Two more versions of the OS followed, Symbian Anna , which brought browser speed and text input improvements and ushered in a new rounded icon-based UI. Followed by a final update: Symbian Belle. Belle added additional modernising touches such as more customisable widgets, extra homescreens, a pull down status screen for accessing settings and viewing missed missives, notifications on the lockscreen, and support for NFC.
The problem was Android already had all those things. The old folder based menu hierarchy that Symbian had carried with it from its PDA days had finally been entirely flattened.
But it had taken far too long to level the playing field. At the start of this year Nokia confirmed that the Symbian-based PureView — announced in with much fanfare thanks to its 41MP camera sensor — would be the last device it makes on the Symbian platform.
After all, they were the key strengths that had allowed it to travel so far and find its way on to so many devices for so many years in the first place. By the time I got to Palm, and we were wrestling with how best to provide a multicore platform for smartphones, we started to realise that Symbian had some real potential. Limited, and then took the reigns as the head of the Foundation, the platform appeared to be the preeminent system for the mobile age.
What was ironic, was that its strengths ended up being the soul of its demise. The Ovi brand was discontinued later that year, with the store taking on the Nokia mantle instead. Nigel Clifford, head of Symbian from to and now CEO of Procserve, described the lack of a single Symbian app store as one of Symbian's "fatal fragmentations". Despite their common OS, no app written for one OS could be used on the other — while elements of code could be reused, a developer wanting to write something that worked on both S60 and UIQ, say, essentially had to produce two different apps.
They therefore kept these pieces in their organisations rather than allowing us to develop them alongside the OS to create a fabulous unified user experience like you get from Apple - and so make their devices more compelling and competitive in the face of the bigger threat of Android, Apple, RIM competition. But all of these near-misses pale in comparison to one of the main technological drivers that helped push Symbian into decline. Symbian was becoming an unmanageable bit of software.
It represented challenges in how you could change the user experience. Or, as West and Wood summed it up: "Symbian was limited by its legacy code and its installed based to meet the challenge of more modern APIs and better development tools provided by Apple and Google, which both started with a clean slate.
Perhaps it's no surprise that Symbian had become unmanageable. Aside from its Psion heritage, Symbian was "held captive" by its partners and the industry at large, according to Lee Williams, former head of the Foundation.
I remember in one case there were 10, requirements to get Symbian products onto that one carrier's network. A typical carrier requirement would anything from do or don't include wi-fi support to where things showed up on a menu.
Symbian, once a high-end platform, stagnated — it couldn't change fast enough to compete and so attract developers. When the Symbian Foundation was created and the decision to open source the OS was taken, it hoped to unleash the software — from its licence fee, from its closed roots, and from the supply chain that held it hostage.
By going open source, the Foundation hoped they'd give operators the confidence to keep investing in the platform. The signs were good: by going open source, the foundation was taking Symbian out from under the dominance of Nokia, and removing the licence fee. Moves were made to address the question of fragmentation with unification of Symbian UIs under Series 60 and the addition of the Qt software layer which would make porting apps across platforms — MeeGo, Series 40 and Symbian, a lot easier.
There were even efforts to tackle the apps and ecosystem question. After Nokia's launch of its own, rather than a Symbian, app store provoked "much heated discussion and conflict", the Foundation started work on an uber-store with APIs that third-parties could use to fashion their own stores from. For example, developers with five apps could make a mini-store just containing those apps. Better yet, they could sell them through the Foundation's channel without the organisation taking a cut.
There was still a lot of conflict, some infighting among the manufacturers and issues that needed to be resolved" such as who would pay for the necessary development work, said Williams.
And, despite the promising initial signs, those who had joined the Foundation in its early days began to peel away.
For Wood and West, the problem that really saw Symbian fall apart was, retrospectively, inherent from its very beginning. Symbian's ability to set an independent course was "ultimately constrained by the dual role of its largest shareholder and customer [ To begin with, the existence of such divided leadership suggests a broader problem of defining and operationalising platform leadership with multiple leaders.
For example, Gawer and Henderson define Microsoft and Intel as platform leaders [with Wintel]; if the Symbian platform were similarly defined, then the leaders would be Symbian and ARM but clearly platform licensees played a crucial if not controlling role in its evolution. When Nokia announced in that it was ditching Symbian as its primary smartphone platform in favour of Windows Phone , it effectively signalled that the end was nigh for the OS.
Nokia said it would wind down its use of Symbian, and later that year announced that Accenture was to take over development work and support for the OS. That outsourcing deal will close in , and is unlikely to be renewed. Nokia has been Symbian's biggest champion throughout its life and, when it said this month that last year's PureView will be the last Symbian device it ever makes, it was the final nail in the OS' coffin.
When the Accenture deal finally runs out, Symbian will be over 15 years old. Series 40 - Nokia's proprietary, budget OS — practically shares a birthday with Symbian; it too is around 15 years old. When you got your first phone, there's a good chance in ran Series 40, and for many people in developing economies, the same is still true. Kies only detects the phone contacts. On Nokias, it only has one phonebook instead of several like on Droid, which makes Sync easier.
So if I edit a phone contact, it doesnt get synced to my Google contact? Thats crazy. It cant store and make messages like Ovi Suite can. For the life of me I cant get it to tether internet via USB. Sync is even slower than Ovi Suite.
Many people are already complaining about Ovi, which I dont since it works fast for me. For something thats supposed to be for use with Android, it doesnt support the OS fully.
Even experienced Android users are telling me to use a different program. One of the most important advantage of symbian over android is that it is the own software of nokia, thus the updates and bug fixed would be made are thinking about devices. Symbian may nt be so much hi-fi in terms of looks but its software is more stable than android.
Symbian devices being a bit conservative type i mean to say nt open for 3rd part apps widout proper certificate provides better security, whereas android may easily get affected by spywares. Thats why i chose symbian powered c though i had lots of option over android in that price like galaxy ace, sony ericsson xperia x10 and few more Well, that's not really much of an advantage subdaheep, since manufacturers are allowed to edit the Android codes to a certain extent, making each version of Android technically their own.
Very useful answer. Maybe, until the next year 2 OSs will be clearer for us to make right decision In reply to santo98rini's post on August 15, Next year, Symbian will be closer to the grave. Check out the Nokia WP7 phones instead by then. Down the line they may succeed and we may find a true mobile computer, where PC apps and cellphone apps are one and the same.
In all honestly, I'm just waiting for Nokia to release a Windows8 tablet with Nokia goodies Ovi Maps more precisely on it.
I already now think that a combination of a Nokia device with either an Apple or Android device is the way to go, having the best of two OS. Tablets nowadays are becoming more and more necessary, and owning a phone and tablet with the same OS is IMHO stupidly redundant, and with the limitations both iOS and Android has, Nokia is the best 'mediator' with WP7 and excellent phone hardware.
The Android works on dual-core processors, which adds a lot of applications with great speed. When we compare the default browser of Android with Symbian and iOS here, too, Android wins as other browsers come with complicated algorithms, which slows the Internet spread. However, the Android browser comes with visual bookmarks, which are handy and easy to use with a smooth flow of information. Android is developed by Giant Google, which supports almost applications instead, Symbian is developed by Nokia, which is embedded with limited applications as it makes them dependent on Nokia.
The Symbian and iOS have limited applications confining their use. In Symbian OS, you can never change the firmware, but in Android OS, you can change it any time you want and easily install the updates, allowing you to use more applications.
In Android, you can change the screen keyboards the easy way, and apart from this, you can install Gingerbread to Froyo and Swype to Honeycomb. With one tap, you can choose multiple spelling suggestions and deleting a word or adding. While Symbian and iOS do not come with the customization features of new keyboard installation.
0コメント