(This post relates to mobile phone manufacturers, and comments I have seen that relate to being able to compete with iPhone and Android)

"The Network Operators want a 3rd ecosystem"

Are you sure about that? My expectation is that what they really want right now is to not be dictated to by Apple and Google.

Adding another "ecosystem" has many disadvantages, not least of which is apps ("What? are you crazy?" I hear you say).

Users who care about apps are going to want apps that are consistent with and equivalent to the app experience (but not necessarily the same) that other users get with their iOS and Android devices-- this will in particular be the case with apps that involve online services such as Facebook, Twitter, FourSquare, etc. Such apps are useless if you cannot use them to easily interact with your friends, colleagues and family.

So adding a new platform ("ecosystem") to the mix will in this case just add more confusion and user dissatisfaction. Note the evaluation of quality for a Twitter (or such) app is not going to be whether it is any good; it is going to be "does it work like on the iPhone?" (or if such a user has more Android based friends it will be "does it work like on Android?").

Actually, strictly: it does not even matter if my statement above is true or not, it is the Network Operators perception related to the above that is important. When a phone is purchased with a subscription to a voice/data plan, unless it is an iPhone, the Network Operator is the first port of call for the majority of support enquiries. They are the people most identified by end users as being able to help them --  in particular they are not going to go to Microsoft (for instance) for help. They already support at least two such "ecosystems", and you can also possibly add in RIM (and Nokia/Symbian outside the USA). So in considering whether to actually really adopt another "ecosystem" the Network Operators are going to be very wary of the support burden that falls on them.

On top of this: what use to the Network Operator is this "3rd ecosystem" if it just involves another party dictating to them? What benefit do they get from carrying this "3rd ecosystem"? They will need to see a compelling benefit in order to compensate for the app/support burden I have noted above.

Given that whatever happens a Network Operator is going to sell a phone and a service to a customer -- and they mostly compete on their services rather than the actual model of phone they sell (unless you want an iPhone in the US) -- what benefit do they have in even bothering to carry the phones for this extra "ecosystem" with this extra support burden?

There has to be something in it for the Network Operators.

Otherwise they just won't bother with this so called "3rd ecosystem".

On Tuesday 21st of June Nokia announced their latest flagship phone, the Nokia N9. The design looks great, both from a hardware point of view, and from the software user experience, which includes some innovative UI elements. It has been extremely well received by bloggers and news outlets, even those that have been recently very critical of Nokia's efforts. People are excited about it.

It could very well spell the doom of Nokia however.

I am not sure why Nokia have launched the device at all -- as good as it appears, and even though it showcases Nokia at it's best, Nokia management seem determined that this device will be the last of it's type from Nokia. They have decided to use Microsoft's Windows Phone platform for all their future smartphones, even though it seems that a good case could be made that the N9 platform is better for Nokia (perhaps there are contractual obligations from the recent Microsoft deal that preclude them from making further devices using the same platform as the N9). This is not, however Nokia's real problem.

Nokia's real problem is that they have launched it. They have shown their competitors what is possible on this platform. If this was a traditionally developed Smartphone platform like iOS, Windows Phone, Series 40 or even Android, their competitors would now be breathing a sigh of relief that Nokia are not going to pursue this excellent platform any further, and Nokia go could on to compete in the Windows Phone ecosystem.

This was not however a traditionally developed platform. It is a Linux based platform (Meego/Harmattan - API compatible with Meego 1.2), fully open source, including the graphics toolkit and telephony stack. Only the phone applications are proprietary. The Meego platform is coordinated by the Linux Foundation, and scales across several different applications, from mobile phones, set top boxes, and in vehicle information systems. The source code is available, and unlike Android, interested parties can participate in it's development. That includes the excellent Qt graphics tool kit upon which the N9's excellent and innovative user experience is built.

So instead of just breathing a sigh of relief about a narrow escape of having to compete with this excellent platform, Nokia's competitors are going to be looking at it and saying to themselves: ''we can make one of those''. They have all the pieces, they just need to find someone to help them put them all together.

There are hundreds of small companies all over the world with just this sort of expertise, but none to the depth that the Nokia team have. This is the advantage that Nokia currently have.

This is also Nokia's other problem. They have a team who are passionate about building the very sort of platform they are going to end. A team with just the sort of knowledge that is needed to help a competitor company build a device like the N9. A team who very soon will not be able to do the things they love doing.

I imagine that right now Helsinki and Espoo are awash with recruitment agents trying to get hold of key Nokia/Meego personel.

And soon we will see a Huwei, or Sony Ericsson, or HTC ''N9''. Perhaps they will all make one.

Looks interesting:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/08/open_compute_server_comment/

We might only have 220 machines in our European compute cluster, but I would imagine we have approaching 10,000 world wide, and then there are our shareholder/parent companies. At these sort of scales we might be able to make some useful savings... Especially if we manufacture all the bits we can ourselves...

For when dropbox / dropdav are not accessible... ?

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/reviews/item/12764_SymFTP.php

(might even be less fiddly than copying files into the dropbox and then connecting via webdav)