Sync vs. Always On vs. Modular Core

While I was upgrading to Wordpress 2.5 this morning I happened across this post I noted but never finished. So it’s a bit less timely, but the overall issues are still interesting.

Looks like modular handset manufacturer Modu is raising a bunch of money. It’s an interesting concept, but certainly not new. Back at the start of 2004 I was taking a look at a company called Antelope who had a product called a Modular Computing Core that promised much the same thing.

The normal argument around getting your data and service where you want them when you want them goes something like this in mobile:

  1. Person 1 says that the problem is best solved by a set of services that run on each device/computer/gadget and allow you to synchronize your data and preferences information so that you don’t have to keep entering stuff over and over again.
  2. Person 2 says that increasing network coverage and speed coupled with decreasing access costs and competition between access mechanisms for share of user traffic will result in an “always on” infrastructure that makes syncing unnecessary. Just put the data and preferences up in the cloud and always access them realtime online. Surely the network will be acceptable for any use like this before a realistic set of services and clients to sync become available.
  3. Person 1 says something like “Bah, SyncML clients come installed on all kinds of handsets already.” And then they start bashing the networks as still being unreliable and unable to move large amounts of data for an effective cost and at the necessary speed.
  4. Person 2 says “Ha! SyncML has been around forever and has yet to yield a workable direct consumer application.” Then something about it doing even less than Bluetooth to foster cross-service information semantics, which make it unworkable as a base for large scale cross-application syncing let alone cross-domain syncing.

The discussion always goes on from there, is always circular, and never reaches any conclusion. Normally I wander away by the second round if I haven’t already slipped out by the first round. Which isn’t to say that interesting work isn’t being done on both sides of the equation. Funambol writes some kick ass open source software that makes it more and more realistic to use SyncML every day. However, I still don’t. The Nokia implementation is broken in some way or something of the sort. I would have to setup my own server to get it working, and many of the services I would be interested in using are marked as very beta. And on the other side efforts like OpenID and OAuth are making it more likely that I can just store stuff in the cloud and use it where I like. But even basic interoperability for things like preferences and personalization don’t seem to have made it into general use. And while some of the efforts used to have a focus on mobile, very little seems to have even a consideration for mobile any more.

So in that context a modular computing core is interesting. It’s kinda like flipping both camps the bird and saying “I don’t think either of you are going to get your shit together in any reasonable timeframe, so I’m going to create a way to solve this problem completely in hardware.” Not sure I agree with it, software systems enjoy economies of scale and flexibility that hardware based solutions don’t. But in the meantime, it’s a novel way to endrun both issues and get your stuff where you want it when you want it.

One Response to “Sync vs. Always On vs. Modular Core”

  1. AG Says:

    Modu, huh? That’s the one with the CEO who claims alllll the big players are quaking in their boots at the thought of his modular insurgency, right?

    I’m not generally in the business of making predictions, but here’s one: modularity will always be a clumsy user experience, and not a meaningful presence in the market. People will leave their camera jackets at home on just the day they see something they need to take a snapshot of, and so on…and so on.

    Well, we shall see.

Leave a Reply