Symbian PLC will outpace Microsoft Corp. in the market for cellular phone operating systems, reaching double the market share in 2007, a research firm said Friday. Symbian, a software consortium formed by handset makers, will have 5 percent of the market in five years, with Microsoft coming in second with 2.5 percent and Linux third with 2 percent, the Probe Group, Cedar Knolls, N.J., said. Get more mobile computing news on our sister site, NMC.
Symbian Expected To Outpace Microsoft In Cellular Phone Market
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Those are tiny percentages all around; 5, then 2.5, and then 2 percent? Then who has the majority?
The Nokia-OS, the Ericsson-OS etc. The more generic OSes has a long way to go in this market.
Nokia-OS & the Ericsson-OS are both Symbian based on most phones.
Only the high-end Nokia and Ericsson models use Symbian. Most models continue to run the old vendor-specific OSs.
Only Nokia smart phones (which is a small part of Nokia’s sales) and certain phones from Sony-Ericsson uses Symbian. Smartphone in the sense of having PDA-like features in the phone, which isn’t all that common.
Of course symbian will outpace microsoft. Symbian is the child of a monopolistic consortium of mainly GSM and European vendors. Microsoft’s products are having performance issues as well. Oh and why is it that European and Japanese led “consortiums” like UMTS, GSM, and symbian can play the artificial monopolist-like games and no one says a thing. If symbian were led by US firms, Europeans everywhere would be screaming bloody murder and claiming the US is the source of every evil.
Symbian is the child of anti-competitive consoritum. GSM is the child of an uncompetitive consortium and so is UMTS. Microsoft’s presence in this market is actually a good thing. Competition is a good thing, even if that means stoping anticompetitive behavorior that starts in Europe.
teh fact that symbian isn’t going to steal the handset manufactures IP whilst doing everything in it’s power to make them fail might also have something to do with it. As for the European manufactures being anti competive perhaps you should check the prices of most handsets, pay as you go £60 – £100, and for taking out a contract they pay you. This is because GSM means that you can easily change either carrier or handset, as the SIM cards all work together no matter what network. So the manufacturers have to compete eith each other rather than rely on the difficulty of changing carriers to lock the customer in.
Symbian is the child of anti-competitive consoritum. GSM is the child of an uncompetitive consortium and so is UMTS. Microsoft’s presence in this market is actually a good thing. Competition is a good thing, even if that means stoping anticompetitive behavorior that starts in Europe.
If I recall, Microsoft is a monopoly and has been attempting to leverage that into the area of mobile phones. None of the Symbian partners has been convicted of abusing monopolies like Microsoft, so the only reason I can think of for complaining is American biased rascism, or jealousy. It’s better that European manufacturers work together where they can and compete in innovation, price, and quality.
This piece has an unusual title as it implies that Microsoft is in the lead – this is not the case and never has been.
Symbian has been in phones for a couple of years now, staring with the R380s and 9210. Now there are several manufacturers making Symbian devices and more on the way.
http://www.symbian.com/technology/symbos-phones.html
So far they are expensive phones but thats changing, high end features make their way down the market pretty quickly these days.
Microsoft on the hand keeps losing handset manufacturers. If they are trying to get a lead in this market they are doing a very bad job of it so far.
Symbian is the child of anti-competitive consoritum.
Symbian is the child of Psion and a group of Phone manufacturers who didn’t want Microsoft to pull the same s**t they did in the PC market.
The companies involved can and do use other operating systems in their phones. It is by definition competitive.
GSM is the child of an uncompetitive consortium and so is UMTS. Microsoft’s presence in this market is actually a good thing. Competition is a good thing, even if that means stoping anticompetitive behavorior that starts in Europe.
So you’d rather have to be locked into one telco with low grade service and the complete inability to switch to other provider without buying a new phone – like the US. Many companies make GSM handsets using components from different companies. GSM is an open standard – unlike most things Microsoft do.
Competition is a good thing and the European telecoms market is fiercly competitive.
Actually, I don’t see many European screaming bloody murder over the fact that 99% of all PC OSes come from the US. Imagine that.
And what is so monopolistic about GSM? It’s an open standard, or at least as open as any other mobile telephony standard. There is no shortage of GSM makers, and all phones are compatible with all networks, since everything is compatible. It’s difficult to get any less monopolistic.
You should see the Japanese mobile market. There, each provider has his own standard and branded phones. Change your provider, and you’ve got to throw away your old phone.
So, what is monopolistic? The fact that there is only one standard? By your logic, 220 V electricity is monopolistic, too. Each power plant should have its own power standard, and when you change electricity firm, you will have to swap out all your appliances as well. 😉
1) GSM requires a hefty license fee if you are not one of the founding members. Its on the order of 20% and above. that is not an open model. That is a artificial barrier to entry. One of those companies is American, Motorola
2) My point is be consistent. I don’t like anti-competitive regardless if it is started by microsoft, nokia, qualcomm, cisco, etc. I don’t care where the anti-competitive behavior comes from. However, i don’t turn a blind eye to anti-competitive activity in my home country, like europeans often do, and then complain about it elsewhere. that is my main complaint. be consistent.
3) Symbian, UMTS, GSM are basically a club of a few companies who have decided that they will control the mobile market and keep others (usually the ones with better ideas) out. That is bad for the industry.
4) Competition is good even if it is introduced by microsoft. No i don’t care for MS’ behavior in the past but they up against a group (the existing cell phone makers) that are every bit as dirty as MS so i really have a problem taking sides.
5) MS may leverage its monopoly but UMTS, GSM, Nokia, ERicsson, alcatel, siemens etc have leveraged heavy government assistance. Personally, i can’t see a difference.
GSM has nothing to do with the portability issue of SIM cards. GSM phones can be locked by their service providers. You can also have unlocked CDMA phones as well. It’s an issue with the telephone service providers, not a technogical one.
Whether a company not get convicted for monopolist actions has nothing to do with whether the company is actually guilty of it — it’s whether their governments want to encourage nationalist economic policy in detriment to their own citizens. Japan is the perfect example — their government encourage Japanese companies to screw their own citizens so that they can have an edge against American companies.
Using something else than Microsoft products is NOT a crime, it can happen sometimes and you should’nt be so upset about it.
Try to convince Microsoft to make a useable pda-phone and we’ll see, the SPV was a great joke, but not a cheap one, it was just sold in Europe to try to take somes market shares, not to be used as a phone, this is why we use Symbian products.
“Using something else than Microsoft products is NOT a crime, it can happen sometimes and you should’nt be so upset about it. ”
I encourage competition so i’d be pleased to see the use of something other than MS. I am critizing rule by consortium that has been a foundation of the cellular industry. Part of that problem is US-based, part of it is european based. Use what ever you want. I am only encouraging europe to apply the same standards it does to US-based business and practices to Europe.
Many people don’t understand. Ericsson went with MS in building wireless phones, but than MS started to use its tactics and Ericsson cut it short and went with Sony. The same happen with Sendo and both companies accused MS of stealing ideas, technologies and IP (if you will). So, MS had his chance and screw it up himself.