All About Symbian - Symbian, Nokia and S60 unwrapped.
Does Symbian have a service layer gap?
Published by David Gilson at 21:28 UTC, July 18th 2010
Summary:
Spurred on by his reviews of the Sony Ericsson Vivaz Pro and Samsung i8910 HD, David Gilson looks at the huge investment Nokia has made into providing an Ovi service layer - it seems that, whatever Ovi's detractors might say, the absence of this service layer on non-Nokia hardware is desperately noticeable. He also wonders whatever became of Symbian's Horizon project - as good a starting point as any for getting applications out to all Symbian smartphones.
As I recently wrote, the application store has become an integral part of the smartphone experience. Nokia have gone beyond the app store idea, by building up the Ovi service brand, available only to Nokia phones. It's fair to say Ovi has had mixed results, with Maps and Mail being the most notable successes. By doing this Nokia have provided Symbian users with a compelling user experience over and above the base platform.
Ever since its formation, Symbian has been a multi-manufacturer platform, but thus far none have created any type of ecosystem that could rival the Ovi brand. Of course, Sony Ericsson has the PlayNow web-based application store. However, the the breadth of content just isn't there yet, and they need a dedicated application (or at least widget) rather than using a totally web-based system.
Up until now, non-Nokia Symbian device makers have concentrated on making attractive hardware. Examples being the Sony Ericsson Vivaz and the Samsung i8910 HD. While those designs might be enough to make consumers buy into those brands for the first time, the user experience, as we've mentioned in our reviews, has in many cases not been good enough. Sony Ericsson have made attractive customisations to Symbian^1, although the gaps between the base OS and their own work are clear to see.
Sony Ericsson's take on the Symbian^1 home screen
After having used a mobile platform with a comprehensive ecosytem, it's a noticable absence when moving to a phone without. For example, the HyperX firmware of the Samsung i8910 HD provides a pleasing Symbian^1 user experience, with its capacitive screen, kinetic scrolling and various home screen modes. In spite of this, it does somehow feel like stepping back in time two or three years, as there is no accompanying service layer. Moreover, there is no application update system (short of flashing the entire firmware and losing everything) and no application store. Of course, in this context, users of this particular OS will be power users who don't need that support system. However, the point is that not having any sort of ecosystem to support the use of a phone is noticeable, the device is effectively isolated.
This is perhaps best illustrated by the app store effect. For most users, the fuss-free method of getting applications via a store is going to be the way forward. Therefore, after using a brand of phone which doesn't have that functionality built-in, how likely is it that they would buy twice? Of course, there is the demographic of users who never install any applications, but this is surely a dwindling segment as awareness of applications slowly enters the mainstream. What applies to the app store now will apply to the wider service layer in time.
The Ovi Store
Of course, everything has to come down to business decisions. I would argue though that creating an ecosystem that consumers will buy into is a good business decision, as it will likely lead to repeated sales and has the opportunity for other revenue sources. The precedent is already there - to put it bluntly, why buy a non-Nokia Symbian phone at the moment when Nokia offers a largish app-store and free Sat-Nav?
Free navigation with Ovi Maps is one of the most notable elements of Nokia's service layer
Moving forwards, it is clear that the main differentiation between Symbian phones from different manufacturers will have to come in the service layers. Nokia has a clear vision with Ovi, even if its execution has, in some areas been poor. However, is it really possible for any other manufacturer to contemplate a service layer on the scale of Ovi? Currently only Google and Microsoft seem willing to make a similar level of investment.
Given the open ethos at the heart of the Symbian Foundation and Nokia's well documented preference for co-operation, it is not surprising that the question of whether Nokia will open Ovi to other manufacturers is frequently asked. However, Nokia's openness only ever extends as far as business logic dictates. Currently there's little incentive for Nokia to extend its Ovi ecosystem beyond its own borders. How long that will remain true is open to debate, but that's a discussion for another time.
No one questions the need for Symbian to attract additional manufacturer partners to help counter-balance Nokia's influence. Nokia would be happy too - after all, the reason they set up the Symbian Foundation, at no little expense, was to enable others to share the costs involved in developing the platform.
Other high-end smartphone platforms have a service layer. Symbian is a high-end platform too, and therefore why shouldn't other manufacturers provide a service layer for their Symbian devices? The minimum requirement should at least be an application store. Every incidence of an application store provides a common user experience and opportunity for growth in both the developer community and revenues.
It isn't as if some of the work towards a non-Ovi app-store hasn't been done already. Last year, Rafe reported on the Symbian Foundation's Horizon project. This is a project that would, in principle, provide a universal catalogue for other application stores. This could be the ideal way to encourage more developers to engage with the new world of Symbian. One thing developers don't want is more friction when trying to get their work put in front of a wider audience. If there were multiple manufacturer-specific application stores, there would be that many more approval processes for developers to get through. Horizon would provide a single point of entry for developers with multiple points of delivery and income - surely the best of both worlds?
Could this model be applied elsewhere?
The Symbian Horizon homepage
David Gilson for All About Symbian, 27th July 2010.
Discussion
Apple, aside from the App Store, doesn't have much. MobileMe is really poor when compared even just to OVI). And as for RIM, apart from BIS supplied email addresses.
But it's where Google shines. No one buys a Nokia phone just so they can get in on Ovi Files or Ovi Mail. With Ovi Maps being the exception, none of these services actually sell the platform. They're tickbox features; things Nokia need to offer in order to make sure their customers don't HAVE to rely on the services of a competitor. Google on the other hand, has its service layer as the very top argument in favor of its smartphone platform. While some might buy an Android phone for the sexy hardware, I'd guess the biggest portion of their users do so because they use GMail, Google Maps, Google Reader, Google Docs and want the best mobile experience for these services.
And Google makes sure it advertises to users of other platforms. Each time I open Google Maps on my Nokia instead of Ovi Maps because it's better at finding places, it's as if Google was making a pitch to me for my next phone to be an Android.
But I can't see Nokia competing all the way against Google there. I think they need to capitalize on one strength. In my opinion, to "sell" their service layer, they need to offer it to non Nokia users.
They need to leverage NAVTEQ to further Ovi Maps on Nokia devices, then offer free satnav to iPhone and Blackberry users. They don't need to make it as good as on Nokia phones, just offer enough of something they don't have (the other free satnav services are insignificant at this point; Ovi Maps is the only free satnav service that comes even close to Google Maps).
Symbian's Horizon could remedy this on an applications store level, but that's only patching part of the problem while ignoring the largest, more easily dealt with problem. Take a look at the Beta Labs. Nokia Messaging in particular as well as other examples from the Beta Labs need hardware like the i8910 to run smoothly on, yet can't be installed on non Nokia phones without cracking the handsets first. By fragmenting the operating system into manufacturer groups they've effectively created different operating systems that can only run some of the applications available for the phones. If all applications were just signed to work on Symbian phones rather than Nokia phones or Samsung phones or whatever (obviously with a note that they haven't been tested on other models) then the range of the service layer would be extended without developers having to worry about setting up their own support ecosystem. On that note, manufacturer specific applications like Nokia's Ovi Maps with built in free navigation or Samsung's excellent Music Player build could be made available to users of other handsets in the same family for a price, perhaps downloaded via the Software Update client.
All in all, the support layer is something that makes a difference when it's missing, but fragmentation of the OS is the big issue that causes the support layer to be missing in the first place. By setting up a system where users can take elements other manufacturers have pioneered, the OS becomes as robust as it was a couple of generations ago and the development of the support layer is both shared by manufacturers as well as built by the user to their own specifications.
Whether the manufacturers are willing to give up their apps stores and exclusive lines, such as Ovi Maps, etc. is another story. If they see them as money makers or brand binders, then there's not much chance of it. The alternative is to set up a Symbian store for the generic apps and let the Nokia's, SE's, Samsung's, etc. have their stores for their branded apps.
I just couldn't recommend a non-Nokia Symbian phone to anyone. The Satio is great, but it's not got the eco-system that's required. Same applies to the Vivaz, Vivaz Pro and i8910. Which is a real shame, because they are the only Symbian handsets with the power to keep Symbian high end.
It's not even just the extra services from Ovi that make Symbian on another platform difficult. For instance, I downloaded Endomondo yesterday. It installed ok, but never once picked up a location. Gah.
Symbian on non-Nokia manufactures becomes half baked with Nokia not providing at least some essential Ovi services . Android offers better baked solutions(not perfect) for Sony Ericsson, Samsung and LG. Hence the bakery names for each Android versions;-)
Effectively the turgid development speed of Symbian seems to have driven all other manufacturers to other platforms leaving Nokia once again carrying the whole symbian project. So rather than grandiose ideas about public partnerships maybe they should really get Symbian ^4 out on time (unlike S^3) or at least as the open source coordinator cudgel Nokia into doing so and make sure it works and is absolutely what people want rather than worrying about platform expansion which seems at best a distant pipe dream.
Frankly if the Symbian device experience is compelling enough for users than other manufactures will be clamouring to get on board and differentiate themselves from the Nokia experience and would therefore do the heavy lifting on apps and services for the Symbian Foundation. But there aren't any clamours at the moment.
After all the service layer is where the money is. Android manufacturers are going to be careful hey don't become commodity hardware makers similar to PC manufacturers. Indeed this is the idea behind the thinking that a number of manufacturers may seek to loosen their ties / commitment to Android over time.
Certainly this is what Samsung is doing with Bada - and there have been similar rumblings from HTC.
What the Symbian Foundation may want to think about is what common elements they can deliver. Horizon seems like a great idea, but doesn't seem to have gone very far yet.
They might consider putting together a pre-packaged service layer option with a number of third party apps so manufacturers have something available off the shelf....
