A Q&A with Fabrizio Capobianco, CEO of Funambol, on open source operating systems for mobile handsets.

Funambol: On one level, open source simply means making the source code available for people to access. On a practical level, a large scale open source project is quite complex, as it involves licensing, infrastructure to enable people to participate and contribute to a project, community management, and many other facets.

When it comes to mobile, the software on a wireless device is highly complex. It needs to access a mobile network - which is not open source - as well as a mobile server - which can be open source - that provides mobile services such as synchronisation, notification and more. Although there is a natural focus on open source handset software, open source permeates many levels of the mobile technology stack and value chain.

Q:  Open source for handset operating systems: How true are these initiatives to the model, how do they work and why adopt this approach for handsets?

Funambol: The primary reasons to adopt an open source handset operating system are two-fold: 1) its cost is very low or free compared to proprietary handset operating systems, which can result in significant savings; and 2) it provides ultimate control and flexibility for the device manufacturer to adapt the operating system for their device and to differentiate it.

The three open source mobile handset operating systems – Android, Symbian Foundation and LiMo Foundation - are open source in the strictest sense, in that their source code is available, though each has major differences.

Symbian is attempting to become open source after starting as closed source. This is very difficult, due to the sheer size of their legacy code and the culture behind the software. It was primarily controlled by Nokia and used mainly on Nokia devices, and it remains to be seen if anyone besides Nokia will be interested in using it.

LiMo is a consortium of companies that banded together to contribute to their operating system. It consists of a committee that works to bring LiMo devices to market. Its strength is that there are potentially many companies who will be interested in using the software for their devices, since they are participating and contributing to the project. The downside is that rarely has good software ever resulted from a large number of commercial organizations working together, due to the fact that each has their own priorities, agendas and core competencies. It is not impossible, and many large open source projects benefit from large numbers of people working together, but it remains to be seen if commercial objectives muddy the waters.

Android is the new kid on the block. Its strength is having a large instrumental backer that can shape its direction and having a modern code base. However, it is not as mature as the other open source alternatives.

Also, there are many companies that are wary of doing anything to help Google, lest they become their own worst competitor.

A challenge for each open source operating system is gaining significant mindshare from device makers and developers, as well as market traction. Device makers will adopt an open source operating system if it's easy, low cost, and it provides a competitive advantage. Developers write for a platform if there are a lot of devices and if it is not onerous and expensive. In this regard, Symbian has an edge because it is on hundreds of millions of devices. LiMo and Android need to catch up. But Symbian has the major challenge of transitioning from closed to open source.

Q: How does open source for mobile compare to the PC industry?

Funambol: The dynamics of the PC and mobile industry are quite different. In the PC world, there are only a few types of hardware (PC compatibles, Mac, Linux and a few others). As a result, there are a few operating systems, from Microsoft, Apple and several Linux providers. The mobile industry, by contrast, is the wild Wild West. There will soon be four billion mobile phones in the world, consisting of over 1,000 models, and more than a dozen significant operating systems. This device fragmentation is a major challenge for the industry, because there are too many platforms to support. This problem will get worse before it gets better. For example now everyone is introducing an applications store. App stores are great for reaching a market, but each requires additional work.

Q: What is the value of handset software and how important is the operating system in this value chain?

 Funambol: The mobile operating system is strategic in the value chain, similar to the value the operating system plays in the desktop world. Whoever controls the operating system has significant power and leverage in the market. Its role in mobile is not as pronounced as in the PC world because in the desktop market Microsoft has a near monopoly. In mobile, no operating system provider dominates, but still, there are huge numbers of devices running these operating systems.

For example, if Android is on a device and Google services are tightly integrated into the operating system, this provides Google with a major advantage.

Q: How will the market development and will there be three open source operating systems in several years’ time?

Funambol: The trend toward openness in mobile handset is unmistakable. Mobile operating system providers will be compelled to make their platforms open. This does not mean that they will all become open source, but it means more openness in their APIs (application programming interfaces). Microsoft, Apple, RIM and others will need to make their mobile platforms more open over time.

There are too many platforms for mobile developers to support, and there will be fewer three years from now. It’s difficult to predict which ones will survive but the trend is clear that they will be open and fewer in number.

Q: What about Apple’s iPhone operating system, it is closed yet innovative.

Funambol: The Apple operating system is closed, despite the 1,000 APIs recently heralded in its 3.0 announcement. A good example is the inability for third party developers to access the calendar on the iPhone (unless they license ActiveSync from Microsoft, which is not based on open source or open standards). This provides a short-term advantage to Apple, as they can control the operating system, but over the mid to longer term this will not be a viable or sustainable approach, given open source alternatives.

Developers will realize that the Apple operating system is not open, which will hamper their ability to develop differentiated applications: the iPhone platform is not a level playing field. This will cause developers to seek other platforms where they can develop more innovative apps. RIM has gradually needed to open up its APIs, and the market forces are unmistakably moving towards more openness for mobile handset operating systems.

[End]

The Q&A was conducted via email. The result of a call with the CEO will appear in the June issue of Total Telecom. Other companies interviewed for the technology briefing article include AT&T, Vodafone, Nokia, Samsung, ST-Ericsson, Azingo, LiMo Foundation, Symbian Foundation, Informa Telecoms & Media, Ovum and Strategy Analytics.

Fabrizio Capobianco also has a blog - click here