The Next Android Invasion - Tablets

It took only 18 months for Android to overtake the iPhone in the smartphone market, at least according to some reports, and now several events in the past week foretell a similar invasion about to take place in the emerging tablet market:

1. Marvell got a lot of attention in the blogosphere and in twitterville when they showed their prototype for an Android-based Moby tablet at the Netbook Summit on May 25th. Apparently reporters from Engadget had missed the earlier presentation of this device at the CTIA Wireless Show in March. I took the picture above at Pepcom's Mobile Focus event for press and analysts on March 23.  The Netbook Summit discussion was followed by the news that the "One Laptop Per Child" project would be adopting the Moby tablet, which has a targeted cost of less than $100.

2. During an investor conference with Barclay Capital, Motorola  CEO Sanjay Jha hinted at a "7 to 10 inch" Android tablet that could be forthcoming as part of their relationship with Verizon Wireless and their DROID campaign.The tablet above, from Innovative Converged Devices (ICD) was shown in Verizon's demo of LTE technology at this past January's Consumer Electronics Show. This device is based on NVIDIA's Tegra processor. Since the tablet was shown in a display connected with a Motorola LTE modem, Fierce Wireless has attributed the ICD tablet to Motorola. 
3. Pre-announcements are out for next week's Computex Show in Taiwan.  I expect numerous Android devices to be on display there. VIA Technologies, and their subsidiary WonderMedia have sent out announcements of a gallery of five Android tablets that they will be showing, including the Eken M001 and M003:

The wave of Android tablets should hit the U.S. market later this year. To be successful, the Android Market must be opened up to allow non-smartphone apps. Google has presented just that at the Google I/O Developer's Conference last week. Along with the development of Google TV and the release of Android 2.2 (Froyo), the presentation included an early peek at the ability to browse the Android Market from the desktop - with over-the-air download of applications and content.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

• Android's Impact on Netbooks
• Android vs. MeeGo: two approaches to competitively leveraging "open source"
• An Overview of The Android Ecosystem

Android's Impact on Netbooks

This is a Slidecast of my presentation from the Netbook Summit, May-24th, 2010.

I have attached the audio so that you can now listen to the presentation as it was delivered.

#EDA Poll on Cadence's purchase of Denali. How the rest of the world voted.

 This concludes the results of my small survey of the EDA community regarding the question:

 Do you think that Cadence's purchase of Denali will provide a benefit for designers?

In my previous post, I showed that a number of early votes came in from the participants in the acquisition, but (perhaps surprisingly) they were not exactly 100% positive.

• Cadence 5 - YES, 1 - NO
• Denali 1 - YES
• EDA Competitors 2 - NO

After eliminating the votes from companies that have the greatest vested interest in the acquisition (i.e. the participants and their most direct competitors) a total of 43 votes represented the worldwide EDA respondents. 

Although the sample may be small and unscientific, the map above shows that it truly was a worldwide response.  

Countries represented:

• U.S.
• Canada
• Taiwan
• India
• UK
• Germany
• France

Over the one week period that results were collected, the NO votes just edged out the YES votes... well by a NOse... 22-to-21.

(Edited on May-24, 2010 to correct error in transferring votes from survey)

After this post, I found an error in my original tally. The actual result is 23-NO and 20-YES.


While many of the votes came from unidentifiable locations, it is perhaps interesting to note that two of the NO votes originated from top tier semiconductor companies; one a company "in the Top 10" by 2009 revenue, and another from a company in the "Top 25". There was one identifiable semi company on the YES side, and that company currently ranks well outside the Top 25.


CONCLUSIONS


This obviously wasn't intended as a rigorous exercise in statistical polling, but more of a "taking of the pulse" to gauge EDA community opinion in the aftermath of Cadence's purchase of long-independent Denali. While participants were self-selected, that means (I think) that they represent people who really care.


What conclusions can be drawn? I'd say that the split vote speaks for itself. Not all bad.. and not all good. The respondents clearly don't see this as something revolutionary or different than other EDA acquisitions, but they also don't see it as all overwhelmingly bad either. 

#EDA Poll on Cadence's purchase of Denali. How the EDA vendors voted.

On May 13, 2010 Cadence Design Systems announced their intention to purchase Denali Software Inc. for $315M.

The history of the EDA industry is replete with acquisitions, and the most significant innovations have generally come from the startups. This acquisition is noteworthy for several reasons:

1. The purchase price, $315 million for a company with $43 million in revenue, is large as these purchases go. As a comparison, in 2005 Synopsys purchased Nassda, which had similar revenue, for an "aggregate consideration" of approximately $192 million. (With a net that was much less since Nassda reported cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $101.4 million).When Synopsys purchased Synplicity in 2008, for $188M, the company more than $70M of revenue. I'm sure you can find many other examples as well.
2. Denali has long been held up as the model of a "profitable independent company" in the EDA industry.
3. The EDA industry obsession with the infamous annual Denali Party at DAC. If you do a search on Twitter, you'll find that many more tweets about the party than about the acquisition. Apparently there has been a bit of a concern that the party would not happen now.

I launched an online poll shortly after the announcement of the acquisition. The two parties involved in the acquisition were quick to respond, and competitors and users soon followed. I'd like to invite more users to take the survey, which you can find my clicking here.  The poll is anonymous, except for IP addresses.

The survey asks just 1 simple question: Do you think that Cadence's purchase of Denali will provide a benefit for designers?

As you can see, 6 votes came in from Cadence IP addresses, with 5 YES but 1 NO! In fact, the 1 NO vote came in before all the others. One Denali employee also voted YES. Two competitors of Cadence-Denali, who will remain nameless, also voted NO.

My experience with surveys in general is that they are difficult to get response to, so the small number's don't surprise me. This acquisition doesn't seem to have a very long tail in the twitter/blogosphere but if you have an opinion I invite you to add your vote. 

Cadence's purchase of Denali, a survey of #EDA users

Quick survey
Do you think that Cadence's purchase of Denali will provide a benefit for designers?

Android vs. MeeGo: two approaches to competitively leveraging "open source"

The SDForum recently sponsored a presentation on MeeGo, the Intel-Nokia collaboration to develop (yet another) Linux-based open source operating system for mobile devices. In this case, it's a merger of "the best of" Intel's Moblin with Nokia's Maemo platforms that was announced at the Mobile World Congress in February.

While Google's (and the Open Handset Alliance's) Android is coming on strong in challenging mobile OS incumbents, already surpassing the iPhone by some estimates, there seems to be no end to these efforts to launch new OS platforms - some "open" and some proprietary. A few additional examples:

Open: LiMo, Symbian

Closed:(Samsung) Bada, (Motorola) Azingo 

Though there are many questions to explore in all of this, I thought it would be interesting to start with a high-level comparison of the MeeGo and Android architectures, to see what differences and/or similarities exist. Maybe we can then surmise a why to go with the what.

Starting at the bottom, both MeeGo and Android developed modifications to the Linux kernel. Google added drivers for handset applications, while also optimizing the power management and IPC "Binder" to support  devices with limited CPU and memory resources. While Android's focus has been on porting to the ARM-based CPUs that dominate mobile devices, with an OHA membership that includes MIPS, Qualcomm, TI, Nvidia, Freescale, etc. (as well as Intel),  the list of supported processors continues to grow. 

One of the differences in MeeGo is that it is an open source project "managed" by the three year old Linux Foundation. Though the Linux Foundation includes many of the same members as OHA, it should come as no surprise that there are currently no other processor or semiconductor companies publicly supporting MeeGo.  However, in a presentation at the recent Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, Intel claimed that MeeGo supports ARM architectures while at the same time stating that:

"Silicon vendors are responsible for providing the hardware adaptation software" 

(the gray wrapper that you can see in the MeeGo architecture diagram),  and noting that "Intel provides the complete solution for Atom-based platforms".

So, at this point it's not clear exactly where that ARM support is going to come from.

Looking at the middleware of the two software stacks, as one might expect - there is a lot of functional similarity between the Android libraries with their hardware abstraction layer and the MeeGo Services components. In fact, some of the exact same components are used; such as the WebKit for browsers, the Bluetooth connectivity manager, OpenGL support, etc.  Differences start to stand out when we move over to the runtime layer.

Android employs their Dalvik virtual machine, with application code compiled from Java. A Native Development Kit (NDK) is also offered for high-performance applications that must use C++, such as games. The MeeGo operating system is primarily based on Nokia's Qt platform and the Qt Creator, with applications written in C++. Secondary support for Web runtime development in HTML and Java script is also described. Qt is Nokia's cross-platform development environment (IDE), which purports to enable porting code across platforms that span Linux,  Mac OS X, Windows CE, Symbian and now MeeGo.

Whereas Android development will primarily be done in the open source Eclipse IDE, it's important to note that Qt requires a commercial developer's license for any application where you don't want to give away the source code.

The Qt Commercial Developer License is the appropriate version to use for the development of proprietary and/or commercial software. This version is for developers who do not want to share the source code with others or otherwise comply with the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 or GNU GPL version 3.0.

This is no small difference. A license for one developer to use on one OS is priced at $3,695!

Moving up to the top of the stack, we can compare the Android application layer to the MeeGo "User Experiences" (UX). MeeGo is designed from the outset with pre-packed reference platforms that go beyond smartphones - targeting netbooks, handheld, in-vehicle, connected TV, and media phone applications.

The Android ecosystem has rapidly expanded into all these spaces independently of Google's efforts. These vertical market packages stem from Intel's strategy to develop embedded applications for their processors.

In Android, every built-in application can be replaced. In MeeGo, developers are prohibited from doing so. MeeGo allows the UX to be customized, but with the following restrictions:

• MeeGo stack must be provided in its entirety.
• All packages based on MeeGo sources.
• Components can be added on top of MeeGo stack.
• Must include UI framework and user interaction model per profile.

MeeGo is designed to prohibit fragmentation and ensure application compatibility to any MeeGo-based device. Use of the MeeGo brand will be based on meeting the specifications of the MeeGo compatibility program.

The first open source version of Android (1.5) was released concurrently with the availability of the first Android phone - the T-Mobile G1. There are also unlocked developer phones available. With MeeGo, the effort is currently focused on adapting the Nokia N900 from Maemo to MeeGo.

Finally, there is the issue of governance. Much has been said and written about Google's control of Android. While OHA participants contributed to Android, the release timeline and content is completely controlled by Google. MeeGo implies more "openness" by operating under the auspices of the Linux Foundation.

MeeGo™ is an open source project created by merging the Moblin and Maemo software platforms, and is led by the MeeGo Technical Steering Group (TSG). The governance model is based on the principles of simplicity, efficiency, and transparent collaboration.

However, while MeeGo is open to other contributors, 

Much like most open source projects governed by a benevolent dictator, the MeeGo project will be led Imad Sousou (Intel) and Valtteri Halla (Nokia).

SUMMARY

It would appear that "OPEN" has become quite a loosely defined (and promiscuously used) 4-letter word!

On the one hand - Android is so open that it has been modified, fragmented (or diversified if you prefer), and spun off into eBook readers, tablets, set-top boxes, connected TVs, home media phones, and more. Much of this has happened outside of Google's control, in a span of just about eighteen months since first release. The total number of applications in the Android Market is reported to now exceed 50,000.  The Android ecosystem -  beyond membership in the Open Handset Alliance, now encompasses a growing diversity of semiconductor manufacturers, wireless operators, software and "commercialization" companies, consumer electronics manufacturers and innumerable application developers. OHA has spawned the OESF, or Open Embedded Software Foundation.

It is very interesting to contrast these two approaches to leveraging "open source". I think that the comparison raises numerous questions to explore further. Amongst the questions:

• Does an "open" ecosystem require diversity? 
• Or... can "open" co-exist with conformity that is enforced by 'benevolent dictators'?
• Is fragmentation/diversification a bad thing?
• Can any commercial ecosystem be truly open?
• Philosophical arguments aside, since we are not talking about philanthropic ventures, which is the more successful model? 

 Clearly, Android is a huge success. Perhaps we should just stop abusing the word "open" when it comes to these industry efforts, and just describe them by what they are based on - "free source". That is certainly more accurate I think. Both Android and MeeGo have their origins in "freesources".

At the SDFourm event, Jim Zemlin - Executive Director of the Linux Foundation, said that the #1 reason that industry has turned to Linux is because it is free. This is important he said, to address the "rising cost of innovation, while developing compelling user experiences".

Jim went on to define these requirements for success in "Open Source" industry collaborations:

• Must be able to be custom branded
• Must have lightweight neutral governance
• Span multiple architectures
• Friendly to operator business models
• Tools must be open source
• Strong set of uniform APIs

I would add to this list that the initiative must be capable of exciting and growing an ecosystem. Critical mass is involved. With Google's lead, I think that Android comes with a strong built-in attraction to follow the lead of the world's  #1 internet company, to take advantage of the shift to mobile connectivity.  Though both "Open Source" initiatives have their shortcomings, today I would say that Android gets a higher grade on this checklist than MeeGo does.

More questions:

• Is there a similar attraction to participate with the #1 (worldwide market share) cell phone company - Nokia, and the #1 semiconductor company - Intel?  
• Would the two companies be better off by simply adopting Android? 
• Is Nokia cannibalizing Symbian?

It will be interesting to watch further developments.

contact me: mike.demler@eedailynews.com

Follow me on Twitter: MikeDemler