Yes, that’s me ranting about it!

Generally I believe the operator’s concerns are a little over the top. Not that very poorly designed software isn’t out there but that it’s level of use is extremely low. They see the support calls multiplying with explosive growth of add-on software use but I think that until the industry matures a little and learns to deliver stuff that “just works” then this growth isn’t going to happen anyway.

I’m not sure exactly how we acheive a better balance at the moment. Currently the strategy seems to be gradually relaxing the barriers and downgrading the sensitivity of capabilities until someone notices a problem.

I guess I’d like to see things sorted out faster but perhaps I’m just impatient! Also in some cases I think the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. Capabilities like ProtServ and PowerMgmt should never have been made available for OpenSigned Online and Express Signing, it opens the door for malware a little too wide.

Yes, that’s me ranting about it!

Generally I believe the operator’s concerns are a little over the top. Not that very poorly designed software isn’t out there but that it’s level of use is extremely low. They see the support calls multiplying with explosive growth of add-on software use but I think that until the industry matures a little and learns to deliver stuff that “just works” then this growth isn’t going to happen anyway.

I’m not sure exactly how we acheive a better balance at the moment. Currently the strategy seems to be gradually relaxing the barriers and downgrading the sensitivity of capabilities until someone notices a problem.

I guess I’d like to see things sorted out faster but perhaps I’m just impatient! Also in some cases I think the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. Capabilities like ProtServ and PowerMgmt should never have been made available for OpenSigned Online and Express Signing, it opens the door for malware a little too wide.

>The thing that needs to be solved is a mechanism by which the end users that choose to access this early stage software and participate in the beta take responsibility for doing so. Of course they already do take such responsibility but it needs to be formalized to give the operators confidence that:
a) The distribution of such software is limited to appropriately techno-savvy users (self-selection my be involved here).
b) It is clear to anyone installing the software that it is a beta.
c) The software has been tested to ensure it won't negatively impact the network.
The combination of the above allowing:
d) The operators won't get lots of additional support calls.

Yes, this sounds convincing.

>Obviously Symbian Signed and Open Signed are the Symbian version of a solution to this for applications but I've argued elsewhere that they don't provide a complete solution (being too stringent in some areas and no longer stringent enough in others).

When you say “elsewhere” do you mean here?

I can see there’s been some good discussion following that posting. Do you have any more thoughts you’d like to add?

// dw2-0

>The thing that needs to be solved is a mechanism by which the end users that choose to access this early stage software and participate in the beta take responsibility for doing so. Of course they already do take such responsibility but it needs to be formalized to give the operators confidence that:
a) The distribution of such software is limited to appropriately techno-savvy users (self-selection my be involved here).
b) It is clear to anyone installing the software that it is a beta.
c) The software has been tested to ensure it won't negatively impact the network.
The combination of the above allowing:
d) The operators won't get lots of additional support calls.

Yes, this sounds convincing.

>Obviously Symbian Signed and Open Signed are the Symbian version of a solution to this for applications but I've argued elsewhere that they don't provide a complete solution (being too stringent in some areas and no longer stringent enough in others).

When you say “elsewhere” do you mean here?

I can see there’s been some good discussion following that posting. Do you have any more thoughts you’d like to add?

// dw2-0

One key thing I think is wrong in the interesting article you’ve linked is that Open does equal Beta, not in the sense that all open platforms and open software are beta quality but that perpetual beta and early release of software are an essential part of the open development model.

The thing that needs to be solved is a mechanism by which the end users that choose to access this early stage software and participate in the beta take responsibility for doing so. Of course they already do take such responsibility but it needs to be formalized to give the operators confidence that:
a) The distribution of such software is limited to appropriately techno-savvy users (self-selection my be involved here).
b) It is clear to anyone installing the software that it is a beta.
c) The software has been tested to ensure it won’t negatively impact the network.
The combination of the above allowing:
d) The operators won’t get lots of additional support calls.

Obviously Symbian Signed and Open Signed are the Symbian version of a solution to this for applications but I’ve argued elsewhere that they don’t provide a complete solution (being too stringent in some areas and no longer stringent enough in others). However, it’s more of a solution than any other platform has at this point.

One key thing I think is wrong in the interesting article you’ve linked is that Open does equal Beta, not in the sense that all open platforms and open software are beta quality but that perpetual beta and early release of software are an essential part of the open development model.

The thing that needs to be solved is a mechanism by which the end users that choose to access this early stage software and participate in the beta take responsibility for doing so. Of course they already do take such responsibility but it needs to be formalized to give the operators confidence that:
a) The distribution of such software is limited to appropriately techno-savvy users (self-selection my be involved here).
b) It is clear to anyone installing the software that it is a beta.
c) The software has been tested to ensure it won’t negatively impact the network.
The combination of the above allowing:
d) The operators won’t get lots of additional support calls.

Obviously Symbian Signed and Open Signed are the Symbian version of a solution to this for applications but I’ve argued elsewhere that they don’t provide a complete solution (being too stringent in some areas and no longer stringent enough in others). However, it’s more of a solution than any other platform has at this point.

>"Don't tell us weird stories that no one believes…"

What do you mean? Are you saying no one should believe the examples I quoted from Jeffrey Belk, where mobile applications or new hardware caused problems to networks? That reminds me of an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand. I don’t have first-hand knowledge of the particular examples I passed on, but I have heard about plenty of similar examples (from sources I know and trust) over the years.

>Whatever the problem is, that prevents open innovation: solve it. Heck, you are multi-billion dollar companies. …Solve it or somebody else will do it, sooner or later…

Heck, I can give a simple-sounding solution to the problem of open innovation. Soundbite ahead: The Symbian Foundation can become a vehicle for unprecedented collaboration between the different parts of the mobile value chain, building on the wide support we’re already receiving from handset manufacturers, network operators, silicon providers, application developers, and so on. This wave of good will, working in alignment with bodies like OMTP, the OMA, and W3C (and maybe even in partnership with, say, LiMo and the OHA), can ensure proper and deep solutions are found to the blockages to successful open innovation.

That’s the big vision. But the actual solution to the individual problems will require, first, taking the time to understand the issues – moving beyond scape-goating. It’s my hope that my postings in this blog can contribute, step by step, to an improved shared understanding.

// dw2-0

>"Don't tell us weird stories that no one believes…"

What do you mean? Are you saying no one should believe the examples I quoted from Jeffrey Belk, where mobile applications or new hardware caused problems to networks? That reminds me of an ostrich, hiding its head in the sand. I don’t have first-hand knowledge of the particular examples I passed on, but I have heard about plenty of similar examples (from sources I know and trust) over the years.

>Whatever the problem is, that prevents open innovation: solve it. Heck, you are multi-billion dollar companies. …Solve it or somebody else will do it, sooner or later…

Heck, I can give a simple-sounding solution to the problem of open innovation. Soundbite ahead: The Symbian Foundation can become a vehicle for unprecedented collaboration between the different parts of the mobile value chain, building on the wide support we’re already receiving from handset manufacturers, network operators, silicon providers, application developers, and so on. This wave of good will, working in alignment with bodies like OMTP, the OMA, and W3C (and maybe even in partnership with, say, LiMo and the OHA), can ensure proper and deep solutions are found to the blockages to successful open innovation.

That’s the big vision. But the actual solution to the individual problems will require, first, taking the time to understand the issues – moving beyond scape-goating. It’s my hope that my postings in this blog can contribute, step by step, to an improved shared understanding.

// dw2-0

Solve it or somebody else will do it, sooner or later…

Solve it or somebody else will do it, sooner or later…