian stand at the same place i will get out of the place with tear and sorrow!!!
think about it!!!! now we haven’t get the full infor about n97!!
it is so strange!!!! i know the pressures of nokia!!!
all the brand can get the same os! if u not get the new design , the powerful hardware and new services,u will loose more and more users!
like symbian, in the WMC 2009 the SE idou is so powerful!!
all of my friends is so interested in the new phone! they want to know more about idou!!
they know it will use the new os of the symbian doundation not just the s60 5th! and can get hte omap 3 cpu and the new dsp for the images videos and musics! the 12.1m camera is so bright!
but when i talk n97 with them,they often shake their heads!!
the same camera ,the same flash .the same color,the same ui! so they are disappointed with the n97!! thay don’t want to tell more about it!
i know if the product can not catch the heart of the users, the products fail!!!
i can not say anything about the n97! it will be the new flagship of the nseries or not???????? it can really like n95 become the landmark????
i doubt about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wake up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
change ur mind about the nseries! open ur ideas!
listen to us-all the users of symbian!!!!!!OK??????????
[...] binary patch to phones. There is a lively discussion of how software upgrades should work over on the main Symbian Foundation blog, so I won’t go into that further [...]
If Symbian Foundation is entirely a different entity with no relation to Nokia other than Nokia being on it’s board of directors or voting power table with other companies than any updates to the Operating system such as FW updates should in the future come from the foundation itself and not from each individual manufacturer of a handset.
Here is the thing right now s60 v3rd is one operating system. Yet it is broken in half by 3 different versions.
1.The original S60 v3rd that can be down on a Nokia N93 and N75
2. s60 v3rd FP1 that is found on the N81,N95,E71
3.s60 v3rd FP2 that is found on the N96, E75
To me it is ridiculous that I can’t get FP2 on the N95-3. Someone mentioned follow the PC method of things and I highly recommend that. It’s not like Microsoft made everyone go get a whole new computer or buy XP again when they released Service Packs 1 and 2, which these “Feature Packs” are the same as those “Service Packs”. Now I know you will say “thats nokia’s doing blah blah blah” but make note of this don’t let this happen again in the future if you have the ability of making this possible since the Symbian Foundation is “separate” from Nokia. Let all the phones that currently running what is the same “symbian operating system” get upgraded to the current version of that OS that includes all the new Feature Packs.
Now for upgrading to the newest version of the Symbian platform. I think it is in the best interest of the foundation to let that happen. Heck you can get Windows Mobile OS 6.1 on a 8125! The new OS coming out for the Iphone goes all the way back to the original one. The new version of Android “cupcake” goes back to the G1 when they are releasing the G2 and newer phones from Samsung are coming out soon. Set a min specification of hardware needed to run the latest symbian OS look at what popular phones are out there with how old they are and let them update.
It won’t stop consumers from buying a new phone, if people want a 10 megapixel cam on the phone they will buy a new one or if they want a phone with OLED screen on it they will go buy a new one.
If I go back to symbian (after the experience of the N95-3 with lack of OS support I really doubt it) I would expect for new updates of the OS to come from the foundation not from each manufacturer. The OS experience should be the same across the board and not create a divide within the same OS as how it is right now with s60.
@Donald: hardware innovation will continue to fuel that business model for a good while yet. Battery life, horsepower, size, display, media capabilities, camera quality, etc, etc are still a long way from being “there” either individually or as a package.
And there’s always the option of charging for upgrades – I’d pay a reasonable annual fee if it meant my 5800 would receive all major OS improvements until the day it becomes technically impossible on it’s hardware.
And I’ll also point out that I’m an ex WinMo user/developer of many years, and the lack of OS upgradeability there has only ever held me back from purchasing, as I tend to wait for the next OS version when I really want to upgrade my handset now, so that I don’t miss the next boat. If I didn’t have to worry about that, I’d upgrade handsets more frequently to keep up with major hardware improvements.
So I don’t see the phone vendor business model being an issue, it’s up to them to realize that their products are reaching a level of sophistication where the platform is becoming more important than the hardware and act accordingly.
These days when I buy a smartphone, I’m buying a way to do a bunch of mobile things that I have great need for, and a modus operandi/ecosystem that I want to learn and persevere with for many years as I INDEPENDENTLY buy new handsets and install new OS releases, in just the same way as I’ve done for years with my PC with Windows/Linux.
To do that, I need to upgrade my phone’s OS. I don’t care if the upgrade comes from the original vendor or the aftermarket, as long as it comes, is safe, legal, and works.
Symbian needs to facilitate that.
Sorry to be long winded, it’s early and I’ve been up all night.
)
Hi Chris,
>Symbian needs to facilitate that.
Agreed, Symbian is working towards device manufacturers (and/or other companies) being able to offer this kind of upgrade to their device software.
But Symbian can’t legislate that device manufacturers will choose to provide this service. Nor will we insist that any such upgrade must be offered free of charge to end users. These are decisions that device manufacturers will reach their own views about.
No doubt, as part of the process to decide what they do, device manufacturers will weigh up end-user requests, as well as what other device manufacturers are doing.
// David W.