18 ms·

So we had Jolla, Ubuntu, Mozilla and even Microsoft trying to create a new major player in the mobile OSs market - all pretty much failed to do so. Is it pract

by yoavm 10y ago

So we had Jolla, Ubuntu, Mozilla and even Microsoft trying to create a new major player in the mobile OSs market - all pretty much failed to do so. Is it practically impossible? Are we stuck with Android and iOS forever? This tiny selection of options worries me.

nir 10y ago
As it stands you either give Apple complete control of you software/hardware or you give Google full access to every detail of your life. There should be a sticker "Don't blame me, I supported Firefox OS"
- maheart 10y ago
  I know you're half-joking, but if this is something you're passionate about, there are things you can do (while there's still alternatives platforms...): 1. Purchase non-Apple, and non-Android devices (e.g. Jolla/SailfishOS, Ubuntu Touch devices) 2. Develop software for the alternative platforms -- that's what I do. It's a lot of fun programming on a GNU/Linux mobile. I write software in Python with 3rd party modules from pypi, and Qt/QML. 3. Spread the word. Tell other like-minded developers about how fun it is to work on your alternative platform of choice. Plus since there's only 10s of thousands of users, your software actual gets used (and people appreciate it!).
  - supergreg 10y ago
    What GNU/Linux mobile? Can you elaborate on that?
    - maheart 10y ago
      I develop for SailfishOS. As I described in one of my other comments, it really is just "regular" GNU/Linux underneath: >> I develop software for SailfishOS. It's like the Linux desktop. I SSH into my phone. zypper/pkcon install some dev tools (e.g. gcc, make, git). I initialise a Python virtualenv, pull down some libraries (e.g. Flask). I want to query SMS messages? I open an sqlite database on the filesystem. I can define services using systemd files. It really is "just Linux" underneath.
      - mabramo 10y ago
        I had never heard of SailfishOS before this thread. Now I really want to pick up a device with SailfishOS, but I was planning on getting on GoogleFI compatible device in the next couple months. Decisions... In any case, thank you for your efforts. I've been waiting for UbuntuOS for all the features I didn't know Sailfish has already.
      - lisivka 10y ago
        How much of SailfishOS is covered by GPL or GPL compatible license? I don't want to invest my time into someone else business for free.
- vamur 10y ago
  You can easily disable Google services on most Android devices. Or purchase a Cyanogenmod compatible device and use a third party store.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    The problem is that the majority of apps written on Android these days depend on Google APIs or libraries, to the point that an Android without Play Services is almost useless. (Yes, this is from experience.) Even Google's direct competitors require Google to use an Android. Skype and Outlook are great examples of apps you'd be amazed to discover will not run at all without Play Services.
    - abawany 10y ago
      There are fake GApps that I have tried on experimental devices and they fooled the apps enough to enable them to run. I haven't run these long-term or tried on more than 3 apps relevant to me to say if that would be a good approach.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        I'd be a little iffy about security considerations once your plan is to rely on "fake apps".
        abawany 10y ago
        I am not referring to mysterious binary blobs retrieved from torrents or such but open source projects such as https://github.com/thermatk/FakeGApps https://github.com/thermatk/FakeGApps (http://repo.xposed.info/module/com.thermatk.android.xf.fakegapps http://repo.xposed.info/module/com.thermatk.android.xf.fakeg...).
  - nir 10y ago
    People reading HN could, but the general public doesn't really have that option.
pjc50 10y ago
Only one of those really makes any money. What's the economic model that would bring a competing OS into existence?
- godzillabrennus 10y ago
  That's the truth. It's going to take a plateau of performance coupled with a commoditization of mobile hardware for open source to move in. Without a viable business model and with the rapid rate of change it's impossible for open source to even try and play in this arena.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  What? Both Android and iOS are responsible for tens of billions in revenue.
  - lotsofpulp 10y ago
    Profit is the relevant metric, not revenue.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Both are still profitable in the tens of billions. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-... $22 billion profit. iOS is a bit more complicated to value, but they've made more than $10 billion just in app store commissions (even not counting increased sales of hardware due to iOS). So if you consider the cost of iOS development as weighed against their hardware sales, and book the software as profit, you'd get more than $10 billion. The real profit numbers are probably higher. Anyway, the point is that there's no reasonable way to assert that either one of them isn't profitable.
      - lotsofpulp 10y ago
        Google might be, but not the phone manufacturers...except maybe Samsung but it's marginal compared to what share Apple gets.
espadrine 10y ago
There are political avenues to explore. Just as Microsoft was hit hard by a number of anti-monopolistic EU decisions regarding Internet Explorer, Apple in particular could be the target of an action in that space. But this is the kind of thing that requires citizen action. Also, expecting the EU commission to be the only political consumer protection for multinational corporations is not ideal, there ought to be more actions on the American side as well. Until then, I highly doubt that there will be any hope of breaking the duopoly, at least until Google's or Apple's core business model starts failing them, which is unlikely to occur within twenty years. From an economical perspective, monopolies are great for companies and for the country's GDP, but they tend to cause lower standards of living, because of the loss of competition.
- danieldk 10y ago
  There are political avenues to explore. Just as Microsoft was hit hard by a number of anti-monopolistic EU decisions regarding Internet Explorer, Apple in particular could be the target of an action in that space. Why? In the 5 largest European markets, Android has 3/4th marketshare [1]. How can Apple be targeted for monopolistic behavior? [1] http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/11/android-is-eating-apples-ios-market-share-everywhere/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/11/android-is-eating-apples-i...
  - s_kilk 10y ago
    Plus, I'm much more worried about Googles vampiric approach to personal data, rather than Apple merely making it hard to deploy software.
  - espadrine 10y ago
    > How can Apple be targeted for monopolistic behavior? Because they don't even allow other browser engines on their iOS platform, which is explicitly what was the subject of the "ballot box" ruling. Monopolies are per-product class. Apple is responsible for both the hardware and the software. All it takes is having one of their products own half of its market. … which, of course, could take a long time. It did happen for tablets circa 2011, I believe.
- 10y ago
kaio 10y ago
HP with webOS :). I really loved it. But it looks like you will need a really long breath to get attention and developers on your side for any new OS.
- catwell 10y ago
  I used WebOS, and I agree. I really enjoyed my Pre3. I could never bring myself to like Firefox OS. The best now is Jolla, which I don't think has failed at all yet (I have a Jolla C, I wrote about it shortly here: https://blog.separateconcerns.com/2016-09-16-thoughts-1.html https://blog.separateconcerns.com/2016-09-16-thoughts-1.html).
- ksec 10y ago
  Web OS is now with LG.
- prplhaz4 10y ago
  LuneOS is still under active development by the webOS Ports team: https://github.com/webos-ports https://github.com/webos-ports Open WebOS became LG WebOS and is still around on their TVs...
lake99 10y ago
I really want the Tizen project to succeed. It's tragic that this doesn't even run on mainstream Samsung devices. Talk about faith in their own work!
- pjmlp 10y ago
  They have rebooted the complete platform already a few times, why should any developer waste time on Tizen?
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  I wonder if Samsung is holding that one close just in case Google irks them with Android. Right now, it probably makes more sense monetarily for Samsung to stay with Android.
  - ygjb-dupe 10y ago
    <begin north american centric summary of problem> Tizen has one of the same problems that Firefox OS had - no real foothold with users. I have a Samsung Gear, Samsung TV, Samsung phone, and 0 Samsung apps, other than what ships with the devices. My apps are all Google based, and the only two apps on my TV that get used are Netflix and Youtube, everything else gets served by the computer connected (and Netflix and Youtube get used there more frequently since I have a full keyboard there). Google and Apple both rely on ecosystems to attract and retain users, and Samsung doesn't have a competitive (or compelling) ecosystem. <end north american centric summary of problem> I don't know if Samsung has the same problem in other markets, but I know that Firefox Marketplace does/did.
- tootie 10y ago
  Samsung consistently fails at software. I honestly wish they would just quit and make their hardware use something more standard.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rajeshp1986 10y ago
@Yoavm, what pisses me more is that both Apple & Google now have a yearly update of their OS and all they shamelessly showcase on stage is emoji's and notifications.
- m12k 10y ago
  Maybe that's it? The product category of "smartphone OS" is now so well-defined that the possible improvements are evolutionary at best, not revolutionary, and hence there's also no space for a new entrant to provide a big enough improvement over the incumbents to gain significant attention? Firefox OS promised to make app creation easier through web technologies, but "not enough apps" isn't the problem with Android or iOS, quite the contrary, so for an end user, that's pretty irrelevant.
  - truth_sentinell 10y ago
    Yeah but a year for 70 more emojis? Come on now. With all the good engineers they have.. There always must be a good idea in the span of a year..
    - wyldfire 10y ago
      Well, even at a tech conference, "we eBPF'd and ASLR-ized your app sandboxes even more and now you have even less risk of getting pwned" might draw a "meh" reaction. In very real terms it helps close the device security gap between Android and iOS, but it probably just can't hold people's attention.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  My theory specific to iOS 10 is that it's actually a stability-focused maintenance build behind the scenes. The emoji are for cultural appeal while they hide the fact that the real features are not actually features- they're boring, hidden fixes to stabilize iOS after the previous few releases.
- setpatchaddress 10y ago
  That's what users actually care about. Market demand.
maheart 10y ago
I'm a big supporter of GNU/Linux on the phone. I don't care if Jolla or Ubuntu don't ever make it as "major" players in the mobile OS world. I'd be perfectly happy with GNU/Linux mobile software that's as good as the Linux desktop. I run Linux on my desktop (and laptop), and we're 1% of desktop users. I'd be satisfied with 1% mobile market share. We don't need a billion users, all I want is a hacker-friendly platform, with a good developer community around it (which I think both GNU/Linux on the desktop, and IMO SailfishOS [Jolla] provide).
- creshal 10y ago
  If only there was any decent hardware for Jolla.
  - maheart 10y ago
    If you're not satisfied with the "official" devices (e.g. Jolla 1, Intex Aquafish, or Jolla C [if you were lucky enough]), then there are a number of community ports at varying levels of maturity[1]. Otherwise, there's the possibility that the Fairphone 2 will receive official SailfishOS support. Finally, there's a number of yet unreleased devices with official SailfishOS support[2] [1] https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Adaptations/libhybris https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Adaptations/libhybris [2] https://together.jolla.com/question/136143/wiki-available-devices-running-sailfish-os/ https://together.jolla.com/question/136143/wiki-available-de...
  - rihegher 10y ago
    And if only Sailfish OS was open source. https://together.jolla.com/question/80676/request-fully-open-source-sailfish-os/?answer=80678#post-id-80678 https://together.jolla.com/question/80676/request-fully-open...
    - maheart 10y ago
      This is true, and I hope SailfishOS will one day be completely FOSS, but please have a look at the bigger picture. Here's a comment I wrote about the situation on reddit: --- Yes, I'd prefer SailfishOS to be 100% FOSS, but Jolla is helping GNU/Linux establish its roots on the mobile. How is it doing this? * libhybris has opened up a whole new world for GNU/Linux, by allowing programs developed against glibc (i.e. GNU/Linux) to run on top of proprietary Android drivers (i.e. phones). * Jolla puts a lot of development into lipstick, which makes it easier to develop UXs for phones/tablets/other form factors [This involved developing Wayland support] * Jolla have opensourced their browser (Qt5 + Gecko engine) and their office suite (Nokia's Calligra Office work, with a QML interface) * Jolla develops a sychronisation framework (buteo-sync) that can be used for syncing emails, Twitter, CalDav/CardDav, etc (I think Ubuntu Touch might adopt it in the future) * Want to see how much manpower Jolla dedicates to developing FOSS? Look at the number of @jollamobile.com emails here: https://git.merproject.org/groups/mer-core/activity https://git.merproject.org/groups/mer-core/activity * The SailfishOS community has been developing sfdroid. A FOSS application for running Android apps on your GNU/Linux mobile. So while SailfishOS isn't 100% open source, it's doing a lot of good for the GNU/Linux community on the mobile.
pjmlp 10y ago
Microsoft mobile strategy might pay off on the hybrid laptops and the new netbook generations (4/8GB + 32/64 eMMC). Also they seem to at least cater to those not caring about apps, not able to pay for iPhone and dislike for Android. Overall Market share in Europe around 5-10% was around a few months ago, but they have money to spare, and might keep selling Windows Mobile devices just not to loose face. You cannot sell mobile OS based on FOSS religion, normal people want the apps everyone has and convenience, while most developers care about tooling. So whatever alternative comes, must have a very good selling point to consumers and developers currently targeting the established platforms.
- WorldMaker 10y ago
  Plus Microsoft still has inroads left into the enterprise-managed mobile device space. (Most of the more recently announced non-Microsoft branded Windows mobile devices are things like HP's enterprise focused phone.) Especially with the potential big win of a company's IT being able to manage Windows mobile devices from the same Windows control panels as any other Windows machine in the workplace. Not that there is much territory there to sustain long term (just ask Blackberry), but with all the carriers slowly dropping their phone subsidies it might not be hard to imagine corporate sponsored phones could make a small comeback.
padraic7a 10y ago
Ubuntu Touch is still going. It's up to it's 13th release now and I don't think it's a failed project. However I do think it's something that isn't yet ready for primetime, and it's going to be more a year or more before it is. In the meantime they are trying to iron out bugs, improve features and get more developer attention for it. Recently they've added support for React Native: https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/react-native https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/react-native HN readers might like to check out the Ubuntu Developer blog: https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/ https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/
- jbb555 10y ago
  I didn't know that ubuntu had a phone. I wondered if it could be installed on my own phone? Doessn't seem to mention that on their website. Oh well perhaps I'll buy one "Note — all our devices are currently sold out" Ok well I guess I'll stick to android then...
  - reddotX 10y ago
    4 ubuntu phones and 2 tablets :D
  - wompfox 10y ago
    https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices
  - ioddly 10y ago
    I just looked at the Jolla devices as well and they are also out of stock. I imagine it's probably harder to coordinate selling these devices in small batches; I wish there was at least some kind of availability list I could sign up for.
  - padraic7a 10y ago
    Yeah, it is a pity all the phones are sold out. It can be ported to other devices though, you might get some useful info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices
- 10y ago
rihegher 10y ago
There gonna be a third option like ubuntu desktop is the third option after windows and macos. But It's gonna be for people who value control or privacy above everything else. The key factor remains the timing for this third option to rise.
wiineeth 10y ago
The problem is Android and IOS basically came at the same time and got almost same apps in them. For a new platform there is not much to innovate other than we have the same features, but not the same company. There is only way to win in this industry now. Its to create a OS which has compatibility with android apps and has excellent hardware integration.
ciconia 10y ago
You can also just say no to smartphones.
cmrdporcupine 10y ago
You forgot WebOS, which has been open sourced since HP killed it. There was a brief flurry of activity around it, including getting it run on older Nexus devices, then it petered out. I submit that a big part of the problem is fragmentation of effort. There was no reason for Ubuntu, Mozilla, and WebOS all to be aiming at the same target at the same time in very similar ways but by different people.
- deaddodo 10y ago
  WebOS is licensed out to LG these days for their Smart TV's. It's still the commercial deal it's been since HP bought it from Palm. Open WebOS is a different beast (much like how Mozilla wasn't Netscape Navigator), based on the open sourced components of WebOS.
  - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
    Well sure, but Open WebOS was complete enough to boot on Galaxy Nexus and provide a mostly complete environment.
ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
People are worried about this now, but the time to have been worried was like 2009-2010, when iOS (I think??) could've claimed to have had a monopoly, at least in the US, and before iOS really got a mindshare into people going. I could also say the same about people upset with Facebook-2009-2010 people!
bartread 10y ago
I was at Phonegap Europe 2013 and there was a big noise about Firefox OS (then still known as Boot to Gecko) there. It looked cool but it was always targeted at low-end, low-cost devices. The problem with that, from my perspective as a developer, is that I don't want to develop apps for low-end devices because it's an enormous pain in the ass. The lack of horsepower and features means you're pretty much required to compromise your vision, unless you really are developing something very simple, or with minimal finessing. On top of this, and this was even more so 3 years ago, today's high end devices are 2 years' time's low-to-mid-range devices. If it takes you 6-12 months to develop your app (again, depends on complexity) on today's high end hardware you'll be targeting the mid-range when you release. Of course, there's a bit more nuance to this because single core performance isn't really increasing that much, but you get the point. Short version: targeting high end devices means you're developing for the future and not incurring the compromises (and, in fact, support overhead) of dealing with low-end kit.
- AsyncAwait 10y ago
  Well said, my problem with Firefox OS was exactly that it was always targeting the low-end of the spectrum. People who buy the low-end smartphones do not usually care about the platform it's running on, nor can they afford to support 3-rd party app development.
  - bartread 10y ago
    That's a really good point. Whilst the goal of providing a good OS on low-end smartphones aimed at lower income economies sounds noble (is noble, in fact) it doesn't work commercially for developers because nobody will have the spare cash to buy their wares. It's a real shame and it wasn't something that was immediately obvious to me at the time because I was very new to mobile development. Now of course I've experienced the same frustrations as every other mobile dev and realised that it's just not worth targeting anything but the top quartile. That is, unless it's a corporate app and you have a large number of lower end devices in the field that you don't plan on replacing before your app is deployed.
- jsight 10y ago
chx 10y ago
It is very unlikely we will see a third alternative on phones. But, who said smartphones will be a mainstay for ever? There is clearly a major drive towards voice as the primary UI and if you are not screen constrained then interesting developments might occur.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wahsd 10y ago
To be fair, Android is a hot mess of dozens of, essentially, different OSs. On top of that, I am sure most people here laughed and chuckled about Windows Phone instead of supporting it or encouraging it or even just providing feedback to Microsoft. This is what your pretentious little snark wars get you, Android that so many years later is still a hot mess and iOS that is still a restricted environment that suits 99.9% of all consumers and provides them with a far superior user experience.
mooreds 10y ago
Yes, it is practically impossible, the same way there was a duopoly of desktop computers in the 90s and 2000s. Similarly to that era, there will be niche players (OS/2, desktop linux then, windows 10 mobile now), but the vast majority of the software and hardware will run the dominant OSes. Hey, at least it isn't a monopoly and one of the OSes is freeish. Freedom wise, hardware is behind, but the software is ahead (of the desktop market).
raverbashing 10y ago
Of course it's not impossible The issue is where the money is coming from. Also, to move on an entrenched market you need to do a lot of things upfront. Android in, let's say, 2011 was much worse than iOS, today the gap has closed.
- vesinisa 10y ago
  > The issue is where the money is coming from. I think what Microsoft wasted on Nokia's phone business was something in the magnitude of >$8 billion, so money was not really the problem at least in their case.
glenstein 10y ago
I don't know how practical this idea is, but I dream of an alternative world where Yahoo went all in on Firefox OS. I think Firefox was Yahoo's ticket to relevance, if they wanted it.
mhurron 10y ago
> Is it practically impossible? Offer something people want that the others don't. It's not enough to just not be iOS or not Android, that only appeals to the small segment of people that HN appeals to. The selling point for Ubuntu, Mozilla and Microsoft's phone was just 'it's not them.' They didn't provide any value. Microsoft had apparently forgotten what they had to do to make the xBox viable against Sony and Nintendo when it first launched, because they didn't just launch it with 'Hey, at least we're not Sony, the developers will show up eventually.'
melling 10y ago
Does the tiny selection of desktop OSes worry you? Microsoft has had at least 90% market share for 2 decades. At any rate, it seems like two major brands is all the tech world can handle.
kijin 10y ago
I think the only option that has an even remote chance of success right now is to fork Android and do your own thing while maintaining compatibility with as many existing Android apps as possible. So, something like Cyanogenmod but with more drastic changes. It's Linux under the hood after all. It's already compatible with GNU coreutils and a whole bunch of other free software. No need to start again from zero.
- khattam 10y ago
  The problem with that is Google can deny you rights to bundle Play Store... and they will if they see you as a thread... and you're fucked.
eloisant 10y ago
I think an alternative will only come from a paradigm shift. For the same reason DOS/Windows reigned on the desktop for decades, with Mac having a few percents and Linux repeatedly failing to grab any significant market share.
fsiefken 10y ago
We still have Samsung's Tizen, fast, powerefficient and can it run Android apps
chatmasta 10y ago
For the average non-technical user, a "pure Linux" phone with no sand boxing would be a security nightmare. Just look at jailbroken iOS devices as an example. Maybe sophisticated users know how to take extra precautions in exchange for more freedom, but the average user will happily use banking apps with no idea what the other processes on the phone are doing. For this reason, Android is a good middle-ground. It's well-sandboxed by default and if you need more power you can root it. Nothing is stopping anyone from releasing "free software" open source android apps published outside of the play store. As is, they would get more adoption than any app on the Ubuntu/Firefox/etc store. As long as Android exists and is easily rootable, and preferably as long as the iOS jailbreak community keeps up with major versions, I'm happy with the state of "linux" on mobile.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Sure, android might be good enough for most people. But that's like saying porridge is good enough for most people. I want a steak, or a burger. The problem is that I don't really have a choice right now, I don't want porridge. Additionally, even if you trust Google today, they can turn evil tomorrow and then we'd have >75% of people who are using android without any options. Diversifying the available options in the market market is good for everyone except Google.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
Probably. Historically, tech falls into a natural monopoly or natural duopoly with some other marginal competition. Windows and OSX rule on the desktop/laptop with Linux a bit player. Intel and AMD on x86 with Via, IBM, and Cyrix and the rest either no longer being able to compete. ATI and Nvidia on the gaming GPU end, and even then ATI had to be swallowed up by AMD to remain competitive. Intel still a bit player for budget graphics and with no product that remotely compares with the GPU heft of even a many years old Nvidia card. We'll probably see iOS and Android be the default mobile OS's for a while with MS's Windows as a third player. Surface tablets and Windows phones still sell. If anything, the Surface Pro might be the best mobile Windows device out there and one of the nicer mobile devices for sale anywhere. That said, mobile is probably resistant to a foss solution as people expect all sorts of cloud and managed experiences. Maps, siri/googlenow, cloud storage of photos, ease of buying, sharing, casting, media, etc. Most people won't be happy with an unbuntu phone that doesn't have all these features and probably couldn't care less about the privacy argument here. Do default installs of Sailfish, Tizen, and Jolla have any of this? Joe Consumer won't buy these things if they can't compete feature-wise.
brudgers 10y ago
I don't count Microsoft out of the space over the long term. Unification of the Windows platform from microcontrollers to servers is fairly far along and mobile phone operating systems are, for Microsoft, just another application of the Windows 10 technology. Windows 10 Mobile has some of the advantages of iOS in terms of security updates and the Microsoft developer infrastructure -- whether that's a good thing depends on one's technical opinion of Visual Studio versus Xcode and Android Studio in terms of programming ergonomics and features and languages. All that said, that doesn't mean that Windows Mobile will ever be successful or that a world where it's Apple, Google and Microsoft would be significantly better.
- bartread 10y ago
  True - they seem determined to plug away at mobile until they make a success of it, and fair play to them: Windows 10 Mobile is decent. They've obviously got an uphill battle ahead of them to win back developers and customers but I think they can do it eventually. I'd still like to see a credible OSS alternative in the mix as well, and I wonder if Mozilla couldn't make that work if they dropped their low-end focus.
  - brudgers 10y ago
    Ubuntu's Snappy-Core grew out of their brief run at the phone: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices It has some parallels with Microsoft's strategy and could roll back into phones as just another device. And I think that getting a platform that works from embedded to server clusters has a good chance of how provisioning phones works ten years from now. There's really nothing magical about phones. It's some compute cores, a bit of memory, some radios, a battery and a display. The only distinguishing feature of a phone is how the radio is tuned.
jsight 10y ago
Can you imagine what it would be like if every Linux distribution tried to build a competitor to Linux instead of a competitor to other distributions? That would be a hard problem even in the relatively small Unix desktop space. That is how hard the problem was to solve for Mozilla OS. They were essentially building a competing OS when they could have just been building a competing distribution. Android (AOSP) + Firefox + Firefox Market + Firefox Mail could have been amazing.
- lazaroclapp 10y ago
  That's what Amazon went for, with very limited success (that said, not really targeting privacy conscious users or free software enthusiasts, so outcomes might not apply)
- remir 10y ago
  Going against Android and iOS was a mistake. Even Microsoft, with all their resources, is struggling to stay relevant in mobile. Firefox OS should have competed against Chrome OS instead. Partner with some OEMs and you have a great alternative to Chromebooks.
andyidsinga 10y ago
we're no more stuck with those two than we were with blackberry. things change in less than predictable ways. next big os front will be bringing embedded (read iot) from the old school to the new.
- type0 10y ago
  Wasn't it snapchat that released some strange techno-hipster glasses with camers just now. Eventually we will see embedded oled in them and hand gesture interfaces for more augmented reality.
  - andyidsinga 10y ago
    yeah - hats off to them for getting in the IoT/wearable game. "snapholes"? :)
draw_down 10y ago
I'll say yes, we're stuck with the two. The resources required to create and maintain a decent, competitive mobile OS imply a need for a size of user base that no new entrant will be able to achieve in a reasonable time frame.
pbreit 10y ago
If Android went closed source, I could see a new window opening.
racl101 10y ago
There's also Blackberry QNX and Windows mobile.
toast0 10y ago
I don't think it's impossible. It does take consistent investment, and consistently not screwing things up. Between Windows Phone 8.1 and Windows Mobile 10, Microsoft decided that 'one Windows platform' was more important than a dedicated mobile team, and as a result, Windows Mobile 10 arrived several months late and without polish. Their hardware refresh (Lumia 950, Lumia 550, etc) was held up waiting for the software and as a result, they lost momentum. Additionally, promised upgradability from 8.1 devices to Windows 10 came with a lot of caveats. A great Windows Phone 10 launch would not have put them in the top two, but it may have solidified them as a third platform.
twblalock 10y ago
> Is it practically impossible? Are we stuck with Android and iOS forever? I think it's pretty simple: people want to use apps on their phones, and no phone OS is viable without a competitive library of apps. Most major apps are developed for both iOS and Android, and convincing app developers to develop for a third platform is going to be a tough sell, unless that platform is very attractive to users. However, to be attractive to users, it will have to have a lot of apps already... I suspect that the only way to gain marketshare for a new mobile OS is to ship it with an Android or iOS compatibility layer, which would be pretty difficult to do well. The developers would have to re-implement the entire iOS or Android API, and keep up with all of the changes. If they did that, there would be no incentive for developers to target the native APIs of the OS, because they could just target Android or iOS like they do already. So, the compatibility layer could never be deprecated. So yeah, I think we're stuck.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  People aren't interested in backups. They're interested in restores. People aren't interested in apps. They're interested in capabilities. The apps markets are good for ... delivering a completely dizzying (that is: intentionally discombobulating and confusing) array of crappy software that sometimes works, always intrudes on your privacy and steals your personal information, and frequently goes titsup.com for no particular reason and with limited notice. I don't want apps. I want decent browsing capabilities with document management. I want explicit control over networking. I want a messaging capability. SMS, IRC, eMail, whatever -- there's no reason these need to be split out. I want a multimedia player. A basic set of utilities. The same ones as were on the Xerox Alto 48 years ago: A calendar, calculator, notepad type editor. Basic spreadsheet wouldn't hurt. These days something with maps and an encyclopedia would be handy. Stills/video camera and gallery. And since I'm not the 99.98%, I'd like a goddamned full-fledged shell running Linux or BSD. But StuffMyCrapWebsiteIntoThisApp.com? Not so much.
err4nt 10y ago
WebOS as well!
blihp 10y ago
Only speaking for myself but I suspect others might feel the same way: I can't get excited about another essentially closed platform. I'm not interested in what are overpriced and underpowered devices that pretty much behave at best as slightly more open, yet still closed, Android-like devices. I've been living this for the last several years both with Android and ARM devel/hobbyist boards and it isn't much fun. It would be nice these quasi-business entities (i.e. Mozilla, Canonical) would forget about their brand-exclusive strategies and try to rally around an open ARM-based platform (you know, with support for things like, I don't know, GPUs and such) they can all run on. THAT I could get excited about and we could all win. Short of that, I don't get what I want and they continue to lose relevance in the mobile era. Granted, I'm part of the 1% that runs Linux. But here's a newsflash: right now we're the only ones who care about Canonical, Mozilla, etc. and ~1% beats 0%.
- slgeorge 10y ago
  What examples are there of an "open ARM-based platform" with support for GPU's etc? I don't know of any situation where the ARM ecosystem works like that, the companies compete for differentiation, they have a very limited interest in standardisation. Maybe I'm missing what you're referring to. It also wouldn't get you a phone, it would get you a base board but all the other bits like radios compete on the different manufacturers platforms.
  - blihp 10y ago
    They're aren't, and that was my point. I think that is one of the reasons (there are others) why something like the Raspberry Pi has become so dominant. It's disastrously bad from the standpoint of openness as a platform, but they've gotten the needed technical info and binary blobs to make it work better than just about everything else out there right now on ARM. It seems like there ought to be a couple of 2nd tier GPU design houses (i.e. not nVidia or AMD) that would be motivated to cut a deal to ship on the order of at least millions of units in the relatively near term. And the larger supposed supporters of open source have funding on the order of over a billion dollars (Mozilla's last deal with Google was a billion dollars alone) that it seems like at least a fraction of could be directed to help make this happen. They don't need to build anything that competes with this or even last year's flagship devices, iterate nearly as quickly, or even play the 'we made it .00001mm thinner' industrial design game. They would just need to get something serviceable out there and the design costs could be amortized over several years with only minor revisions needed (i.e occasional bumps to CPU and memory specs etc.) I'm not suggesting that this be done purely from the standpoint of altruism: for both the IP providers and the various foundations, this would provide them with a possible path to participate in mobile that is closed to them currently so it seems like it's in their interest from an existential standpoint. That said, maybe it really is impossible to motivate any of the players necessary to go down this path. In which case it seems worthwhile for the open source crowd to go all-in on something like RISC-V/OpenGPU and jettison the proprietary IP as completely as possible, as soon as possible.
Gustomaximus 10y ago
I wouldn't write of Microsoft yet. There is great potential if they can nail this phone to desktop merged experience. Enterprise would find it super appealing. And I could see consumers buying in too. This has to be one of the best ways into handset market for MS/Ubuntu or others.

by yoavm 10y ago

nir 10y ago

As it stands you either give Apple complete control of you software/hardware or you give Google full access to every detail of your life. There should be a sticker "Don't blame me, I supported Firefox OS"

maheart 10y ago
I know you're half-joking, but if this is something you're passionate about, there are things you can do (while there's still alternatives platforms...): 1. Purchase non-Apple, and non-Android devices (e.g. Jolla/SailfishOS, Ubuntu Touch devices) 2. Develop software for the alternative platforms -- that's what I do. It's a lot of fun programming on a GNU/Linux mobile. I write software in Python with 3rd party modules from pypi, and Qt/QML. 3. Spread the word. Tell other like-minded developers about how fun it is to work on your alternative platform of choice. Plus since there's only 10s of thousands of users, your software actual gets used (and people appreciate it!).
- supergreg 10y ago
  What GNU/Linux mobile? Can you elaborate on that?
  - maheart 10y ago
    I develop for SailfishOS. As I described in one of my other comments, it really is just "regular" GNU/Linux underneath: >> I develop software for SailfishOS. It's like the Linux desktop. I SSH into my phone. zypper/pkcon install some dev tools (e.g. gcc, make, git). I initialise a Python virtualenv, pull down some libraries (e.g. Flask). I want to query SMS messages? I open an sqlite database on the filesystem. I can define services using systemd files. It really is "just Linux" underneath.
    - mabramo 10y ago
      I had never heard of SailfishOS before this thread. Now I really want to pick up a device with SailfishOS, but I was planning on getting on GoogleFI compatible device in the next couple months. Decisions... In any case, thank you for your efforts. I've been waiting for UbuntuOS for all the features I didn't know Sailfish has already.
    - lisivka 10y ago
      How much of SailfishOS is covered by GPL or GPL compatible license? I don't want to invest my time into someone else business for free.
vamur 10y ago
You can easily disable Google services on most Android devices. Or purchase a Cyanogenmod compatible device and use a third party store.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  The problem is that the majority of apps written on Android these days depend on Google APIs or libraries, to the point that an Android without Play Services is almost useless. (Yes, this is from experience.) Even Google's direct competitors require Google to use an Android. Skype and Outlook are great examples of apps you'd be amazed to discover will not run at all without Play Services.
  - abawany 10y ago
    There are fake GApps that I have tried on experimental devices and they fooled the apps enough to enable them to run. I haven't run these long-term or tried on more than 3 apps relevant to me to say if that would be a good approach.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      I'd be a little iffy about security considerations once your plan is to rely on "fake apps".
      - abawany 10y ago
        I am not referring to mysterious binary blobs retrieved from torrents or such but open source projects such as https://github.com/thermatk/FakeGApps https://github.com/thermatk/FakeGApps (http://repo.xposed.info/module/com.thermatk.android.xf.fakegapps http://repo.xposed.info/module/com.thermatk.android.xf.fakeg...).
- nir 10y ago
  People reading HN could, but the general public doesn't really have that option.

pjc50 10y ago

Only one of those really makes any money. What's the economic model that would bring a competing OS into existence?

godzillabrennus 10y ago
That's the truth. It's going to take a plateau of performance coupled with a commoditization of mobile hardware for open source to move in. Without a viable business model and with the rapid rate of change it's impossible for open source to even try and play in this arena.
ikeboy 10y ago
What? Both Android and iOS are responsible for tens of billions in revenue.
- lotsofpulp 10y ago
  Profit is the relevant metric, not revenue.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Both are still profitable in the tens of billions. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-android-generates-31-billion-revenue-oracle-says-ijor8hvt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/google-s-... $22 billion profit. iOS is a bit more complicated to value, but they've made more than $10 billion just in app store commissions (even not counting increased sales of hardware due to iOS). So if you consider the cost of iOS development as weighed against their hardware sales, and book the software as profit, you'd get more than $10 billion. The real profit numbers are probably higher. Anyway, the point is that there's no reasonable way to assert that either one of them isn't profitable.
    - lotsofpulp 10y ago
      Google might be, but not the phone manufacturers...except maybe Samsung but it's marginal compared to what share Apple gets.

espadrine 10y ago

There are political avenues to explore. Just as Microsoft was hit hard by a number of anti-monopolistic EU decisions regarding Internet Explorer, Apple in particular could be the target of an action in that space. But this is the kind of thing that requires citizen action. Also, expecting the EU commission to be the only political consumer protection for multinational corporations is not ideal, there ought to be more actions on the American side as well. Until then, I highly doubt that there will be any hope of breaking the duopoly, at least until Google's or Apple's core business model starts failing them, which is unlikely to occur within twenty years. From an economical perspective, monopolies are great for companies and for the country's GDP, but they tend to cause lower standards of living, because of the loss of competition.

danieldk 10y ago
There are political avenues to explore. Just as Microsoft was hit hard by a number of anti-monopolistic EU decisions regarding Internet Explorer, Apple in particular could be the target of an action in that space. Why? In the 5 largest European markets, Android has 3/4th marketshare [1]. How can Apple be targeted for monopolistic behavior? [1] http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/11/android-is-eating-apples-ios-market-share-everywhere/ http://venturebeat.com/2016/05/11/android-is-eating-apples-i...
- s_kilk 10y ago
  Plus, I'm much more worried about Googles vampiric approach to personal data, rather than Apple merely making it hard to deploy software.
- espadrine 10y ago
  > How can Apple be targeted for monopolistic behavior? Because they don't even allow other browser engines on their iOS platform, which is explicitly what was the subject of the "ballot box" ruling. Monopolies are per-product class. Apple is responsible for both the hardware and the software. All it takes is having one of their products own half of its market. … which, of course, could take a long time. It did happen for tablets circa 2011, I believe.
10y ago

kaio 10y ago

HP with webOS :). I really loved it. But it looks like you will need a really long breath to get attention and developers on your side for any new OS.

catwell 10y ago
I used WebOS, and I agree. I really enjoyed my Pre3. I could never bring myself to like Firefox OS. The best now is Jolla, which I don't think has failed at all yet (I have a Jolla C, I wrote about it shortly here: https://blog.separateconcerns.com/2016-09-16-thoughts-1.html https://blog.separateconcerns.com/2016-09-16-thoughts-1.html).
ksec 10y ago
Web OS is now with LG.
prplhaz4 10y ago
LuneOS is still under active development by the webOS Ports team: https://github.com/webos-ports https://github.com/webos-ports Open WebOS became LG WebOS and is still around on their TVs...

lake99 10y ago

I really want the Tizen project to succeed. It's tragic that this doesn't even run on mainstream Samsung devices. Talk about faith in their own work!

pjmlp 10y ago
They have rebooted the complete platform already a few times, why should any developer waste time on Tizen?
JustSomeNobody 10y ago
I wonder if Samsung is holding that one close just in case Google irks them with Android. Right now, it probably makes more sense monetarily for Samsung to stay with Android.
- ygjb-dupe 10y ago
  <begin north american centric summary of problem> Tizen has one of the same problems that Firefox OS had - no real foothold with users. I have a Samsung Gear, Samsung TV, Samsung phone, and 0 Samsung apps, other than what ships with the devices. My apps are all Google based, and the only two apps on my TV that get used are Netflix and Youtube, everything else gets served by the computer connected (and Netflix and Youtube get used there more frequently since I have a full keyboard there). Google and Apple both rely on ecosystems to attract and retain users, and Samsung doesn't have a competitive (or compelling) ecosystem. <end north american centric summary of problem> I don't know if Samsung has the same problem in other markets, but I know that Firefox Marketplace does/did.
tootie 10y ago
Samsung consistently fails at software. I honestly wish they would just quit and make their hardware use something more standard.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rajeshp1986 10y ago

@Yoavm, what pisses me more is that both Apple & Google now have a yearly update of their OS and all they shamelessly showcase on stage is emoji's and notifications.

m12k 10y ago
Maybe that's it? The product category of "smartphone OS" is now so well-defined that the possible improvements are evolutionary at best, not revolutionary, and hence there's also no space for a new entrant to provide a big enough improvement over the incumbents to gain significant attention? Firefox OS promised to make app creation easier through web technologies, but "not enough apps" isn't the problem with Android or iOS, quite the contrary, so for an end user, that's pretty irrelevant.
- truth_sentinell 10y ago
  Yeah but a year for 70 more emojis? Come on now. With all the good engineers they have.. There always must be a good idea in the span of a year..
  - wyldfire 10y ago
    Well, even at a tech conference, "we eBPF'd and ASLR-ized your app sandboxes even more and now you have even less risk of getting pwned" might draw a "meh" reaction. In very real terms it helps close the device security gap between Android and iOS, but it probably just can't hold people's attention.
Apocryphon 10y ago
My theory specific to iOS 10 is that it's actually a stability-focused maintenance build behind the scenes. The emoji are for cultural appeal while they hide the fact that the real features are not actually features- they're boring, hidden fixes to stabilize iOS after the previous few releases.
setpatchaddress 10y ago
That's what users actually care about. Market demand.

maheart 10y ago

I'm a big supporter of GNU/Linux on the phone. I don't care if Jolla or Ubuntu don't ever make it as "major" players in the mobile OS world. I'd be perfectly happy with GNU/Linux mobile software that's as good as the Linux desktop. I run Linux on my desktop (and laptop), and we're 1% of desktop users. I'd be satisfied with 1% mobile market share. We don't need a billion users, all I want is a hacker-friendly platform, with a good developer community around it (which I think both GNU/Linux on the desktop, and IMO SailfishOS [Jolla] provide).

creshal 10y ago
If only there was any decent hardware for Jolla.
- maheart 10y ago
  If you're not satisfied with the "official" devices (e.g. Jolla 1, Intex Aquafish, or Jolla C [if you were lucky enough]), then there are a number of community ports at varying levels of maturity[1]. Otherwise, there's the possibility that the Fairphone 2 will receive official SailfishOS support. Finally, there's a number of yet unreleased devices with official SailfishOS support[2] [1] https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Adaptations/libhybris https://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/Adaptations/libhybris [2] https://together.jolla.com/question/136143/wiki-available-devices-running-sailfish-os/ https://together.jolla.com/question/136143/wiki-available-de...
- rihegher 10y ago
  And if only Sailfish OS was open source. https://together.jolla.com/question/80676/request-fully-open-source-sailfish-os/?answer=80678#post-id-80678 https://together.jolla.com/question/80676/request-fully-open...
  - maheart 10y ago
    This is true, and I hope SailfishOS will one day be completely FOSS, but please have a look at the bigger picture. Here's a comment I wrote about the situation on reddit: --- Yes, I'd prefer SailfishOS to be 100% FOSS, but Jolla is helping GNU/Linux establish its roots on the mobile. How is it doing this? * libhybris has opened up a whole new world for GNU/Linux, by allowing programs developed against glibc (i.e. GNU/Linux) to run on top of proprietary Android drivers (i.e. phones). * Jolla puts a lot of development into lipstick, which makes it easier to develop UXs for phones/tablets/other form factors [This involved developing Wayland support] * Jolla have opensourced their browser (Qt5 + Gecko engine) and their office suite (Nokia's Calligra Office work, with a QML interface) * Jolla develops a sychronisation framework (buteo-sync) that can be used for syncing emails, Twitter, CalDav/CardDav, etc (I think Ubuntu Touch might adopt it in the future) * Want to see how much manpower Jolla dedicates to developing FOSS? Look at the number of @jollamobile.com emails here: https://git.merproject.org/groups/mer-core/activity https://git.merproject.org/groups/mer-core/activity * The SailfishOS community has been developing sfdroid. A FOSS application for running Android apps on your GNU/Linux mobile. So while SailfishOS isn't 100% open source, it's doing a lot of good for the GNU/Linux community on the mobile.

pjmlp 10y ago

Microsoft mobile strategy might pay off on the hybrid laptops and the new netbook generations (4/8GB + 32/64 eMMC). Also they seem to at least cater to those not caring about apps, not able to pay for iPhone and dislike for Android. Overall Market share in Europe around 5-10% was around a few months ago, but they have money to spare, and might keep selling Windows Mobile devices just not to loose face. You cannot sell mobile OS based on FOSS religion, normal people want the apps everyone has and convenience, while most developers care about tooling. So whatever alternative comes, must have a very good selling point to consumers and developers currently targeting the established platforms.

WorldMaker 10y ago
Plus Microsoft still has inroads left into the enterprise-managed mobile device space. (Most of the more recently announced non-Microsoft branded Windows mobile devices are things like HP's enterprise focused phone.) Especially with the potential big win of a company's IT being able to manage Windows mobile devices from the same Windows control panels as any other Windows machine in the workplace. Not that there is much territory there to sustain long term (just ask Blackberry), but with all the carriers slowly dropping their phone subsidies it might not be hard to imagine corporate sponsored phones could make a small comeback.

padraic7a 10y ago

Ubuntu Touch is still going. It's up to it's 13th release now and I don't think it's a failed project. However I do think it's something that isn't yet ready for primetime, and it's going to be more a year or more before it is. In the meantime they are trying to iron out bugs, improve features and get more developer attention for it. Recently they've added support for React Native: https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/react-native https://github.com/CanonicalLtd/react-native HN readers might like to check out the Ubuntu Developer blog: https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/ https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/

jbb555 10y ago
I didn't know that ubuntu had a phone. I wondered if it could be installed on my own phone? Doessn't seem to mention that on their website. Oh well perhaps I'll buy one "Note — all our devices are currently sold out" Ok well I guess I'll stick to android then...
- reddotX 10y ago
  4 ubuntu phones and 2 tablets :D
- wompfox 10y ago
  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices
- ioddly 10y ago
  I just looked at the Jolla devices as well and they are also out of stock. I imagine it's probably harder to coordinate selling these devices in small batches; I wish there was at least some kind of availability list I could sign up for.
- padraic7a 10y ago
  Yeah, it is a pity all the phones are sold out. It can be ported to other devices though, you might get some useful info here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/Devices
10y ago

rihegher 10y ago

There gonna be a third option like ubuntu desktop is the third option after windows and macos. But It's gonna be for people who value control or privacy above everything else. The key factor remains the timing for this third option to rise.

wiineeth 10y ago

The problem is Android and IOS basically came at the same time and got almost same apps in them. For a new platform there is not much to innovate other than we have the same features, but not the same company. There is only way to win in this industry now. Its to create a OS which has compatibility with android apps and has excellent hardware integration.

ciconia 10y ago

You can also just say no to smartphones.

cmrdporcupine 10y ago

You forgot WebOS, which has been open sourced since HP killed it. There was a brief flurry of activity around it, including getting it run on older Nexus devices, then it petered out. I submit that a big part of the problem is fragmentation of effort. There was no reason for Ubuntu, Mozilla, and WebOS all to be aiming at the same target at the same time in very similar ways but by different people.

deaddodo 10y ago
WebOS is licensed out to LG these days for their Smart TV's. It's still the commercial deal it's been since HP bought it from Palm. Open WebOS is a different beast (much like how Mozilla wasn't Netscape Navigator), based on the open sourced components of WebOS.
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  Well sure, but Open WebOS was complete enough to boot on Galaxy Nexus and provide a mostly complete environment.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago

People are worried about this now, but the time to have been worried was like 2009-2010, when iOS (I think??) could've claimed to have had a monopoly, at least in the US, and before iOS really got a mindshare into people going. I could also say the same about people upset with Facebook-2009-2010 people!

bartread 10y ago

I was at Phonegap Europe 2013 and there was a big noise about Firefox OS (then still known as Boot to Gecko) there. It looked cool but it was always targeted at low-end, low-cost devices. The problem with that, from my perspective as a developer, is that I don't want to develop apps for low-end devices because it's an enormous pain in the ass. The lack of horsepower and features means you're pretty much required to compromise your vision, unless you really are developing something very simple, or with minimal finessing. On top of this, and this was even more so 3 years ago, today's high end devices are 2 years' time's low-to-mid-range devices. If it takes you 6-12 months to develop your app (again, depends on complexity) on today's high end hardware you'll be targeting the mid-range when you release. Of course, there's a bit more nuance to this because single core performance isn't really increasing that much, but you get the point. Short version: targeting high end devices means you're developing for the future and not incurring the compromises (and, in fact, support overhead) of dealing with low-end kit.

AsyncAwait 10y ago
Well said, my problem with Firefox OS was exactly that it was always targeting the low-end of the spectrum. People who buy the low-end smartphones do not usually care about the platform it's running on, nor can they afford to support 3-rd party app development.
- bartread 10y ago
  That's a really good point. Whilst the goal of providing a good OS on low-end smartphones aimed at lower income economies sounds noble (is noble, in fact) it doesn't work commercially for developers because nobody will have the spare cash to buy their wares. It's a real shame and it wasn't something that was immediately obvious to me at the time because I was very new to mobile development. Now of course I've experienced the same frustrations as every other mobile dev and realised that it's just not worth targeting anything but the top quartile. That is, unless it's a corporate app and you have a large number of lower end devices in the field that you don't plan on replacing before your app is deployed.
jsight 10y ago

chx 10y ago

It is very unlikely we will see a third alternative on phones. But, who said smartphones will be a mainstay for ever? There is clearly a major drive towards voice as the primary UI and if you are not screen constrained then interesting developments might occur.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wahsd 10y ago

To be fair, Android is a hot mess of dozens of, essentially, different OSs. On top of that, I am sure most people here laughed and chuckled about Windows Phone instead of supporting it or encouraging it or even just providing feedback to Microsoft. This is what your pretentious little snark wars get you, Android that so many years later is still a hot mess and iOS that is still a restricted environment that suits 99.9% of all consumers and provides them with a far superior user experience.

mooreds 10y ago

Yes, it is practically impossible, the same way there was a duopoly of desktop computers in the 90s and 2000s. Similarly to that era, there will be niche players (OS/2, desktop linux then, windows 10 mobile now), but the vast majority of the software and hardware will run the dominant OSes. Hey, at least it isn't a monopoly and one of the OSes is freeish. Freedom wise, hardware is behind, but the software is ahead (of the desktop market).

raverbashing 10y ago

Of course it's not impossible The issue is where the money is coming from. Also, to move on an entrenched market you need to do a lot of things upfront. Android in, let's say, 2011 was much worse than iOS, today the gap has closed.

vesinisa 10y ago
> The issue is where the money is coming from. I think what Microsoft wasted on Nokia's phone business was something in the magnitude of >$8 billion, so money was not really the problem at least in their case.

glenstein 10y ago

I don't know how practical this idea is, but I dream of an alternative world where Yahoo went all in on Firefox OS. I think Firefox was Yahoo's ticket to relevance, if they wanted it.

mhurron 10y ago

> Is it practically impossible? Offer something people want that the others don't. It's not enough to just not be iOS or not Android, that only appeals to the small segment of people that HN appeals to. The selling point for Ubuntu, Mozilla and Microsoft's phone was just 'it's not them.' They didn't provide any value. Microsoft had apparently forgotten what they had to do to make the xBox viable against Sony and Nintendo when it first launched, because they didn't just launch it with 'Hey, at least we're not Sony, the developers will show up eventually.'

melling 10y ago

Does the tiny selection of desktop OSes worry you? Microsoft has had at least 90% market share for 2 decades. At any rate, it seems like two major brands is all the tech world can handle.

kijin 10y ago

I think the only option that has an even remote chance of success right now is to fork Android and do your own thing while maintaining compatibility with as many existing Android apps as possible. So, something like Cyanogenmod but with more drastic changes. It's Linux under the hood after all. It's already compatible with GNU coreutils and a whole bunch of other free software. No need to start again from zero.

khattam 10y ago
The problem with that is Google can deny you rights to bundle Play Store... and they will if they see you as a thread... and you're fucked.

eloisant 10y ago

I think an alternative will only come from a paradigm shift. For the same reason DOS/Windows reigned on the desktop for decades, with Mac having a few percents and Linux repeatedly failing to grab any significant market share.

fsiefken 10y ago

We still have Samsung's Tizen, fast, powerefficient and can it run Android apps

chatmasta 10y ago

For the average non-technical user, a "pure Linux" phone with no sand boxing would be a security nightmare. Just look at jailbroken iOS devices as an example. Maybe sophisticated users know how to take extra precautions in exchange for more freedom, but the average user will happily use banking apps with no idea what the other processes on the phone are doing. For this reason, Android is a good middle-ground. It's well-sandboxed by default and if you need more power you can root it. Nothing is stopping anyone from releasing "free software" open source android apps published outside of the play store. As is, they would get more adoption than any app on the Ubuntu/Firefox/etc store. As long as Android exists and is easily rootable, and preferably as long as the iOS jailbreak community keeps up with major versions, I'm happy with the state of "linux" on mobile.

CaptSpify 10y ago
Sure, android might be good enough for most people. But that's like saying porridge is good enough for most people. I want a steak, or a burger. The problem is that I don't really have a choice right now, I don't want porridge. Additionally, even if you trust Google today, they can turn evil tomorrow and then we'd have >75% of people who are using android without any options. Diversifying the available options in the market market is good for everyone except Google.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

Probably. Historically, tech falls into a natural monopoly or natural duopoly with some other marginal competition. Windows and OSX rule on the desktop/laptop with Linux a bit player. Intel and AMD on x86 with Via, IBM, and Cyrix and the rest either no longer being able to compete. ATI and Nvidia on the gaming GPU end, and even then ATI had to be swallowed up by AMD to remain competitive. Intel still a bit player for budget graphics and with no product that remotely compares with the GPU heft of even a many years old Nvidia card. We'll probably see iOS and Android be the default mobile OS's for a while with MS's Windows as a third player. Surface tablets and Windows phones still sell. If anything, the Surface Pro might be the best mobile Windows device out there and one of the nicer mobile devices for sale anywhere. That said, mobile is probably resistant to a foss solution as people expect all sorts of cloud and managed experiences. Maps, siri/googlenow, cloud storage of photos, ease of buying, sharing, casting, media, etc. Most people won't be happy with an unbuntu phone that doesn't have all these features and probably couldn't care less about the privacy argument here. Do default installs of Sailfish, Tizen, and Jolla have any of this? Joe Consumer won't buy these things if they can't compete feature-wise.

brudgers 10y ago

I don't count Microsoft out of the space over the long term. Unification of the Windows platform from microcontrollers to servers is fairly far along and mobile phone operating systems are, for Microsoft, just another application of the Windows 10 technology. Windows 10 Mobile has some of the advantages of iOS in terms of security updates and the Microsoft developer infrastructure -- whether that's a good thing depends on one's technical opinion of Visual Studio versus Xcode and Android Studio in terms of programming ergonomics and features and languages. All that said, that doesn't mean that Windows Mobile will ever be successful or that a world where it's Apple, Google and Microsoft would be significantly better.

bartread 10y ago
True - they seem determined to plug away at mobile until they make a success of it, and fair play to them: Windows 10 Mobile is decent. They've obviously got an uphill battle ahead of them to win back developers and customers but I think they can do it eventually. I'd still like to see a credible OSS alternative in the mix as well, and I wonder if Mozilla couldn't make that work if they dropped their low-end focus.
- brudgers 10y ago
  Ubuntu's Snappy-Core grew out of their brief run at the phone: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/devices It has some parallels with Microsoft's strategy and could roll back into phones as just another device. And I think that getting a platform that works from embedded to server clusters has a good chance of how provisioning phones works ten years from now. There's really nothing magical about phones. It's some compute cores, a bit of memory, some radios, a battery and a display. The only distinguishing feature of a phone is how the radio is tuned.

jsight 10y ago

Can you imagine what it would be like if every Linux distribution tried to build a competitor to Linux instead of a competitor to other distributions? That would be a hard problem even in the relatively small Unix desktop space. That is how hard the problem was to solve for Mozilla OS. They were essentially building a competing OS when they could have just been building a competing distribution. Android (AOSP) + Firefox + Firefox Market + Firefox Mail could have been amazing.

lazaroclapp 10y ago
That's what Amazon went for, with very limited success (that said, not really targeting privacy conscious users or free software enthusiasts, so outcomes might not apply)
remir 10y ago
Going against Android and iOS was a mistake. Even Microsoft, with all their resources, is struggling to stay relevant in mobile. Firefox OS should have competed against Chrome OS instead. Partner with some OEMs and you have a great alternative to Chromebooks.

andyidsinga 10y ago

we're no more stuck with those two than we were with blackberry. things change in less than predictable ways. next big os front will be bringing embedded (read iot) from the old school to the new.

type0 10y ago
Wasn't it snapchat that released some strange techno-hipster glasses with camers just now. Eventually we will see embedded oled in them and hand gesture interfaces for more augmented reality.
- andyidsinga 10y ago
  yeah - hats off to them for getting in the IoT/wearable game. "snapholes"? :)

draw_down 10y ago

I'll say yes, we're stuck with the two. The resources required to create and maintain a decent, competitive mobile OS imply a need for a size of user base that no new entrant will be able to achieve in a reasonable time frame.

pbreit 10y ago

If Android went closed source, I could see a new window opening.

racl101 10y ago

There's also Blackberry QNX and Windows mobile.

toast0 10y ago

I don't think it's impossible. It does take consistent investment, and consistently not screwing things up. Between Windows Phone 8.1 and Windows Mobile 10, Microsoft decided that 'one Windows platform' was more important than a dedicated mobile team, and as a result, Windows Mobile 10 arrived several months late and without polish. Their hardware refresh (Lumia 950, Lumia 550, etc) was held up waiting for the software and as a result, they lost momentum. Additionally, promised upgradability from 8.1 devices to Windows 10 came with a lot of caveats. A great Windows Phone 10 launch would not have put them in the top two, but it may have solidified them as a third platform.

twblalock 10y ago

> Is it practically impossible? Are we stuck with Android and iOS forever? I think it's pretty simple: people want to use apps on their phones, and no phone OS is viable without a competitive library of apps. Most major apps are developed for both iOS and Android, and convincing app developers to develop for a third platform is going to be a tough sell, unless that platform is very attractive to users. However, to be attractive to users, it will have to have a lot of apps already... I suspect that the only way to gain marketshare for a new mobile OS is to ship it with an Android or iOS compatibility layer, which would be pretty difficult to do well. The developers would have to re-implement the entire iOS or Android API, and keep up with all of the changes. If they did that, there would be no incentive for developers to target the native APIs of the OS, because they could just target Android or iOS like they do already. So, the compatibility layer could never be deprecated. So yeah, I think we're stuck.

dredmorbius 10y ago
People aren't interested in backups. They're interested in restores. People aren't interested in apps. They're interested in capabilities. The apps markets are good for ... delivering a completely dizzying (that is: intentionally discombobulating and confusing) array of crappy software that sometimes works, always intrudes on your privacy and steals your personal information, and frequently goes titsup.com for no particular reason and with limited notice. I don't want apps. I want decent browsing capabilities with document management. I want explicit control over networking. I want a messaging capability. SMS, IRC, eMail, whatever -- there's no reason these need to be split out. I want a multimedia player. A basic set of utilities. The same ones as were on the Xerox Alto 48 years ago: A calendar, calculator, notepad type editor. Basic spreadsheet wouldn't hurt. These days something with maps and an encyclopedia would be handy. Stills/video camera and gallery. And since I'm not the 99.98%, I'd like a goddamned full-fledged shell running Linux or BSD. But StuffMyCrapWebsiteIntoThisApp.com? Not so much.

err4nt 10y ago

WebOS as well!

blihp 10y ago

Only speaking for myself but I suspect others might feel the same way: I can't get excited about another essentially closed platform. I'm not interested in what are overpriced and underpowered devices that pretty much behave at best as slightly more open, yet still closed, Android-like devices. I've been living this for the last several years both with Android and ARM devel/hobbyist boards and it isn't much fun. It would be nice these quasi-business entities (i.e. Mozilla, Canonical) would forget about their brand-exclusive strategies and try to rally around an open ARM-based platform (you know, with support for things like, I don't know, GPUs and such) they can all run on. THAT I could get excited about and we could all win. Short of that, I don't get what I want and they continue to lose relevance in the mobile era. Granted, I'm part of the 1% that runs Linux. But here's a newsflash: right now we're the only ones who care about Canonical, Mozilla, etc. and ~1% beats 0%.

slgeorge 10y ago
What examples are there of an "open ARM-based platform" with support for GPU's etc? I don't know of any situation where the ARM ecosystem works like that, the companies compete for differentiation, they have a very limited interest in standardisation. Maybe I'm missing what you're referring to. It also wouldn't get you a phone, it would get you a base board but all the other bits like radios compete on the different manufacturers platforms.
- blihp 10y ago
  They're aren't, and that was my point. I think that is one of the reasons (there are others) why something like the Raspberry Pi has become so dominant. It's disastrously bad from the standpoint of openness as a platform, but they've gotten the needed technical info and binary blobs to make it work better than just about everything else out there right now on ARM. It seems like there ought to be a couple of 2nd tier GPU design houses (i.e. not nVidia or AMD) that would be motivated to cut a deal to ship on the order of at least millions of units in the relatively near term. And the larger supposed supporters of open source have funding on the order of over a billion dollars (Mozilla's last deal with Google was a billion dollars alone) that it seems like at least a fraction of could be directed to help make this happen. They don't need to build anything that competes with this or even last year's flagship devices, iterate nearly as quickly, or even play the 'we made it .00001mm thinner' industrial design game. They would just need to get something serviceable out there and the design costs could be amortized over several years with only minor revisions needed (i.e occasional bumps to CPU and memory specs etc.) I'm not suggesting that this be done purely from the standpoint of altruism: for both the IP providers and the various foundations, this would provide them with a possible path to participate in mobile that is closed to them currently so it seems like it's in their interest from an existential standpoint. That said, maybe it really is impossible to motivate any of the players necessary to go down this path. In which case it seems worthwhile for the open source crowd to go all-in on something like RISC-V/OpenGPU and jettison the proprietary IP as completely as possible, as soon as possible.

Gustomaximus 10y ago

I wouldn't write of Microsoft yet. There is great potential if they can nail this phone to desktop merged experience. Enterprise would find it super appealing. And I could see consumers buying in too. This has to be one of the best ways into handset market for MS/Ubuntu or others.