3 ms·
That's a different argument, you imply that Symbian will be around because of that finance. I've pointed out this is not the case. To put this in perspective a
by edderly 16y ago
That's a different argument, you imply that Symbian will be around because of that finance. I've pointed out this is not the case. To put this in perspective a commonly known metric is that when Nokia paid 264M Euros for Symbian that, that value was the cost of two years worth of phone releases (dev. cost wise).
On this argument I suppose it depends if you automatically dislike "big guv'munt" and resent the funding, think it could be done different or for some reason think Symbian is a bad focus for this cash. Who knows.
- bjelkeman-again 16y agoI primarily think it is a bad focus for this type of cash. You say it is not worth much for Symbian, in light of other money spent on it. So why give it the money then? If you spent the same amount of money on other embedded software efforts, where 22M Euro would be a lot, then I predict you would get a lot more value for money. I don't resent big government money as such being spent on technology, but this seems badly placed. Who in their right mind would start developing new embedded systems on Symbian today? (I am by no means an embedded OS expert, but talking to my friends who develop on mobile phones, Symbian is decidedly long in the tooth these days. I can't see that it will be that much better as an embedded system. Also, see enjo's comment below on developing in Symbian.)