AT&T Sidestepping Google, Eyes Symbian 139
molotovjester writes "In what is surely going to be a slap in the face of Apple, AT&T is eyeballing the Symbian platform as a smart-phone OS for an army of new handsets it expects will make up the majority of the market by 2014. Is this move too little, too late compared to Google's Android? Will Apple open up its iPhone platform, or will dreams of electric sheep be dreamed up by the majority of cell phone users? I wrote an analysis of the industry players as of mid-November, but it will be interesting to see what AT&T does and how it changes the mobile ecosystem."
Slap in the face? (Score:5, Insightful)
A slap in the face? Come on. Apple's not going to care. There will always be other smartphones out there. Apple wouldn't have any desire for their OS to run on other phones. Their plan is to try to get THEIR product to dominate the market.
Ding, ding, ding (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt Apple cares. Last time I checked the iPhone is doing pretty damn well and Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff.
Because if everyone's special, then no one is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
AT&T is eyeballing the Symbian platform
The ladies will get a kick out of this one. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
How does Apple make it's consumers special? By selling premium goods that only some choose to buy?
Do you think I'm special because I own Apple products? ANYONE can buy them, so I don't see how anyone could think it would make them special.
Maybe Lamborghini owners think they're special because they're somewhere near the top. single digit, X% of the world's wealthiest people.
Maybe that IS special to some degree.
But, Apple products? By providing slightly more value and charging slightly more than competitor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff
I take it you missed the whole iPod thing? It's got no WiFi, less space than a Nomad, and is lame, but apparently it's selling quite well...
Re: (Score:2)
...and Apple isn't the kind of company that wants every person on the planet to buy it's stuff.
Isn't that like, the basic main goal of any modern corporation?
"Sir, there's a whole shitload of people buying our stuff in Q4 '08!"
"But is it everyone?"
"Uh, no sir."
"Then work harder, dammit!"
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that like, the basic main goal of any modern corporation?
Not Apple. They've found ways to be extremely profitable without going to lowest-common-denominator products. Lots of people will point to a chart saying Apple products lack this or that detail that some cheaper alternative has. That's not really the point-- Apple thinks about how their products fit into their customers lifestyle and solves their problems.
There will always be room for Dell, Google, Symbian, whatever in an Apple-dominated market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judging from past behavior, Apple doesn't care: they seem to be content being a niche player selling cool but overpriced stuff to people who want cool but overpriced stuff. AT&T may or may not be happy with Apple but in the end it's irrelevant since there are other carriers for Apple. It doesn't seem like this is aimed at Apple at all. Google and perhaps Microsoft are more likely targets - especially Google because of Android & the open source thing.
The REAL question is "will the market care?".
Re:Slap in the face? (Score:4, Insightful)
THEIR product to dominate the market.
No, their plan is profit.
This is the same discussion about Apple that comes up when people talk about Macs; someone always says "ZOMG they have to do x to dominate the market like Microsoft!"
While I'm sure they'd be happy if they did dominate the market, Apple is in the business of making money, not market domination.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder if Apple would be happy to dominate the market. Virtually all of their marketing is based on their position as the smug, elite minority. They succeed by making products targeted to a very specific audience, and I think that if they tried to be general and flexible they'd lose something important.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that's more due to Apple dealing realistically with their role as a minority platform than actually wanting to be one. That is, while they'd undoubtedly be happy to be the dominant computing platform, they fact is that they aren't, so they're using the "elite minority" thing to make the best of their market position.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Please... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple will "open up" its products, in the sense it will make them "more open" it will however, not "make them open". Both sides are right, just for some values of "open". As for AT&T, my gut feeling is that Android's too open for them.
Re:Please... (Score:4, Informative)
And Symbian is not?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081203-nokias-oss-strategy-gets-boost-as-symbian-deal-completed.html [arstechnica.com]
Re:Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like all other cell phones, any phone AT&T "makes" is as open as they (and the manufacturer) decide to make it. Even if part of the source for the phones operating system is available, it is unlikely that AT&T will make it any easier for end-users to install custom firmware than the G1 does or the iPhone does.
Same with Applications. It will be completely up to AT&T to control what API's will be available on the phone (just like it is now, arguably, the sole exception being the iPhone), and what applications will be permitted on the phone and where you will be able to acquire them from.
People seem to be assuming that because the Symbian OS is open source, that the phone itself is going to be wide open for whatever you want to do. This is highly unlikely.
Even the magical GoogleOSPhone has arbitrary limitations, such as you can't download music to the phone over the 3G network, not because of bandwidth concerns, but solely to protect the carriers revenue stream for their existing overpriced music store that they force their customers with other handsets to use.
Re: (Score:1)
Even the magical GoogleOSPhone has arbitrary limitations, such as you can't download music to the phone over the 3G network, not because of bandwidth concerns, but solely to protect the carriers revenue stream for their existing overpriced music store that they force their customers with other handsets to use.
LOL, don't be a 'tard. Not everything is a conspiracy.
T-Mobile and AT&T have been the carriers most amenable to uncrippled smartphones. That's not going to change, especially now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
(reposted with a more readable layout)
> LOL, don't be a 'tard. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Then how do you explain it away?
Given explicit support on the iPhone (over both 2G and 3G networks) for:
-streaming video from YouTube
-downloading podcasts (which are free audio files that can easily be larger than music files)
-ability to navigate the iTunes Music Store and purchase music (but not download it)
-ability to purchase applications for the iPhone, which can be several times the size of a typical music
Re: (Score:2)
The G1 isn't completely open, however android is, and already runs on a couple of other platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the only bits I know of are in relation to the Neo Freerunner. koolu.com are a reselles aiming to put android on the freerunner, and they have a git repository. If you want a pre-built image then check out
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/User:Seanmcneil3 [openmoko.org]
I haven't tried to get the source from google themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
It means you can get the source....
You did miss a link, not on code.google.com, but at android.com -
http://source.android.com/download [android.com]
What it means is that the OS is open, the java based framebuffer "desktop" and some of the applications (dialer, SMS, web browser (though not google gears, that comes as a binary) and a variety of other bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Music is the single largest, most common thing a person can download. A full album is typically around a 100 MB. And it isn't just saturating the network that scares them, it is the customer experience. It gives the non-technical person a benchmark of just how slow 3G really is compared landline technologies. It is the most embarrassing point of failure after dropped calls, especially because the customer has money on the line. Few people make angry support calls when a YouTube video doesn't load.
The iPhone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Please... (Score:4, Interesting)
For Limit read block - for all intents and purposes, its not possible to get useful apps on Symbian any more - you can pay for cr*p, but that is not the same thing.
People are saying "if its going to be locked, then I might as well buy Apple". If Symbian is going to sell phones it will only be because they dump this stupidity.
Disclaimer: my last 4 phones have been Symbian, and I wont buy another till "Symbian SIgned" is history. If they have not killed it when my contract runs out, I will get an iPhone too. (like all my freinds, family and colleagues)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So why did you buy your phones from a corporation that does that? You can very easily buy Symbian phones that aren't crippled. Your lousy consumer research has nothing to do with the security features of the OS.
There are plenty of really useful applications for Symbian. For example, people have been walking around with Vorbis-capable music players in their pockets for several years while Slashdotters kept making bad jokes about how they just want to make calls.
http://symbianoggplay.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to start monetizing their software directly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why? What business model would you suggest they follow?
It's not like they can pull a Microsoft and require a license fee for every single phone shipped by AT&T and all their other iPhone vendors (that is what got Microsoft their millions from the PC manufacturers).
Can you name another vendor that sells hardware that monetizes their software, and manages to grow handsomely?
Sun isn't it, they give away their OS that isn't tied to their hardware AND they happen to be going down.
IBM isn't it, they sold thei
Re:Please... (Score:5, Funny)
I think it's only a matter of time before Apple is forced to start monetizing their software directly.
because if the last 5 years have been any indication, Apple is clearly using a failing business model...
Re: (Score:2)
The last five years are VERY DIFFERENT from the upcoming five years.
Re: (Score:2)
"because if the last 5 years have been any indication, Apple is clearly using a failing business model..."
As a lot of companies are discovering, the last 5 years are not any indication. Furthermore, Apple has won and lost many markets. They are a hit-and-run company that identifies lucrative market niches, milks them, and then changes strategy.
As for the iPhone, like all Apple products, the iPhone can never capture more than 15-20% of the market because it can't: its design is too limited and too targeted
Re: (Score:2)
the iPhone can never capture more than 15-20% of the market because it can't: its design is too limited and too targeted at one market
15-20% doesn't seem like too much unless you can completely dominate that 15-20% niche. Then it matters.
I'll take 20% of everything over 50% of something any day.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not bet against Apple were I you.
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/gartner_apple_overtakes_microsoft_as_worlds_3_smartphone_os_vendor/ [macdailynews.com]
They're already up to ~13% and growing faster than any other company. You say they're too targeted at one market, but the market they're targeting isn't "Executives who need to have access to their email at all times" like RIM and Microsoft have targeted with their respective smartphone OSes--it's "People who want a good cell phone." That's a prett
Will Apple open up its iPhone platform? (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
Though you almost made me lol.
Apple vs AT&T (Score:4, Insightful)
Who stands more to lose: Apple because AT&T is running another phone in addition to the iPhone, or AT&T because Apple decides to let other carriers have the iPhone.
Which gives Apple the bigger market share?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Open up iPhone? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
BSD follows the "if you love it, set it free" philosophy. GPL follows the hans reiser/kill your wife/control freak philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I really respect your belief that the BSD license represents a better idea of freedom than the GPL. But it's unnecessarily insulting to compare the GPL to representing a "kill your wife/control freak philosophy." Really? Kill your wife?! Yeah, like you've got a monopoly on intelligence or deliberate thought, and people who disagree with you...what? Whether you agree with it or not, believing that it's worthwhile to take steps to *ensure* that what you love *stays* free is a legitimate position th
Re: (Score:1)
But it's unnecessarily insulting to compare the GPL to representing a "kill your wife/control freak philosophy."
I've read the GPLv2 a couple times, and now that I think about it, it could almost be summed up like this:
GPLv2: Please read Microsoft Windows EULA and perform everything the EULA disallows for Windows to this GPL software.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you agree with it or not, believing that it's worthwhile to take steps to *ensure* that what you love *stays* free is a legitimate position that deserves some respect.
It's a valid position, but at the same time it's nonsensical. You don't need a license (i.e. GPL) to "ensure that what you love stays free," as this is already ensured in US (and similar) copyright law in combination with any free/open license.
What the GPL accomplishes is preventing others from releasing binaries of their copy of the licensed code without complying with the GPL. That in no way affects your copy of the code which will always be free regardless of which free license the code is under.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to count all the troll/flamebait hooks in the above comment, but there were so many I gave up...
Re: (Score:2)
OS X itself is not open, as OS X is just the GUI over Darwin, which is open. Darwin is based on BSD, so it has to be open...
The BSD license doesn't require derivative works to be released in source code form. Apple is providing Darwin freely, but they're not obligated. Furthermore, OS X is not just the "GUI over Darwin." Aqua is. OS X is much more than a GUI shell.
No offense, but I'm not sure how you managed "insightful" when it's so clear that you don't really know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean? Isn't it embedded OSX?
My toaster is embedded C; that doesn't mean I can program it.
Isn't OSX BSD?
No. OS X uses some parts of BSD for BSD UNIX compatibility, and then OS X adds a lot of proprietary stuff on top of that. Windows, incidentally, does the same.
BSD is open.
That it is. It's nice that OS X offers some limited BSD compatibility out of the box. But OS X nevertheless is proprietary.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, OS X is fully POSIX compliant. [apple.com]
AT&T confused by the mobile ecosystem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong summary (Score:5, Insightful)
I RTFA, and it seems to me AT&T is looking for a common operating system for their "base" or cheaper phones. This would serve as a replacement for all of the Java crap that's out there now. They also further state that they see Apple as a third party provider using their network services. This has the potential to be the best situation of all. If AT&T opens their network to third party devices, not just Apple/RIM/Windows Mobile, we could see all manner of innovation in the near future.
This is in no way a slap in the face of Apple. If anything it's a validation of Apple's current iPhone model. (That is, if you ignore subsidies and rebates)
Re: (Score:2)
As it is, Apple has provided the Smartphone For The Rest of US, and expanded the market beyond what anyone would have predicted a year ago. Now everyone else is trying to catch up and make a smartphone to complete. ATT,
Re: (Score:2)
What is not open about ATT's network?
From the openmoko wiki...
I had a non-compatible SIM card, but it took only a few minutes in an AT&T Store to have them bring up my account, give me a new card, and double check that it works. They generally seem friendly, and it's pretty easy. Just say "Hi, I have an unlocked phone, and my current SIM card doesn't work. Is there any way that I can get another one?"
I've used a couple of phones (non-ATT purchased) using my ATT sim card and haven't had any problems.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ducks in one basket (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is a slap in the face of Apple. AT&T needs to hedge its bets - the iPhone exclusivity deal isn't forever, it's until 2010. And when the contract expires, if Apple goes multi carrier or drops AT&T entirely, then AT&T better have the backup plan well in the works. And given that it's almost 2009, it's probably a good idea to get the backup plan done now.
Are sex toys recession proof? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
LOL You're thinking of the Sybian.
http://www.sybian.com/index.html?set=yes [sybian.com]
Mixed Metaphor (Score:1)
Looks like I bastardized "eggs in one basket" and "ducks in a row".
A win for open-source? Only if AT&T opens it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, as often the /. tagline is rather full of hyperpole. FTA:
'Seth Bloom, an AT&T spokesperson, confirmed to Ars Technica that the company "has no plans to standardize on one platform for our smart devices. But we have said that we see potential benefit in standardizing our low-end devices on a single mobile OS, though we have not finalized our plans to do so." '
So, you'll get probably get a crippled/slow device with the ability to expensively download crap 'approved' by AT&T. I'll pass.
Re:A win for open-source? Only if AT&T opens i (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
in standardizing our low-end devices on a single mobile OS, though we have not finalized our plans to do so." '
So, you'll get probably get a crippled/slow device
no, it means that the phones without touchscreen, music libraries, 20mp cameras, little ram.. you know the phones people want to make calls and text, they'll be operated by a common platform. There won't be anything crippled about them, they'll be designed for a certain market segment.
I still want to get Haiku to my smartphone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Damn! where can I get a 1.4 ghz ARM?
Awful summary, as usual (Score:5, Interesting)
"In what is surely going to be a slap in the face of Apple"? Are you serious?
You can't seriously believe that Apple expected AT&T to stop selling every other variety of phone in existence once they picked up the iPhone. Controlling though he may be, I seriously doubt Steve Jobs is lying awake at night saying, "Those bastards! How dare they sell other phones!" Obviously AT&T was going to keep selling other kinds of phones, including Symbian phones, that's just common sense. But then, when there's a chance to bash Apple on Slashdot, common sense does seem to go out the window, doesn't it?
And as for any moves on Apple's part being "too little, too late", the sales numbers hardly bear that out at this point. Last I checked, the iPhone was outsold all of RIM's devices put together last fiscal quarter. Obviously this is going to fluctuate as time goes on, I hardly think that demonstrates widespread pent-up demand for a FOSS mobile operating system. When you spend all your days on Slashdot, it's hard to notice, but believe it or not, not everyone gives a damn.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one danger of on-line communities like Slashdot. It's not necessarily a group-think problem, though you do see that too--it's a problem of assuming that, like the crowd you're running with, everyone cares about the same things. But like the vi vs. Emacs argument (nice sig, BTW, but which one is the rocks?) not only is arguing about this only relevant to the geek crowd, most people don't j
Good Luck with that (Score:3, Interesting)
As the telecoms are dragged kicking and screaming to the party, they will find out why Android and Mobile OSX will dominate the next-gen hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't with Symbian, it's with the stupid way AT&T handles Symbian. A combination of horrid marketing and crufted-up AT&T branded firmware images combined to kill every Symbian offering AT&T ever sold. True story: when the N62 came out, I tried to buy one at an AT&T store, and the salesman told me not to buy one, trying to make me buy a Blackberry instead. When I insisted that I wanted a Symbian phone, he told me that the reason I shouldn't by the phone was "no one uses them."
Screw the iPhone. (Score:1)
Oh wait, no, the new Aussy GPhone 2.0 is the shit!
Or was it that new Samsung one... Shit, now I forgot which one I like..
I hate it when that happens!
In a world, dominated by Nokia and Microsoft.... (Score:1)
[Don LaFontaine] Is this move too little, too late compared to Google's Android? Will Apple open up its iPhone platform, or will dreams of electric sheep be dreamed up by the majority of cell phone users?[/Don LaFontaine]
R.I.P. Don LaFontaine - you were the best.
More like a shining gift to Apple (Score:2)
Having all other AT&T iPhones running Symbian is like a giant gift to Apple. Android is platform more suited to delivering phones atop of, so making them all Symbian will have the iPhone shine all the brighter as a result.
It seems a silly move on the part of AT&T though, the Android platform is going to grow and be supported by applications far better than Symbian.
Re:More like a shining gift to Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
Android is going nowhere, at least in the short term. That's my educated opinion, as I was involved with it (hence the anonymous post). It's a side project for Google, and Google has been tightening up over the last few months. Most of the people working on android were contract workers (and have seen their contracts cancelled) or have been reassigned to other projects. Sure, it's open source and the community can support it, but it relies on binary blobs from handset providers and testing on green hardware. I hope it doesn't stagnate and die, but at this point, it looks like it might.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Nowhere" seems like an odd statement for a phone OS that has ramped up to 1.5M units sold much faster than iPhone, and that in terms of architecture, license, security, and usability runs rings around iPhone and Symbian.
I think Android is going to be the darling of Chinese hardware manufacturers. It's a great OS to power all those hardware look-alike phones that come out of China, and people are going to discover quickly that an iPhone hardware clone running Android is the best phone you can buy--at half
Re: (Score:2)
That 1.5M number is way higher than the actual sales.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/10/dont_buy_the_g1.html [informationweek.com]
(Note that URL truncates the full title, which is "Don't buy the G1 Sales Figures". It's not just an article telling you not to buy the G1)
Symbian (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... (Score:1)
Are they going to REFUSE to sell iPhones at that point? Won't Apple be out of it's exclusivity period by then anyway and hopping aboard any carrier who wants them, thus assuring AT&T lose potentially millions of long-time customers who follow the phone elsewhere? Won't pretty much all the carriers be looking for "their own thing" alongside whatever iPhon
It's because it's just a Fanboi Toy. (Score:3, Funny)
This is because ATT realizes just what the iPhone is ... An apple fanboi toy. It never caught on with the general public. Parts are very difficult up to impossible to get replaced without loosing your data. NO SPARE BATTERY possible. Come on every other Cell Phone on the planet has easily user replaceable or spare battery capability. A less than stellar relationship with application developers. Last but not least piss poor service from Apple. Now why do you wonder that ATT is looking for a replacement?
Oh yeah and I never owned one. I just listened to the bitching of the few I knew who did.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, it never caught on. It sold more than all RIM phones combined and windows mobile-based phones, but obviously it never caught on.
No, AT&T isn't looking for a replacement. They can't. The iPhone brought them subscribers out the ass, and I'm sure if they yank Apple's chain the wrong way we could see unlocked iPhones available without contract on the Apple store in short order. Then you'd see a huge chunk of AT&T's user-base migrate off to other GSM/3G bas
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I own an iPhone and so am currently tied to AT&T. I would, however, migrate to Verizon in a second if given the opportunity.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia sell in a quarter what Apple sell in a year.
There's another way to look at that.
Nokia: A huge lineup of phones for sale, for any carrier, with a history of mobile phone sales going back to the 80s. They have phones targeted at every price point, every demographic, every market.
Apple: Has one cell phone model (available in two configurations), which it has been selling for a year and a half. In most countries, it's only available with one provider, and it hasn't even been *available* (legally, anyway) in most countries until the middle of this year.
An
Re: (Score:2)
And it's got only only one mouse button!
Took them long enough... (Score:2)
ITS ABOUT F'N TIME!
Seriously though...How long has Nokia had incredible Symbian-based phone around the globe? The US gets the version the red-headed step child slobbered on, shook vigorously, then beat with a bat. Then our beloved GSM carriers get ahold of it and lock it down to do as little as possible. So up to now, one needs to buy an expensive (compared to subsidized models) unlocked phone off ebay o
Nokia (Score:1)
Symbian's biggest strength is Nokia. Without Nokia Symbian would be extinct. Will Nokia remain committed to putting the Symbian OS on its phones if Symbian is owned by AT&T?
Re: (Score:1)
If AT&T does buy Symbian, Apple will turn around and destroy AT&T. AT&T shouldn't have agreed to carry the iPhone if they had designs on Symbian. Apple eats Fortune 500 companies for breakfast.
Re: (Score:2)
$15 a month (Score:2)
AT&T, from all accounts, pays Apple $15 a month for each iPhone. I'm sure all that all Samsung/Motorola/etc get is a per-item fee. AT&T would prefer to charge you $90 a month and keep the extra $15 a month. That's why you never see AT&T advertising the iPhone - while it gets them more customers, they're making less of the iPhone customers than other customers. They want you as a customer, but if they can get you AND keep the extra money, that's what they're going to do.
Sybian (Score:2)
I just went to sybian.com [sybian.com]. From the looks of it, it's a perfect fit for AT&T, designed to screw you almost as much as their rate plans and patchy 3G coverage do.
It's all planned... (Score:2)
Usability is the deciding factor (Score:2)
The iPhone was IMHO hugely overhyped - there are (IMHO) too many things that get in the way of a decent user experience (no multitasking, always go via home key, lack of cut & paste). So far, for me the most useful phone was the Sony Ericsson P1i, but they killed UIQ so no idea what's going to happen there.
It starts, of course, with what you want from a phone. I had to search for a simple, big button & readable display phone for my dad who needs a few phone numbers and SMS, but really NOTHING more
Re: (Score:2)
ok, so they can open source symbian, but the symbian execution model just doesn't cut it for today's phone feature requirements
What part of an event-driven, preemptive multitasking execution model doesn't cut it for today's phone feature requirements? The low power part? Or the scalability of the microkernel core on the next generation of multicore ARM chips?
Symbian is obsolete and AT&T is as well (Score:2)
Symbian is a mature smart phone OS: it works pretty well, but it has a decade of accumulated crud, making it hard to use, ugly, and hard to program. Symbian is obsolete.
But, then, AT&T wants an OS for their obsolete business model: the reason they want to pick an OS is because they want to create a custom OS that ties their customers to their services.
AT&T should focus on giving people fast, cheap access and forget about offering services. And Nokia should dump Symbian and move to Android. Those
Unreadable (Score:2)
In serious need of editing. Christ, that is shithouse.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Analysts-iPhone-Has-Neither-Security-nor-Relevance/ [eweek.com]
http://gizmodo.com/5042332/huge-iphone-security-flaw-puts-all-private-information-at-risk [gizmodo.com]
http://forums.techarena.in/web-news-trends/1050689.htm [techarena.in]