Canonical reveals Ubuntu for Android

Canonical is making good on its promise to bring its popular Ubuntu flavor of Linux to a broader range of devices by announcing Ubuntu for Android, a release that will enable a full desktop computing experience on a docked Android smartphone. More than just a virtualized app that behaves like Ubuntu, the developers have melded together the Ubuntu architecture with the Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) AOSP build at the kernel level. The result is, from what we’ve seen, a harmony between the two platforms that could make a lot of sense for demanding mobile users.

To begin the introduction to Ubuntu for Android, let’s start with what Ubuntu for Android isn’t: it’s not a new mobile OS. Rather than try to enter the arena to take on Apple, Microsoft, and Google, Canonical instead chose to build a package that leverages the popularity of Android. This means Canonical is building on top of the world’s fastest growing mobile platform as a value-add. It’s a move that allows Ubuntu to augment the Android experience as opposed to attempt to replace it. This new release is best understood as a convergence between your mobile and desktop computing environments.

In an interview with Canonical CEO Jane Silber, I was able to grasp the driving idea behind Ubuntu for Android in the scheme of Canonical’s overarching vision for Ubuntu. Right now, you most likely carry a smartphone, laptop, and perhaps a tablet device of some kind. Each has a specific purpose in your day, but adds an amount of weight and time to your mobile computing. With the release of this software distribution, Canonical has unveiled that its goal is to narrow down the amount of devices that you carry to just one that will provide the same functionality of all three items mentioned above.

How it works

When you are using your Android phone that has Ubuntu installed as well, it will behave in exactly the same fashion it does now. You will have access to all the Google applications, the Market, your contacts, and the ability to make calls. So in the morning when you grab your phone to check on the emails and SMS messages that came in overnight, nothing will change there. When you arrive to your office however, your phone can become your desktop. You will simply plug the HDMI-enabled device into its dock, and you have a the full Unityexperience on your big screen.

The best part is that you won’t be walled off from the information that you were using when the device was acting like a phone. You have access to all your emails, SMSes, and contacts, as well as the ability to make and receive calls. Additionally, you will be able to do tasks like edit and display pictures, as well as view videos that you have taken with your mobile device.

This is a completely different experience than the closest comparison, Motorola’s Webtop. Your phone is literally your computer, not just acting as a browser that can interact with web applications. I was surprised when I saw the demo — the system was responsive and snappy, and lived up to the hype. However, before you rush to root your Android phone in preparation to install this software package there are some drawbacks.

The first downside is the hardware. Canonical has no plans to manufacture any kind of phone/dock combination made specifically for Ubuntu. For the development of the software the Canonical developers used the Motorola Atrix 2, but moving forward it will only be available straight from the factory — it won’t be able to be installed on existing handsets. Furthermore, Ubuntu on Android is limited to handsets with HDMI out. In addition, the hardware requirements to run this flavor of Ubuntu relegates it to the higher end of the smartphone spectrum. You will need a dual- or quad-core ARM processor with at least 512MB of memory installed. x86 was mentioned as being possible, but for the time being ARM is the focus. Realistically, Ubuntu for Android has been developed for future handsets that are going to have the horsepower to push everything the software is going to require.

The other problem is that while Canonical is pushing the build to hardware manufacturers and mobile carriers, it has no plans to release it to the general public for independent development. This means that you won’t see a CyanogenMod ROM with this functionality built into it. While Ubuntu is open source, Canonical plans to control the release of this version. It’s possible that, given the ingenuity of Android users, one day there will be a leaked build, but such a thing wouldn’t be endorsed by the company.

Those things aside, it’s hard not too like this move by Canonical. When I first heard about Ubuntu on a mobile device I was very skeptical since putting a desktop experience on such a small screen has been tried before and has failed. But the fact that this is going to give me a way to carry around a full-fledged computing experience in my pocket instead of a backpack is a win in my book.

Read more at Ubuntu — and be ready for Mobile World Congress next week, where Ubuntu for Android should be on display

Source

Windows Phone 7: Another holiday season lost

Just like that, the second holiday season for Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 platform has come and gone without the mobile OS making a name for itself. Windows Phone continues to hover somewhere in the single digits of market share despite the brand recognition offered by Nokia in its new partnership with Microsoft. With the version 7.5 Mango update, Windows Phone has become a more than capable platform, and even Android has taken some design cuesfrom it.

So what’s the problem? With hindsight being 20/20, let’s see how Microsoft has failed to capitalize on Windows Phone 7.

Announcement and launch

Microsoft officially unveiled Windows Phone 7 at Mobile World Congress in February of 2010, but it was originally called “Windows Phone 7 Series.” The name was such a mouthful that even Microsoft had to back off and shorten it to Windows Phone 7. Microsoft was up front that the platform wasn’t going to be out until the end of 2010. That was the first problem.

By the time Microsoft had started to push the new platform on users, iOS and Android had built up huge market share. Redmond wasted time and resources working on the catastrophic failure that was the Kin, and allowed inter-department rivalries to slow Windows Phone’s development.

It does take time to build a good mobile operating system, but Windows Phone was late before it was even announced. In that awkward few months between announcement and release, carriers were still selling Windows Mobile 6.5 phones. If that doesn’t pollute a brand, nothing will.

Bad ads

Microsoft spent big on advertising Windows Phone 7, as much as $500 million according to some reports. What did that get Microsoft? Not a whole lot, as it turns out. The opening volley of ads were all based around the idea that Windows Phone was easy to use. “Get in, get out, get on with life,” was the tagline. It’s a nice idea, but it completely misses the psychology of the average smartphone user.

People really don’t like to be told something it too complicated for them, even if it is. The implicit tone of Microsoft’s original ads might as well have been, “Here’s a phone that’s easy enough for you to use, dummy.” The ads completely ignore the fact that smartphone users often have their noses buried in a screen because they like using the device, not because they have no choice.

The Windows Phone ads also failed to really show the device in-use. There were a few ads with some generalized features shown off, but they were not widely aired. Apple has had massive success making ads that focus with laser-like precision on a single feature at a time. People respond because we’re very visual creatures. Seeing how a device works is more compelling than being told it’s good in a flashy ad.

Carrier problems

Windows Phone’s issues on the carrier side of things are two-fold. The first problem came early on with the lack of CDMA support. In the US, that meant there were no launch devices on Sprint, and more seriously, on Verizon. Right out of the gate in that first holiday season the majority of US customers simply didn’t have access to Windows Phone 7. Making CDMA an afterthought was probably a necessary concession to get the software out the door, but that delay might have affected the carriers’ desire to play ball with Redmond.

To this day, there is only one Windows Phone device on Verizon, and it’s not even clear the carrier wants it there. The in-store displays are designed to push certain devices. There are no Windows Phone ads in the stores, and the phones themselves are often hidden away to make space for more iPhones and Android devices.

Even the website barely acknowledges Microsoft’s mobile platform. You have to scroll down past the iPhones, top tier Android phones, mid-range Android phones, and even past the BlackBerry selection before Verizon will show you its solitary Windows Phone, the HTC Trophy. Sadly, the situation isn’t much better on other carriers. No banners, no prominent placement, and no bundle deals — it’s like Windows Phone 7 doesn’t even exist.

Microsoft should have been offering enticements, paying for advertising, and working with both OEM and carrier partners to get its devices featured prominently. Users trust what they can see and try for themselves, but no one is putting the devices in front of users in carrier stores. All the clever YouTube videos and blog posts on Earth won’t change the reality that in the US market, the carrier is still king.

Missing features

Windows Phone 7 launched in a state that was just not competitive. Despite Microsoft’s frequent assertions that it was working on updating with must-have features like copy/paste and multitasking, it took far too long. Unfortunately, the platform got a reputation for being behind on features, and not even the recent Mango updatehas been able to turn that around. Support for hardware options like LTE and dual-core processors has also lagged behind the competition.

The sad thing is that in its current form, Windows Phone 7 has a lot of compelling features. The browser is good, the keyboard is excellent, Office with SkyDrive support is useful, and it has that multitasking problem licked. Signing into a Windows Phone is a very compelling experience as your content populates the home screen tiles and the phone becomes “yours” with very little configuration. This is an experience people don’t see because it took so long for Redmond to catch up, but now no one is watching.

App selection

While most users vastly overestimate the number of apps they use, the number of apps on a platform really helps to lure new users. Spend five minutes in an Apple store and see how many times the size of the App Store is brought up by eager sales reps. Windows Phone got off to a rocky start app-wise, but things are picking up. Microsoft was able to coax some high-end developers to port iOS games to Windows Phone, but very few are coming over of their own accord.

As iOS and Android run away with the market, we see time and time again that budding development houses are putting out games most frequently on iOS, and sometimes with a concurrent Android release. Windows Phone 7 is left scrounging for the scraps not because it’s bad for developers, but because of its small user base. What comes first? The all-important app ecosystem, or the user base? Microsoft is experiencing a mobile catch 22.

Perhaps the saving grace of Windows Phone is the huge pile of money Microsoft consistently makes from products like Office and Windows on the desktop. It can afford to continue subsidizing Windows Phone development for a long time to come. The Xbox had a killer feature in Live, and that helped Microsoft worm its way into the gaming market. Windows Phone 7 is still looking for that undeniable selling point, but give it time.

Source

Is Android the most closed open source project?

If you were to ask an average Android fan what the best part of the operating system was, there is a good chance that their reply would be that it’s an open source project. The fact that it’s freely available to use and work with is the cornerstone of the Android movement. However, is Android as wide open as users think? According to a recent report from VisionMobile, Google’s mobile OS is actually one of the most locked down open source projects on the market. While not everyone agrees with this point, it’s easy to see how they came to that conclusion.

VisionMobile conducted their research by putting Android up against other open source projects such as Mozilla, Linux, MeeGo, and Eclipse. Using its own market research, the company rated each project on four areas: access, development, derivatives, and community.

How did Android rank? Dead last. In each category the mobile OS scored the lowest, which, in my opinion, does not indicate a lack of openness, but an overstatement of VisionMobile’s self-importance. In reading the infographic, it feels like the whole thing was created to expose Android as an open source sham. As an Android user, I have to take issue with this, specifically because it calls out Android in the areas of access, derivatives, and community.

Access

Of the legs VisionMobile is trying to stand on, this may be the most sturdy. Android is not developed in the open, but in-house until it’s ready for release. Google works with partners like Samsung and HTC to make sure the latest versions plays nicely with hardware, then rolls the source out to the community for its use. Usually there is a large gap between the announcement and demo of the new features, but with Ice Cream Sandwich developers got the source before the Galaxy Nexus was even announced in the US.

While the definition of open usually involves fully crowdsourced piece of software, the fact that Google holds the code until it’s ready for everyday use is about quality. Honeycomb was not released until recently because of the fragmentation of the platform, and Google not wanting to exacerbate the problem. Once Android source goes live, anyone can do anything they like with it, even add to the source tree. I can concede the issue to a point, but I don’t think that Google’s focus on quality should be reason for a low score.

Derivatives

This is where VisionMobile’s case starts to fall apart. Android scored low here because it limits who “officially” can have the Android Market on their devices. Manufacturers must meet certain standards and be certified to be able to advertise the Market being there, but are free to either create their own or use one of the other third-party markets available on the internet. Google is not locking down applications like Apple, indeed there are some Android users who wish they would do that to raise the quality of apps. Instead Google is creating a new method of getting apps, allowing users to make the choice if they want to get Angry Birds from the Amazon App Store or the Market. Certification is about keeping hardware partners happy, nothing else. Go get yourself a no-name, knock-off Android device, I guarantee it has the Market installed on it.

Community

Rating a piece of software on whether or not users get tiered rights seem a bit anti-open source to me. The idea is that everyone gets access, not just the elite. Android again scored poorly here because there is no official leveling in the community. I understand that VisionMobile is talking about incentives for developers to actually get projects completed, but Android has one of the strongest communities around! A user can look to several development groups to pick and choose what kind of ROM they want to run on their device. These groups do the work because they love Android, love open source and are pleased to provide the public with a service that an everyday user can’t usually take part in. Docking Android or any of the other programs for that matter is ridiculous.

You can see the results of the study in the infographic below. Readers need to note that it was conducted solely by VisionMobile, using its own market research. Take it for what it’s worth.

Vision Mobile via Boy Genius Report

Source