Ubuntu mobile OS has potential, but there's a long, uncertain road ahead
Summary: Canonical has unveiled the third part of its four-screen platform strategy, but with no commitments from operators or handset makers, will we ever see an Ubuntu-based smartphone?
Canonical kicked off the new year with a tantalising glimpse of its mobile Ubuntu platform. Slick and well-designed as Ubuntu for smartphones appears, you should take a long look now in case you don't see it again for quite a while.
Don't misunderstand me: I like the look of the new OS, and in the short hands-on time I got, it certainly seemed intuitive enough to use. I also like the open-source ethos and the extensibility of a platform with a vibrant ecosystem — which Ubuntu on the desktop can already claim.
However, while Canonical has plenty of experience hosting cloud-based services and app stores (a major hurdle for new entrants to the mobile space), it doesn't have a great track record in bringing physical products to market that use its software — at least, not in the UK, where the company is headquartered.
The operating system itself reminds me in some ways of Windows Phone 8, and in others of the new BlackBerry 10 OS, which is set to get its official launch on 30 January. Neither of these references are a bad thing.
This, though, is part of the problem: the mobile marketplace already accommodates two huge platforms (Android and iOS) and one (Windows Phone) with aspirations of hugeness. And that's just at the top.
As well as these market-leading mobile OSes, there's a bunch of other contenders, from Symbian and Bada to SailFish, Tizen and Firefox OS. The list of failed or amalgamated open-source efforts goes on even longer.
So although a low-cost platform has appeal for handset manufacturers, there's hardly a shortage of them to choose from right now, with Firefox OS and Tizen being the most recent examples of what can be achieved by fully embracing and supporting HTML5.
An Android alternative
Carolina Milanesi, mobile analyst at Gartner, agrees with me.
"There seems to be some interest in alternative platforms to Android. This is driven on the one hand by vendors that do not want to put all their eggs in a basket by supporting only Android, and also by operators who do not want to become too dependent on Google," says Milanesi. "Device ASP (average selling price) is another reason that carriers consider, although I believe that this is less of an issue today than it was a year ago."
So with price to market becoming a less important factor for low-end handsets, some of Ubuntu's core appeal is diminished. And when it comes to Canonical's high-end 'superphones', few big-name handset makers are likely to be willing to risk a high-profile launch with an unproven mobile OS.
Of course, Canonical's trump card is its vision for running the same core Ubuntu platform across all devices. But whether handset manufacturers or mobile operators share that vision is another matter.
Long and winding road
The biggest problem facing Ubuntu for phones is its roadmap: there won't be an Ubuntu-based handset before the end of 2013 at the earliest, and that's a very long time in the mobile world. A lot will change in the intervening months — you only need to look at the opportunities just over the horizon afforded by an increase in network speeds to realise how much things can change.
It doesn't bode particularly well when your product launch roadmap is measured in years rather than months
The 2013 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) kicks off next week in Las Vegas, where the new Ubuntu platform will be extensively demoed. But that's all happening without a single commitment from a mobile operator or handset maker.
It doesn't bode particularly well when your product launch roadmap is measured in years rather than months, or that very little has been heard about Ubuntu for Android — Canonical's planned route for planting Ubuntu in the minds of the handset-buying public — since I caught up with the company at last year's Mobile World Congress (MWC).
Milanesi has a different concern, based around the extensive use of HTML 5.
"An HTML5-based OS runs the risk of getting us back to something that's called a smartphone, but in reality remains a feature phone where vendors differentiate on UIs — as was the case when we had proprietary OS [on handsets]," Milanesi told me. "For developers and consumers this will mean, more likely than not, fragmentation. All in all this seems like a step backwards rather than forwards."
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
So many problems with this plan
Second, Linux is the LEAST secure out of all the mobile OSs / kernels / code bases / whatever you guys want to call it today. There is a ton of malware out there for Linux powered mobile devices like the Samsung Galaxy and the Nexus 4. Meanwhile, on a mobile platform like WP8, users are very safe. So choosing Linux as a base for this new mobile OS is not a good idea. After all, it can't even keep Android users safe.
So many pr0blems with you as a person NONZEALOT
I guess everything is supposed to work right out the gate perfectly just like Microsoft right?
Vista
XBox 360
Window Mobile
Surface RT
Crawl back under your rock jackass.
Ummmm what?
Maybe ZDNet can start its own comic strip
Comics are fun
Buffoon!
Malware
The impression I always got was that Android's insecurities have more to do with either Dalvik issues or simply due to Google Play's lack of attention to security when accepting software submissions, but I won't pretend to be an expert on the issue.
Ignorant.
* Am I to presume your Nokia Lumia 920 has proven crap Window8 Phone OS. Yeah nice phone hardware, pity about the OS.
* There's no loss in security running Ubuntu on a phone to a desktop. The source code is the same , bar it compiling to ARM binaries.
* Microsoft is a trojan and virus haven. I've seen newly installed and patch Windows machines dying with viruses in days on internet access. Yet to see a virus in 8 years of Kubuntu. Yeah there maybe unknown viruses but yet to see any compromise of my Linux machine.
You seriously can have your crap Microsoft trash. No one cares about that company any more other than losers locked in history and their own space.
You can't change the facts on the ground
That is a proven fact. Nothing you say can change that fact.
Windows Phone 8, on the other hand, is completely malware free. That proves it is an extremely secure and safe OS. Marketshare has nothing to do with how often an OS is targeted, right?
Android and Malware
Android malware does not target it's Linux layer, they compromise the code that the app is written in which usually is the java layer. Also the malware you talk about is deliberate data mining and other spying designed by the app makers. Google allow you to choose apps by what they have access too.
Unlike Android, Windows is under major attack and is full of holes. Many of those holes are probably there for NSA and Microsoft to spy on customers. Any company with IP or strategic investments, would be crazy to use Microsoft operating-systems.
The big lie
Clearly, this is a lie. Millions switched to Linux and they aren't safe. They are constantly under attack by malware.
go back in your closet
Ridicukous
The reason why Linux is mostly clean is that its make-up is built on source code all can example. Yes there are proprietary drivers or software that don't have source code.
There was a news article years back that some Linux kernels at the time were compromised by a rogue coder that put backdoors for the likes of NSA. These were addressed on the questioned distributions. Least they were found and the community outed them.
Some nations like the USA have laws on hardware makers to put backdoors in their products. This situation may not be avoided, but you are better with an OS you can read the code that makes it. Software usually drives hardware.
Linux also has a very secure file and privilege structure.
I haven't got into kernel development but someone may be able to describe how good the kernels privilege rings are for executing code.
Overlook typos please as keying in dark room and fast.
Android and Malware
Who are you? Annie Sullivan? ;)
beancube
How about taking a little of your own medicine?
All the 'malware' you claim for Android is in the form of Apps purposely written to do bad things. Yes, Google should be doing more to weed these apps out. However, in the past, you have defended Windows security by claiming security issues with Java, Flash, Reader, etc, are not Windows issues.
So using YOUR logic, Android App issues are not Android issues. So lets now count the Android/Linux security issues, shall we?
Android App malware: Many
Android malware: none.
Well so much for Android/Linux being the most insecure OS.
And as you Windows guys always say: I have been using Android for years with absolutely no malware issues, and I have yet to see an Android phone with a malware issue, so once again, by the logic you yourself has used to defend Windows, Android has no malware issues.
Let's give the most insecure OS award to the real winner. At approx. 1.5M active malware programs, Windows is still the leader and winner. Woo-ho!
Windows just lost that title
I just posted the proof that 10% of Linux powered mobile devices have been attacked by malware. 6% of Windows PCs have. Linux is the new leader and winner. You are less safe running a Linux powered mobile device than you are running Windows.
Ouch.
Where did you post that?
Feeling no pain.
But this never seemed to matter before
Everyone who purchased an Android device "switched to Linux". They weren't kept safe from malware.
Are you willing to categorically state that if one were to "switch to Linux", they would be kept safe from malware? If not, why not?
Where did you come up with?
Trusted source.