Today I researched on the topic of "what options does a wireless app developer have these days." It wasn't a bad day, measured by amount of knowledge going in compared to amount of knowledge going out. Here are some factoids. Symbian, Palm, and Microsoft CE are operating systems for portable devices. Applications can sit on top of those devices, like a browser (html or wap), a phone controller, e-mail, Microsoft Mobile Internet Toolkit, "Compact Framework" (kinda .NET lite), and/or GSM or CDMA connectivity. Web services can do their thing on any device. They need to be developed using ASP.NET and XML/SOAP and possibly a .NET compiler, but the end-user hardware can be anything as long as it's connected. (Cooool).
GSM is the new stuff, always connected, only available in Europe. CDMA is the stuff most people are connected to in the US, and it has dropouts. There are other connectivity options, like radio antenna signals, used with devices like blackberry. But you can't talk over the phone on the radio (aside from CB and call-in talk shows). The smartphone was Microsoft's major answer to the features in the Symbian phones. They had to pull in their own no-name manufacturers to pull it off, but they managed to ship the Orange and only suffered one lawsuit so far. The Symbian folks seem to win big name converts all the time just by being the other guys. Oh, and their feature set is killer. Whether this competition degrades further to name calling is certainly not covered by sites that google notices lately. Perhaps both sides are exerting control over themselves.
The choice whether or not to "Go Microsoft" seems to become a political one rather than technical. In my experience, the open-source folks have a great philosophy for newcomers, but a worrisome one for anyone invested in the technology. Newcomers are treated to helpful guru-types and countless tutorial web sites. There is a glut of information, which in part is the very definition of open source. On the downside, once you know a particular piece of open-source technology, you can't rely on that knowledge in order to build a business model: you have to build a product next. This is neither good or bad morally, just a bummer if you're short on cash. In contrast, Microsoft shares less information than we would like. They either do this intentionally or by accident. The fact is they have no volunteer guru sherpas, they have to drag their stuff up the mountain by themselves. That doesn't make it better or worse, just not packaged as well as the open source stuff or with as much variety, character, or vim.
So, to partly answer my research topic question, I am again faced with the choice to go with Microsoft or open source. A long time ago I listened to bad advice from an anti-Microsoft clown who thought he was doing me a good turn. He said don't use Windows for any connectivity between the LAN I was trying to set up. So I bought a Novell network instead, breaking the bank and causing loads of ramp-up time. I fell for it because I knew this was a smart person. Many smart people have great reasons for eschewing Microsoft, like going off carbs or republicans. But the truth is I should have gone with Windows and concentrated on the core business I was developing. (In fact, this is the idea behind Web Services, it's like dynamically outsourcing as you go, leaving you free of distractions to concentrate on your core business). So if I were to make an investment in hardware today, I would go with all wireless os systems and let the best one win. (Talk about breaking the bank! Guess I'd better do more research).
Another note on the .NET framework. The installation complications, combined with the upgrade to the operating system and the incerease in system requirements, will be obstacles to adoption. Anything new has these obstacles. People get over it and buy new computers. But the important thing to consider is that it is a lot easier to convince one person to install one thing, or buy one computer, than it is to convince a company to switch an entire department. For one thing, it's cheaper to upgrade just yourself. For another, you know why you're doing it, it's not just policy. This leads me to believe that the bet emerging market for .NET applications will be consumers, not business. I doubt this has occured to anyone else because the emphasis in everything .NET I've seen is business through and through. That's because business has the big money. But what's the point in being Microsoft if you can't cruise on your cash reserves while you spark adoption of a new platform? I say switch emphasis to consumers and see what we think up.
9:11:19 PM 
|
|
