On the one hand, maintaining two OS teams for the same hardware would be a waste of resources. On the other hand, I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded, and the teams that didn’t got reassigned to wash Bill Gates’s car. On the other other hand, Microsoft (alas) has more cash to burn on this kind of adventure than Nokia does.
Nokia’s pre-Elop strategy was to encourage app developers to use Qt, which could be compiled to run on either Symbian or Meego, and then the company could gracefully phase out Symbian in favor of Meego. I work on back-end stuff rather than on apps, so I don’t know how well this could have worked in practice, but I did observe that when my company phone was a (Maemo) N900, the Ovi Maps client for Maemo was several revisions behind the client for Symbian.
I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded...
This is how large companies should run projects. Bureaucracies often suck because they have a captive audience -- because they have no competition. Development teams can suck for exactly the same reasons.
In comparison to the potential impact of bad software in a large company, the cost of 1 or 2 extra development teams is chump change. I remember being in line at the airport to pick up a rental car, thinking, "The software this rental car company uses is clearly very bad. They won't be in business for much longer." I noticed a few years ago, that they were bought. Actually, I just looked it up and they were delisted in 2002.
As a counterpoint, there are innumerable software projects that would better our world and create wealth, but only a limited number of developers. Assigning two teams to do nearly the same thing is a waste.
Yes, but those are very different contexts -- mine was the big corporation with tons of cash on hand, with in-house development projects that could facilitate activities generating 100's of millions of billions of dollars. Going the extra mile to ensure the organization has access to the best of several options has a definite payoff.
Disclaimer: I have never owned a handset from a maker other than Nokia :) I just want you guys back to the smartphone game.
> On the one hand, maintaining two OS teams for the same hardware would be a waste of resources.
Nokia will have to make a very serious platform decision in the not-so-distant feature. If resources spent on developing both will place that decision on sound arguments, I say it could be worth it. The tech scene is not (yet) persuaded that Meego is a dead end and a re-invented, unproven Windows Phone platform is the last chance to save Nokia.
The tech scene is not (yet) persuaded that Meego is a dead end
Perhaps the tech scene isn't, but everyone else is. Aside from anyone else, phone operators really aren't going to be interested in stocking Meego handsets because no-one wants them or even knows what Meego is.
> On the other hand, I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded, and the teams that didn’t got reassigned to wash Bill Gates’s car.
Apple did this for iPhone; two teams, the leader of one became a senior vice president, the leader of the other makes thermostats.
On the one hand, maintaining two OS teams for the same hardware would be a waste of resources. On the other hand, I have heard stories of how Microsoft would often commit several teams to build a product to the same spec: the team that got something market-ready first was handsomely rewarded, and the teams that didn’t got reassigned to wash Bill Gates’s car. On the other other hand, Microsoft (alas) has more cash to burn on this kind of adventure than Nokia does.
Nokia’s pre-Elop strategy was to encourage app developers to use Qt, which could be compiled to run on either Symbian or Meego, and then the company could gracefully phase out Symbian in favor of Meego. I work on back-end stuff rather than on apps, so I don’t know how well this could have worked in practice, but I did observe that when my company phone was a (Maemo) N900, the Ovi Maps client for Maemo was several revisions behind the client for Symbian.