Opinionated comments on mobile phone industry news
|
All entries are written by Anders Borg, CEO and Consultant of Abiro, that has a long experience in strategic planning, developing embedded and Java software, usability aspects, and the mobile phone industry in general. You can also read the latest Mobile News entries on your phone via wap.abiro.com, and we provide many News Feeds from popular news services. For advertising and contribution queries, please use the feedback form. News feed (local) FeedBurner Feed
|
|
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Qualcomm on BREW vs Java
You can read the note for yourself, but here are a few thoughts from me:
BREW is today limited to CDMA networks, yet the technology as such is not. Java on the other hand is used independent of network. There are also other issues with BREW: You can't offer BREW applications without having them approved by Qualcomm/NSTL and offered via an operator. Java applications can be offered by anyone via any means. That of course then means all independent content providers focus on Java, while some US operators focus on BREW. Yet not all: Sprint prefers Java.
One thing that BREW does much more right than Java is the way it's a complete solution with DRM, billing, virus avoidance (through certification) etc. Therefor Qualcomm also markets BREW as a way to sell Java applications, as BREW can run Java KVMs and the billing etc of the BREW Distribution System can then also be used for Java applications. That of course requires that phones have BREW in the first place, and most phones don't. At the same time I expect that in a year's time all phones sold will support Java.
It should be noted that there's a clear technical benefit with BREW: Applications run as machine code on the phone, which means faster applications and access to more system functionality. A drawback is though that by doing so a BREW application can easily crash the whole phone (and you don't want that to happen; hence the strict certification procedure).
The market doesn't care which technology is the technically-speaking best solution. It's all about dominating on developer endorsement, product availability, sales channels, convenience etc. In that sense Java has already won.
Qualcomm beckons developers with BREW | The Register
BREW is today limited to CDMA networks, yet the technology as such is not. Java on the other hand is used independent of network. There are also other issues with BREW: You can't offer BREW applications without having them approved by Qualcomm/NSTL and offered via an operator. Java applications can be offered by anyone via any means. That of course then means all independent content providers focus on Java, while some US operators focus on BREW. Yet not all: Sprint prefers Java.
One thing that BREW does much more right than Java is the way it's a complete solution with DRM, billing, virus avoidance (through certification) etc. Therefor Qualcomm also markets BREW as a way to sell Java applications, as BREW can run Java KVMs and the billing etc of the BREW Distribution System can then also be used for Java applications. That of course requires that phones have BREW in the first place, and most phones don't. At the same time I expect that in a year's time all phones sold will support Java.
It should be noted that there's a clear technical benefit with BREW: Applications run as machine code on the phone, which means faster applications and access to more system functionality. A drawback is though that by doing so a BREW application can easily crash the whole phone (and you don't want that to happen; hence the strict certification procedure).
The market doesn't care which technology is the technically-speaking best solution. It's all about dominating on developer endorsement, product availability, sales channels, convenience etc. In that sense Java has already won.
Qualcomm beckons developers with BREW | The Register
