Richard: As a UIQ developer how do you see the formation of the Symbian Foundation, particularly given that the new platform will be based on S60?

Malcolm: Now we've had a chance to digest the news, I think there are many things for us to be excited about. Because we focused on UIQ, it does raise the obvious issue of making our software compatible. However, we had already planned an S60 port for DreamConnect and DreamLife, now we have simply accelerated those plans.

Richard: Are there any specific features of UIQ you hope make it into the Symbian Foundation platform?

Malcolm: I'm hoping that the listbox and building blocks frameworks make it in. While understandable, it's a little disappointing that the Symbian Foundation is standardizing on S60 as it is, in my view, the inferior platform. However, compared to the current situation there's a huge benefit in having one Symbian based UI. I do however hope that they incorporate some of the richer aspects of UIQ as it has a lot to contribute: not just in the UI framework but also in many of the other programming interfaces.

Richard: Will you be taking advantage of the availability of source code?

Malcolm: Absolutely. We have found the lack of access to source code very frustrating. In an object orientated framework, such as Symbian OS, having access to this code can make a huge difference. We always try to fit our code into the Symbian OS OO framework and to do so you really need to understand how the classes you want to subclass work. With the source code this will become much easier and we will be taking up the opportunity to access the source code in January.

This is a step back-to-the-future as in the Epoc days the SDK for ER5 shipped with much of the UI framework's source code. Without the source code I don't think we would have achieved as much with our early software. Even the Series 80 SDK included some of the UI framework source code. So moving to S60 was just a nightmare, because of dismal documentation and no source code: it was a rude shock, although the situation has improved since then.

Richard: Do you see any other advantages from gaining access to the source code?

Malcolm: Yes, because the code is to be released under the Eclipse license I think it will open up some exciting possibilities. For example, it should become possible for us to make changes deep in the OS that don't have an impact on binary compatibility. One example would be that we could offer phone manufacturers a way to implement encryption within the contact database: using a simple TCB style pop-up to prompt for the password. This would sit below the existing APIs, so it would be transparent to other applications.

So I see a huge opportunity for third parties, like ourselves, to more easily offer phone manufacturers differentiating software as we will all be on a level playing field with the same access to the source code. Such opportunities don't really exist today. And this ability to differentiate with software will become more important as an increasing number of manufacturers build devices based on the Symbian Foundation platform.

Richard: Did you ever look at becoming a Platinum Partner?

Malcolm: We did seriously consider that and had even started talking to Symbian. However, after some investigation we decided that the cost didn't really give us a benefit in terms of engineering effort.

Richard: So $1500 a year to access the source code seems reasonable to you?

Malcolm: At that price it is a no-brainer. The other exciting possibility this offers is contributing code and this is something we are seriously contemplating. We had been in discussions with Symbian about contributing code or, more accurately, selling code. Those discussions had stalled, obviously we understand why now.

Richard: With the platform being open source are you not potentially giving away your investment by contributing code?

Malcolm: It's obviously something we would do with care, but it has significant possibilities in terms of providing companies like ours with a profile within the community. That sort of profile could be quite valuable. We have to investigate the best way to go about this: we spent money on developing this code and we don't want to throw that investment away.

Richard: A number of developers we have spoken to have mentioned tools as an area where much improvement is needed and they are hoping the Symbian Foundation will address this. What's your view?

Malcolm: I would agree. A good GUI design or RAD tool would make Symbian OS a lot more attractive. It certainly seems to be one of the things that is attracting developers to the iPhone: its decent RAD tools.

Richard: Have you looked at UI Designer in Carbide.c++?

Malcolm: Yes, I have played with it, but unfortunately I found it unbelievably confusing. I tried to create a new UIQ list view with its associated details and edit views. I found the resulting code almost incomprehensible. Compared to the time it would take to write the views by hand, the investment in time and effort to figure out what UI Designer was creating did not seem worthwhile.

I think the problem is that the UIQ UI framework is so flexible and open ended. So the code UI Designer created made assumptions I would not make in writing a UI. It might have been worth while investing the time in learning how it worked, but unfortunately that is definitely not the case any more.

Richard: Is there anything else you hope the Symbian Foundation will address?

Malcolm: I think a priority should be software discovery and delivery. Our next-door neighbor has moved from a Sony Ericsson P910 to an iPhone. He put no extra third-party software on his Sony Ericsson, but he has already installed several - albeit free - applications on his iPhone because he is familiar with the iTunes shop. Apple has clearly done well in educating people about buying content and transitioning this habit to the purchase of software. I sincerely hope that this is an aspect of the Symbian ecosystem that the Symbian Foundation can take on and fixed globally.

Richard: I know you've had a close working relationship with Sony Ericsson, how much have they communicated with you over the announcement?

Malcolm: Interestingly we had a conversation with our contacts at Sony Ericsson shortly before the announcement. They queried us intently about our plans to port to S60, which at the time was a little puzzling. They have certainly given us some insight into their future plans, which has helped us.

I see working with Sony Ericsson as an opportunity. I feel that they are in an awkward situation, particularly if the Symbian Foundation platform isn't backwards compatible with UIQ. This will give Nokia and the other S60 licensees an advantage. So I believe Sony Ericsson will be looking to third party vendors, like us, to help add software features to their Symbian Foundation devices.

It's clear from the range of applications shipping on phones today that third-party software is becoming more important in differentiating products.

So UIQ developers who have been working with Sony Ericsson or Motorola may have more opportunity than the developers who are working with S60 licensees, because Sony Ericsson and Motorola will have more catching up to do.

That is not to say there won't be opportunities among the S60 licensees. The problem all of the non-Nokia S60 licensees have is differentiating their products from Nokia's. Nokia has become very good at incorporating leading edge technology. Samsung certainly seems to be keeping up, but I think many of the other manufacturers are lagging. When all these vendors are on the same software platform and their hardware is not ahead of Nokia's than its software that will be the real differentiator.

You can see this at work in the iPhone. Its hardware is no where near the leading edge: so it's a case of software trumps hardware.

As our focus has always been usability and the interconnection of home and work, and that's very much where Sony Ericsson seem to be positioning themselves, we see our focus as a good match. I'm hoping they'll realize that we could be even more important to them as they start work on their Symbian Foundation devices.

There may also be significant opportunities with the MOAP vendors. Our experience suggests they are starting to get interested in third-party software: we had some interesting discussions with Fujitsu at the last Smartphone Show. And with a single platform Japan has the potential to become a very lucrative market.

Richard: What does this mean for future development of DreamConnect and DreamLife for UIQ?

Malcolm: We plan on maintenance releases of both products for UIQ 3, but our focus is now on porting to S60. However, as all of the core code will be common among these platforms, updates we make when porting to S60 will make their way into maintenance releases of the UIQ versions. We are also open to releasing new versions for UIQ 3, if there is the right opportunity.

Richard: Beyond your S60 port where next for DreamSpring?

Malcolm: Our next project will be looking at services built around DreamConnect and DreamLife. Our goal is to enable users to keep their life on their phone. The challenge of this vision is what happens when the user changes their phone or it runs out of memory. There are already basic services to solve this problem for contacts and calendar entries, so we will be going much further. Also our market research revealed, somewhat startlingly given its been worked on for a decade, that most users still think syncing isn't working properly.

So for example, we are extending DreamConnect and adding a service component that allows a user to link all sorts of things to their contacts and then access this data from anywhere.

With the calendar services we are looking at what I call transitional activities, those activities that take you from event to event. For example, you might have to travel between two meetings: these meetings would be synchronized with the service which would then send back a transitional activity for the journey. Ultimately, we would hope to make this interactive: if the transitional activity involved driving and there was an accident on the route the duration of the transitional event could be changed and, if necessary, the person waiting for the second meeting messaged to say you might be late.

Richard: Overall how would you sum up the change?

Malcolm: The creation of the Symbian Foundation is a disruption in the marketplace. While it disrupts third-party vendors like us I think it's been more of a disruption to companies like Sony Ericsson and Motorola, because they have more at stake. As a result there is an opportunity for third-party developers to help these companies. I believe we are well placed to be one of those companies and the future will be very exciting.

For more information on DreamSpring visit: www.dreamspring.com.