AT&T dreams of single smartphone OS, will probably keep dreaming
By Darren Murph 
posted December 5th 2008 6:42AM
posted December 5th 2008 6:42AM
Okay, so we fully understand that it would make life a lot easier on AT&T if every smartphone on its network used the same operating system, but we're not so sure we like the idea of losing the whole "ability to choose." Speaking at the Symbian Partner Event in San Francisco, AT&T's Roger Smith (director of next generation services, data product realization at AT&T) reportedly stated that he wanted to "standardize on a single operating system for AT&T-branded smartphones as part of a dramatic consolidation of its mobile platforms over the next few years." Given the location of the speech, it's no shock that Symbian was named "a very credible and likely candidate" to be that system, and for those questioning the iPhone, he was quick to point out that said mobile is simply a third-party device tapping into AT&T's technologies. Honestly, we're not sure how to take this seriously -- is he really saying he's willing to alienate RIM and / or Microsoft in order to only sell Symbian-based handsets? Doubtful.Update: An AT&T spokesman pinged up with an important followup to this -- click on to read the whole thing.
"We have no plans to standardize on one platform for our smart devices.
We want to give our wireless customers maximum choice – in innovative devices, applications, operating systems, and more. One way to maximize customer choice is to begin to reduce fragmentation in the wireless OS environment. That is why we are a member of the Symbian Foundation.
That fragmentation puts a heavy burden on wireless carriers, handset makers, and especially apps developers, who have to create for multiple operating systems and sometimes for multiple versions of the same operating system."
Wrote the same thing over at Engadget Mobile...
You don't see Comcast or TWC trying to make everyone use the same computer OS to get on their network. There is always going to be multiple OS options to choose from when buying a cellphone. The wireless telcos need to realize that they are nothing more than a pipeline.
well att why not one phone model ?
f.... morons
And that's starting (slowly) to expand to set top boxes too. Cable companies are required to supply you with a cable card that will authorize whatever compatible box you have. Not too many choices yet, mostly Tivos and the ATI tuner, but there's more on the way.
Actually, Comcast tells me which versions of Windows and OS X they allow, what the minimum memory is, what browsers to use, and which processors they support.
I bet if you looked 2 years ago they wouldn't even list OS X.
So it's basically the same thing -- if you use something we support, our tech support drones will have a script to help you. If not, we'll tell you to go away and that the fault is with your computer, not our flawless service.
"...he was quick to point out that said mobile is simply a third-party device tapping into AT&T's technologies."
And I'll be quick to point out this statement is true for ALL phones using your service, numbnuts.
AT&T doesn't make phones, they brand them. So it's not up to them to decide who uses what operating system, it's both the consumer's and the manufacturer's. Good luck getting over that hurdle.
To: konshuss - I think the point was that any "AT&T" branded smartphone will have one OS. AT&T sell smartphones made by no-name companies from Asia as an "AT&T xyz". This is different than selling a Blackberry that may have an AT&T logo painted on the shell. When it's a blackberry, RIM helps provide support. If it's AT&T only, they have to provide all of the support.
HTC helps provide some support - they have an office for spare parts and such. Also the HTC brand is also on the phone starting from the Fuze.
It is a product of the US carrier structure that a service provider has so much influence over the user's choice of OS - this is because it is the carriers that primarily sell phones to customers. But I agree with the others that one carrier in the US doesn't have enough power alone to make a dent in the smartphone wars.
i would definitely call Nokia and HTC more than no-name companies. The point I'm making is can you see such a sizeable chunk of the market share moving to a standardized OS anytime soon? the move would directly compete with Apple and Microsoft's mobile OSes, and has anyone been tooting the horn of Symbian overtop either of them?
This move might make slightly more sense were they pushing for a more established OS, or even Android - but Symbian? That's a huge leap of faith to announce something before your bread and butter - the manufacturers for one - have agreed to.
I hate all of the big communications providers for this. Why can't they understand that they won't lose market share by letting us use their services how we wish?
They already got the iPhone, and I'm 120% sure they aren't going to get rid of that. Are they saying they want just the iPhone?
Maybe their exclusivity with the iPhone is almost up, so they don't CARE about what OS the iPhone has anymore.
The idea that their own servers, no the phones themselves, are the power behind phones is telling.
Yeah, didn't they basically tell Symbian to screw off? They've paying for that iPhone exclusivity, so clearly they're not going to let go of it until that exclusivity is up -- 2.5 years left to go.
Seems like the wrong thing to say at the wrong place.
You did read the article, right? Especially the part that referred to the fact the spokesperson was talkig about ATT *branded* phones.
So, you can keep buying your iPhones and Blackberries or any *3rd party* WinMo phones. It's just the ATT branded phones that will be consolidating on Symbian.
> ...It's just the ATT branded phones that will be consolidating on Symbian.
It didn't say that.
From the Read link:
"AT&T hopes to standardize on a single operating system for AT&T-branded smart phones..."
In short: We don't have control but we want it. wah wah wah.
I'm constantly amazed how much control US carriers do have. It's nothing like that in the UK. we see them as a service provider similar to an ISP. You can use any computer with any ISP, and any (unlocked) phone on any carrier.
Yeah but you can't use any modem on any service provider, or any cable box for that matter.
@Chris: Brilliant summary, thanks!
The reason I chose AT&T over Verizon is because they didn't have a single OS. The Verizon OS is terrible...
And no I did not chose AT&T for the iphone, I have had AT&T since it was Cingular.
I'm going to assume you are an idiot and treat you accordingly.
Please, please, please stop to think. Verizon has Winmo, blackberry, and standard phones. I'm not entirely sure what all the phones run on, but I'm pretty sure there is variation. They don't have any Apple OSes though, sorry.
PS, Verizon sucks.
I'll be the first to agree that the Verizon dumbphone OS is pretty bad. But that's on less than half of their handsets.
Their semi-smartphones generally have their own OS, although it is designed to look similar. Navigation on those is much improved, and dare I say, actually kind of nice.
And as the other commenter pointed out, they also have WinMo, RimOS, and Palm OS devices.
I guess they don't have the iPhone with mini OSX. Of course that's almost as locked down as VZW's dumbphone OS....(and you can 'jailbreak' their dumbphones kinda like the iPhone if you want to get into that argument about that...my old KRZR got the Moto UI flashed to it).
Do you guys read the articles, or just talk? Specifically stated that he made mention of the iPhone and said it was simply third party hardware making use of their services, not considering that a smartphone in their lineup. Now why are you idiots coming here asking if all they want is the iPhone, or talking about exclusivity? It's already been addressed, here's a quote to prove it:
"and for those questioning the iPhone, he was quick to point out that said mobile is simply a third-party device tapping into AT&T's technologies."
Shut up.
You are right but to call they idiots is a bit offensive, may be lazy to skip to read all the article.
Android anyone? Multi-tasking, open, speedy (see a G1 in action), based on fairly extensible technology, backed by a fairly smart company - etc.
Darren,
You wrote the article. But aparently don't understand what you said. AT&T branded smart phones. Not any smartphone on the network. Rim and windows mobile units made by htc and others would stay the same.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Only as unbranded though... which could be a good thing :)
my Fuze is att branded but made my htc...
Aren't ALL cell phones on AT&T's network "third-party devices tapping into AT&T's technologies"? Why is he singling out the iPhone as the only one that seems to fall in that category? I mean, last time I checked, AT&T doesn't develop their own operating systems for the phones. They customize existing operating systems, but they don't develop them in-house. Same with the hardware. The hardware is manufactured by 3rd party vendors like Nokia, LG, HTC, etc.
It sounds to me like a bullshit idea. There is no way AT&T would get rid of RIM or WinMo or Android devices and simply stick with Symbian-only phones (and the iPhone! Can't forget the extremely lucrative iPhone!) as much as they want to to reduce development and testing costs. The resulting loss of monthly customers' payments would more than destroy any cost savings they may realize in the short term.
I was surprised that AT&T were one of the founding members of the Symbian Foundation and this news surprises me even further.
It makes sense though - an open, multitasking, stable, free operating system with a proven track record.
I'm sure one of the big reasons for this is because someone in a call center ran a report on call volume broken out by troubleshooting and found that most of the calls had to do with the phone's operation, not network issues. All they have to do is remove the branding, subsidization and support for the phone itself and all that would go away. Sure, the phones themselves would cost more, but you could easily have the lowest contract prices in the industry, and call volume would decrease dramatically. Let Nokia and Apple handle the handset support. They made the darn things, after all. It's not AT&T's fault the UI sucks, or the battery life is abysmal.
3rd party devices to use AT&T technology, LOL. Mobile operators are stupid bitpipes, just like your ISP is.
Actually, its kinda obvious from his statement that he's ONLY referring to "ATT BRANDED SMARTPHONES" for which he wants to standardize the OS.
ie. ATT Tilt, Fuze, etc.
And he confirms that by saying that iphone wouldnt conflict since it is a "third-party device tapping into AT&T's technologies".
Which would mean Rim would be in the clear as well.
His statement seems very clear to me.
As long as AT&T continues to allow their customers to use their SIM chips with any unlocked GSM phones, I guess this has no impact on me.
AT&T isn't powerful enough (see Verizon) to dictate what they want from handset manufacturers anyway. The reason they're able to offer so many handsets is because they use GSM technology instead of CDMA. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they started limiting choices to their customers, IMO.
"ability to choose."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Doesn't stop all you from using Windows (90% market share) and calling Mac/Linux users fanboy's. Buncha hippocrites. ALL OF YOU.
Realistically only M$ and Symbian have the investment backing to develop an comprehensive OS and UI for the future. Also only a few handset manufacturers have the development and design capability to address a wide range of market requirements. With the rate of technology change I think RIM's OS, Palm's OS and Apple's OS will not be able to keep pace. And Anroid, even though it is new, lacks many of the features standard in WM. It is also surprising how many features are still missing from Apple's offering after many years of development.
I bet they have ulterior motives for wanting a single OS just like they would monopolize the phone market if they wished.
I was there, and he said that ideally they would love to have one .. but realistically it will probably be about 2 or 3 OSes. Roger Smith seems like a sharp guy, and he even said he wants AT&T to be more like an Internet company than a telecom in terms of speed and focus.
It's all about lock-in. Why should it matter what OS is being used? This makes about as much sense as saying you need to use a particular brand of OS to plug into the Net.
Naturally, that's what AT&T would love to do. Already they switched a whole bunch of buttons around on the Fuse and put links to their fee-based services in the main navigation of the phone. They pumped the thing up with so much proprietary crapware that performance completely sucks.
You can imagine what a fully branded AT&T OS would look like.
At first I was confused. After all, I only know of one Symbian phone that AT&T sells, the Nokia 6650, which isn't even a smart phone. And I don't see them dropping the Blackberry, Windows Mobile phone or the exclusive iPhone. It makes much more sense that AT&T-branded hardware might be going to a unified OS.
It sounds like he's talking more about branding than phone selection. Maybe he still wants WinMo and RIM phones, just not renamed to have AT&T in their name. So it's like he wants to pretend that AT&T is a phone manufacturer so everything with their name on it should be the same.
Wait... I thought we were moving more toward openness and choices with the coming of LTE. Why are they talking about consolidating and moving backwards. And who the hell brought up Symbian??? WTF Engadget??
what's funny is you hardly ever see att actually pick up any (especially good) nokia's... Now they're talking about only having symbian OS smartphones?? That makes as much sense as me stabbing my pen in both eyes...
"We want to give our wireless customers maximum choice – in innovative devices, applications, operating systems, and more. One way to maximize customer choice is to begin to reduce fragmentation in the wireless OS environment. That is why we are a member of the Symbian Foundation."
That doesn't make one bit of sense. What does he mean by "fragmentation" then? Well, he seems to go on to explain it a bit...
"...fragmentation puts a heavy burden on wireless carriers, handset makers, and especially apps developers, who have to create for multiple operating systems..."
OK, so first he wants to reduce fragmentation, which he eventually says is partially the result of multiple OS's, yet he says he wants people to have maximum choice with all sorts of devices, apps, OS's, and more, and then says, "by the way, we're adding Symbian too."?
That makes absolutely no sense. He's contradicting himself in the same train of thought. And how would offering maximum choices ever reduce fragmentation in the first place?
This guy would make a fantastic politician... Q: "Do you believe in the war?" A: "Yes. No. Yes. No."
Look, AT&T, if you reduce all of our choices, we're out, your loss. The end.