Apple is top of mind for execs at MWC
Participants on a panel Tuesday at GSMA Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, included, from left to right: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Nokia CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvu, AT&T Mobility CEO Ralph de la Vega, Wall Street Journal columnist Walt Mossberg.
(Credit: Marguerite Reardon, CNET Networks)BARCELONA, Spain--iPhone maker Apple isn't at GSMA Mobile World Congress 2009 along with the rest of the mobile phone industry, but the company's growing success is definitely top of mind for key executives in the mobile market.
The iPhone and Apple's successful App Store got more than a passing mention on Tuesday during a panel moderated by The Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg.
The panel which included three of the most powerful CEOs in the mobile industry--Ralph de la Vega, CEO of AT&T Mobility, the second largest mobile operator in the U.S.; Olli-Pekka Kallasvu, CEO of Nokia, the world's largest handset maker, and Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, the worldwide software leader--centered on the need for more openness to spur successful innovation in the mobile market.
But the discussion quickly devolved into the need for openness, despite the growing success of Apple, considered the most closed player in the industry.
Each executive had his own idea of what openness means and how if Apple adopted its own vision of openness it could be more successful. De la Vega and Kallasvu said fewer operating systems are needed so that developers can create applications that run on more devices.
"Customers want us to simplify," de la Vega said. "Our corporate customers, especially, want a smaller set of operating systems to manage."
De la Vega, whose company is the exclusive operator offering the iPhone in the U.S., even said that more openness could benefit Apple.
"The iPhone is a great success, but it would be even better if the applications were interoperable," he said.
Kallasvu agreed. And he used Apple and its "closed" ecosystem as an example of what could limit innovation in the mobile market in the future. He said Apple's vertically integrated model, where its hardware and software are tightly controlled by the company, further fragmented the market. And he added that what is truly needed is more openness in developing applications.
Ballmer argued that device openness was important to give customers more choices. And he pointed to the number of choices that Windows Mobile customers have when choosing a device.
"I agree that no single company can create all the hardware and software," he said. "Openness is central because it's the foundation of choice."
Even though each of these executives argued for openness and took jabs at Apple for its lack of openness, Mossberg pointed to the company's growing success in the market. The iPhone, which was launched a year and a half ago, has seen tremendous growth in terms of shipments. And so has its newly launched application store. Apple said last month that there are a total of 15,000 applications available through the App Store. And the number of downloads has hit more than 500 million in just over six months.
All the talk of Apple and its success annoyed at least one European audience member who asked Mossberg and the other panelists why they were so worried about what Apple was doing when Apple's total worldwide market share is still miniscule.
De la Vega answered with a response that seems to sum up how the industry views Apple: "Because the other 99.5 percent of the industry is trying to copy the iPhone."
Indeed, they are. Even two of the companies on the panel have copied aspects of Apple's playbook. Nokia recently introduced its first touchscreen phone to rival the iPhone, the N97, in December. And Microsoft's new Windows Mobile 6.5 allows touchscreen navigation that looks eerily similar to the iPhone's software. What's more, Microsoft and Nokia clearly think that Apple is on to something with its App Store, since each company announced its own version of an application marketplace here this week.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
Apple's phenomenal success with the iPhone and App Store have lit a path for other executives to follow, imitate and learn from. No other device has had such an impact on a market. Even the Blackberry and Palm, which revolutionized mobile e-mail and mobile contact synchronization, have been left trying to mimic the iPhone's success. Also, none of the carriers have previously embraced "open access" to the internet on mobile devices. An interesting about-face, but one that we're only hearing about because of the major impact that the iPhone has had on the mobile market. Were it not for the iPhone, would we really even be hearing these comments and thoughts?
Apple makes the software and allows it to ONLY run on hardware they make. Apple does not allow any third party hardware developers to run the OS X mobile OS on their devices.
Microsoft makes the software and allows anyone and everyone to run it on whatever hardware they want. Microsoft allows any third party developer to run Windows mobile on their devices.
Who sounds more open? Apple writes the BOOK on being a closed software and hardware company.
@ jvargas... so true, so true. Not even three years ago, mobile carriers (which are still closed all to hell) and mobile apps were strictly controlled, regulated, and charged a monster amount for licensing fees. Now it's all whine, whine, whine about how Apple took their model, opened it up just a little, and made a runaway success out of it... leaving them to whine about openness while not really giving anything more.
Apple interoperates just fine - it uses standard open protocols. The SDK is free.
@tcr071:
"Microsoft makes the software and allows anyone and everyone to run it on whatever hardware they want."
I call BS - unless you can show me what supported version of Windows to buy that will run on a PPC processor. Or a RISC. Or Sparc. Oh, you can't?
Meanwhile, I can download the source code to OSX right now from apple.com at no cost - where can I download the source code for Windows (any version)? Oh, You can't?
"Microsoft allows any third party developer to run Windows mobile on their devices. "
So where can I download the necessary source code for Windows Mobile so I can make it run on my custom device?
@ Seaspray:
"On Monday, Microsoft announced an interoperability alliance with Red Hat (open source) for virtualization."
...because we all need and run VMs on our cell phones... :/
Incidentally, that was a first for MSFT, and even then it was mainly to certify each others' OSes as virtual machines on each others' hypervisors... so try not to read too much into it ;)
it appears that you r the one that doesn't understand wat openess means
Can I play a Directx game on a non-windows computer ?
can I view a silverlight video stream on a non-Windows O.S ?
So please learn the meaning of open before using it !
a truly open O.S needs to be free
should use technologies that can be made available on all platforms
and it should not give n e financial benefit to a company in particular
Microsoft is open only when it fills up their wallet with cash
on other fronts it's as closed as Apple ,if not worse
and BTW I'm no supporter of Open platforms
IMO Apple's closed model is the best, as it makes for better products
hate to break it to u, but the moonlight is trying to do that for linux, at least they are trying
What 'open' system forces you to submit your application in for review where the approver may take weeks/months to make decision based upon unpublished rules or whims of that OEM? Apple controls what is on that unit, not you. It is most certainly NOT open. You may want to brush up on the term. Apple decides on what you can and cannot do and they won't even tell you what that is until after you have done all the work to produce your application. They may even simply wait for you to produce the product, deny it and release their own version.
Right. That sure doesn't sound very 'open' to me.
Your comments are certainly whimsical of late. They cause much laughter.
What 'open' system forces third-party carriers and manufacturers to use their OS, their way, and then charge them for the privilege? But yeah - you go ahead and keep complaining that some code-monkey can't get his farting app into consignment at the App Store.
No system is completely open, but the point sailed right over your head: until the iPhone showed up, the entire mobile industry was a closed and nasty patchwork of fiefdoms and regulations... and to a large extent most of them still are.
...and yet here they are, suddenly whining and complaining about "open", when in fact none of them are.
If Apple hadn't fiscally stole their lunch money and sexed their girlfriends, you wouldn't be hearing anything about it.
Tell you what - let's see the carriers open up first (starting with the stupid contracts), then we'll talk. Let's see the manufacturers build and implement only completely open OSes on their phones, then we'll talk.
Until then, their words are about as important and relevant as, well.... yours.
Cheers!
/P
Why would Apple offer these people, especially Ballmer, anything that resembles "openness"? Open like "slide me some of that innovation so I don't have to do it myself"?
These companies don't profit from innovation. Profit comes from offering the same stagnant crap for years while spending nothing on R&D. Along comes Apple to break the cycle and now they have to earn a living for a change.
What do they all do? COPY the iPhone. Microsoft in particular hasn't had an original idea in their entire history. What dinosaurs. What jealousy!
Apple made over $1.2 billion in the last quarter on iPhone sales and services. (And GAAP accounting means they only counted 1/8th of their iPhone sales!) Contrast that to SonyEricson who lost money, or MS who only made $300 million for the entire year in spite of selling 18 million WinMobile licenses (compared to Apple's 14 million iPhones.
And "openness?" Cry me a river why don't you. If Microsoft wants to be "open" why are they still slapping DRM on music? Why don't they use an open video standard like H.264? Why are companies like AT&T still trying to gouge everyone on ringtones and using cellphones as a wireless modem? Why are they using Flash or Silverlight which are proprietary formats?
'course not - they slap their DRM into the operating system, silly ;)
Apple announced last month that the vast majority of the music on iTunes is DRM free and by spring it will be
100% DRM free. The same cannot be said for Microsoft.
And no, the RIAA does not put the DRM onto the music. The vendors do. That was why Apple's prior DRM was
not compatible with any other vendor's software! But now that Apple DRM is gone too.
Sorry to burst your bubble but MS is slapping DRM on music while both Amazon and Apple have eliminated or in the process of eliminating DRM.
Read this interview from 22nd January, 2009. It will blow your mind.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/245859/qa-microsoft-defends-return-to-drm.html
Where standards and interoperability are important is where various closed systems have to interact with each other. That's where the open systems belongs.
Openness doesn't help anyone but the competitors. That way the developers don't have to remake apps for different platforms and because of that, they are going to develop for the most popular and successful device which is right now (in terms of the App store) the iPhone.
Balmer forgot to mention that Openness is the foundation of bugs and the source of unneeded complexity for consumers.
Openness helps Microsoft to make money at the cost of Reliable Simplicity.
Yeah, because before the iPhone, Nokia, ATT and Microsoft were just INNOVATING ALL OVER THE PLACE in the mobile space, right? Apple and the iPhone are going to ruin everything they worked so hard to create in that openness and sharing! Because Nokia's OS and WinMo always worked so well together in the past! And AT&T always shared their tech with Sprint and Verizon, so any phone could work on any network, and really helped push innovation in the mobile market!
Damn that Apple for spoiling things for everyone with their closed ways.
Apple is just playing their game better than they are right now and they are crying about it.
Just look at SMS texts...Phone companies cost is very little compared to what they charge.
I just have to laugh every time I see Ballmer. I can't help but remember him in the Windows infomercials and the monkey dance. I don't respect him or his opinion on anything.
Not that he cares.
Enough to probably guess that AT&T was on the phone to Apple the next morning, apologizing all over the place. ;)
Pot, meet Kettle! How can anyone in the audience not start spontaneously start throwing their shoes at these HYPOCRITES!?!?!?!?!
Most phone manufactures use proprietary locked down OS's that they make themselves or don't offer them on a mass scale that makes them available for developers.
Microsoft's 'openness' locks developers into their propitiatory file formats and technologies such as .NET and Direct 3D. Both of which are not, and never will be available for implementation by other OS makers; be they phone, net device, or otherwise.
Apple is so 'closed' that their main OS Kernel (which powers both iPhones and Macs...albeit that the iPhone one is heavily modified) is offered Open Source; along with a slew of other technologies such as Web Kit, a CalDAV server, and other technologies they contribute to and have even invented - hardware and software wise.
As for the closed nature of the app store; which is what I assume they are really talking about; this is more of a legal argument than anything else. If they let anybody upload anything to host thought their sites it is a huge liability risk. Screening apps not only keeps out the 'baddies' trying to get Apple to unwittingly host porn or viruses; but also allows them to look like heroes to those who would point fingers at the company should those types of things leak onto the app store.
These idiots are full of it.
more interesting no one from Apple was there.
perhaps everyone should learn to 'give the people what they want to buy'
fix up your devices and services to be responsive, easy to use, and cheap
enough.
don't slap a crummy UI on top of your existing 'slow' junk
expect consumers to want to get cool apps from 3rd parties who have (more of less)
the freedom of the internet available.
I'm not an Apple-o-phile... but they do make some 'insanely great' stuff
WinMobile is open? Sure! You can write an app that runs on every phone that runs Windows Mobile. Unfortunately, you have to retarget for almost every hanset that runs Windows Mobile. Is that open?
Same for Symbian.
Webkit--open source, open standards rendering engine in now in use by Palm, Nokia, Android and several other handset makers. Why didn't the champion of openness, MS, do something like this?
The App Store allows any developer, large or small the ability to create apps for any iPhone user without almost any interference from the carriers. Download the SDK for free to try and only pay $100 to submit apps. And the developer keeps 70% of the profit. Apple handles distribution, advertising, billing, updates, etc. Can you ever imagine any of these guys coming up with a plan both that simple and that cheap?
iTunes, finally no more DRM. If your phone dies, your tunes don't. BTW, it's a well-known 'secret' that anyone can create their own ringtones in Garageband for free for the iPhone. Again, simple stuff like this should have been done years ago by these guys.
Is AT&T going to start offering unsubsidized iPhones? Wouldn't that make sense if they want to be open.
here is a take from our (a little bit) angry friends at www.macdailynews.com:
"Openness is code for "Our lazy ***** got steamrolled, now let us into the victory party, anyway!" No, you are roadkill. Now lie there and be still. You whiners will not get free business based on Apple's blood, sweat, and tears. Complacent, derivative, lazy, mismanaged companies deserve to fail, not reap the spoils of a vibrant ecosystem created by the hard work of extraordinary people at Apple."
I have a WM phone for 4 years before moving to the iPhone. There was almost zero innovation in the Windows Mobile camp during this 4 years - IE on WM what a joke! I would have happily stayed if there was innovation.
iPhone with App store and iTunes makes everything seemless and easy. Choice is good, but at the end of the day, I just want it to work with no hiccups. I am busy, I don't have time to stuff around.
I have a real problem with people talking about Apple and their "closed" model. Its a vertical one, where thathey make the hardware and software, except they don't even do that with the explosion of Apps. The thing is they need to keep this excusivity, its the only way they break the monopolies. First, with the iPod, they made the music industry change, getting rid of DRM and charging less pr track. Now, they are controlling the App store, and causing the carriers to stop charging for extras like downloads and surcharges like buying music on the phone.
Would ATT want Apple to come out tomorrow and say "Youre right, so from now on, anyone who brings in a $200 carrier subsidy voucher can get an iPhone" or what if Apple started selling OSX for mobile phones - Windows Mobile would go the way of the Palm OS....
Just remember where the handset industry was before the iPhone. Extremely locked-down, extra charges for everything, little innovation in the US market. We wouldn't have the Pre, the Storm, the Instinct, and all of the other great phones that have tried to build on the groundbreaking of the iPhone. Every company is looking to create their own App store, and the consumers, and new program designers win......
- by abcd9009 February 17, 2009 7:40 PM PST
- Just my 2 cents... I don't think Apple or Microsoft or Palm or Nokia or RIM are to be blamed for any anything. I blame the Service Providers ... Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile and the other providers in the rest of the world.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (43 Comments)They force the handset/software makers to restrict making the consumers pay for everything which they deserve to get for FREE!.