We Japanese tried to standardrise on TRON, developed in Japan back in 80s as open-standard OS. Originally TRON had four variants: RTOS variant for Industry (ITRON), PC variant for Business (BTRON), Mainframe variant (MTRON) and Communication variant (CTRON). ITRON is most successful variant. ITRON was quite major for Japanese embedded industry, and it was fundation for legacy (non-smart) cell phone.
However when iPhone and Android come into cel phone market, ITRON could not compete with them. Though ITRON is memory-efficient and robust RTOS Kernel, it does not have middleware and application support. Hardware support (BSP and device driver) is generally poor, no standard GUI, no standard protocol stack, no Audio/Video codec comes with ITRON.
Writing OS is easy part. Building ecosystem on that OS is different story.
I doubt that you would ever see a complete ban on foreign OSs or technology. The goal is to push a Chinese technical solution and at least dominate the Chinese market. Earlier posts were correct in the Chinese government can and will push the country into markets that are deemed important and they do feel that the west has taken advantage of the growth in China, especially as Chinese companies have been shut out of business opportunities in the west, especially the US. Our government should take note, because their actions can have repercussions on private industry.
Hmmm, David. I deal with bureaucrats every day. That's one leaf I wouldn't take out of anyone's book.
The Chinese MIIT allowed use of other cellular standards than their home-grown TD-SCDMA: Qualcomm's cdma2000 EV-DO and the Euro version of Wideband CDMA. For 3G, of course. TD-SCDMA is actually a hybrid of old-style TDMA and CDMA, where rigid time slots are used to allow multiple access, like TDMA did. So this creates a strict upper bound on simultaneous access, but also "guarantees" orthogonality in the chip code. (Whereas the other CDMA schemes degrade gracefully, as more and more users try to use the same frequency channel, which manifests itself as a steady decrease in SNR.)
Of course, LTE will replace these schemes anyway, for 4G.
So that's a precedent that implies they could permit use of other OSs than their own, or not. Point being, the main intent here is not to create something clearly better than the competition, but rather to change an existing standard just enough that they can avoid the patent payments. The OS situation could follow this same approach. I wouldn't make a bigger deal out of this than it is.
By the way, do we know how much an OS can do to gather intelligence? I would imagine that such an OS wouldn't be devised for tablets, smartphones and othe rend user devices. Then again, with the amount of content that is going to the cloud and that is being run on these end user devices, it might be a smart way to get into people's private information.
I'm not sure to what extent this is going to be a government OS, but it seems likely to be a successful one if the right kind of investment is placed in the right kind of technology. China has the consumer base and they must feel as though they are letting the West take advantage of their sheer numbers as in the case with iOs and Android. This is definitely a story to watch in the coming years.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.