It is exactly 21 years since the Linux kernel was made available under the open sourced software development model. Although Linux quickly found a home in the server and then desktop world, the mobile Industry was much slower to embrace it. It’s only in the past 5 years that we have witnessed significant adoption driven by Google’s Android platform. In part, the mobile industry was slower to move as most device vendors viewed their legacy platforms as containing their core DNA which enabled them to differentiate in the market.

However, as iOS rapidly changed the market for Smart Devices by linking hardware, software and content in a seamless “consumer focused” package, many device vendors scrambled to compete and turned to Android as the answer. Now that iOS and Android dominate 90% of the global Smartphone market, OEMs continue to be in a quandary if they should bet everything on one OS or should they spread the risk?

With smartphone sales continuing to grow rapidly around the world, the high volume has provided an opportunity for OEMs to seriously consider alternative OS platforms as a route to differentiate their offerings and as a vehicle to reach niche markets that may not be fully accessible by iOS or Android.

Let’s first look at a vendor on a single OS strategy and consider the pros and cons of such an approach. Clearly Apple is the best exponent of the single OS approach.

Pros

Apple’s singular focus has enabled it to create a strong marriage between its SW, HW and content services that clearly are class leading.

It is able to achieve massive economies of scale/price efficiencies through its manufacturing processes.

Apple has pioneered “smart open-sourcing”.The App developers can achieve high levels of re-use thus making the platform more attractive.

Simple and easy for consumers to move from one generation of device to another.

New services and features can rapidly be deployed to the entire customer base (as seen with the recent update of iOS 5).

Cons

Challenged to support the mid and lower end of the market segment. While Apple would no doubt argue that this is not strategic to its brand, it does mean that it leaves the next generation of up and coming potential buyers to its competitors.

If you make a mistake, as Apple recently experienced with the launch of its own Maps solution, it is replicated everywhere and the damage is amplified more quickly across the entire customer base.

There is a potentially higher risk of exposure to change in consumer tastes and demands.

Now let’s consider another vendor on the same strategy, Nokia. Nokia’s decision to embrace Windows Phone as its only Smart Device OS was a bold do or die strategy. While Nokia has worked hard to bring a new range of devices to market and has delivered those ahead of many analysts’ expectations, it has suffered from a wide consumer apathy towards the Windows Phone platform. Despite many positive consumer reviews of its Windows Phone handsets, it is unlikely to emerge as the platform that restores the company to its former glory.

Of course, one major difference between Apple and Nokia is ownership of the OS platform and thus the overall level of flexibility to drive product roadmaps and to rapidly respond to market conditions. Of course both these OS platforms are closed environments with only the device vendor able to modify the platform source code.

Given the success that Apple has experienced with a single OS strategy why should OEMs consider a multi-OS play? The simple answer is innovation. Today vendors appear to find it more challenging to differentiate via hardware alone. This coupled with expectations, in terms of maximum value for money, is pushing the OEMs to constantly look for options to gain edge in the market.So let’s now take a deeper look at the pros and cons of embracing a multi-OS approach

Pros

Leverage the best OS for a given market opportunity or market segment.

Increased responsiveness to market changes – consumers suddenly favor OS A over OS B.

Easier to experiment with new ideas without wider impact to the product portfolio.

Decreases risk / dependency on a single OS vendor.

Can stimulate higher levels of innovation as the latest OS innovations will be available to in-house development teams.

Ability to contribute to open platforms

Cons

Potentially higher software development costs

Potentially higher hardware costs due to reduced economies of scale

Lower levels of re-use between devices / OS platforms

May reduce influence with OS owner / developer

Hard for users to move between devices if they have different OSs

A more complex environment for 3rd party developers

Although iOS and Android tend to dominate most of the market coverage, there are a wide range and increasing number of alternative options available to OEMs. Some examples are Firefox OS, Blackberry 10/QNX, Tizen, Windows Phone, Ubuntu Mobile to name a few. And of course device vendors are fully capable of leveraging the Linux Kernel to develop their own Linux based platform.

Perhaps the biggest entry barrier for a new OS to flourish will be in the downloadable apps area. One of the big advantages for Android is access to Google Play for the millions of devices. But Android too started from scratch. Apple’s App Store has over 700,000 apps, while Google’s Play is not far behind. So, any new player needs to be able to rapidly grow the number of apps available on the platform in order to compete with Google or iOS.

Another challenge is that most of today’s open platforms leverage open components but are not true open source platforms by most definitions. This can present users of such platforms with challenges in terms of upstreaming and maintaining their core platform as they implement enhancements, new features or unique differentiation. Thus there still remains space for a true open source platform in the market – Could Tizen take this position with Samsung’s strong support?

Open platforms too come with a fair share of challenges to the OEMs. OEMs are always caught between upgrades to existing models and new phone creation. Upgrades bring a price as they still typically required device vendors to re-integrate operator specific requirements; any differentiated offerings, and perform thorough platform testing.

With the need for innovation continuing to be a core driver of the market, a combination of a Closed OS and an Open OS may prove to be the best option. Ultimately, it boils down to the OEM’s aspirations and its inherent ability to sustain multiple-OS platforms will inform the decision on which strategy to adopt. However, it is quite clear that embracing a multi-OS strategy will also require a strong ecosystem management model to gain the maximum efficiencies and operational economies of scale that can leverage the best of both worlds for any device vendor.

This article was co-authored by G Krishna Kumar, Vice President at Symphony Teleca Corp.

Andrew Till is senior VP and CTO at Symphony Teleca, a Palo Alto-based software and consulting firm.

