SyncML Enquiry

7/30/2019 SyncML Enquiry

1/25

Results of the Enquiry on

SyncML

Synchronization of mobile devices

David Buchmann

Dr. Rudolf Scheurer

April 2002

Telecom Research Group

Department of Informatics

University of Fribourg

Switzerland

Supported by
http://www.esprit-consulting.de/http://www.esprit-consulting.de/http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/http://www.unifr.ch/


2/25

SyncML enquiry Department of Informatics, University of Fribourg (CH)

- 2 / 25 -

SummaryThis document is the result of an enquiry among companies and institutions having that are

concerned with informatics. About half of the companies were selected to participate

because they are known to do SyncML development, the other half are members of the IT

Valley Fribourg association (www.itvalleyfribourg.ch). A total of 274 companies have been

invited by e-mail to participate in this enquiry by filling out a web form, and about 50 of them

gave a usable answer within the deadline.

The main goal of the enquiry was to determine to which extent SyncML, an open standard

for data synchronization, is accepted. It appeared that although some technical and

organizational problems exist, the majority of the companies give SyncML a good chance

under the condition that it gets widely supported.

Several technical aspects are investigated, revealing the perception of benefits and

drawbacks of SyncML. Another part of the enquiry deals with realized products, listing a

whole bunch of product names. The standards compliance testing process gets its questions

too. The final part of the enquiry asked for the marketing interest in SyncML, revealing a

rather small interest from private customers, but a considerable interest for business

customers.

About the AuthorsDavid Buchmann, an undergraduate student at the Department of Informatics of the

University of Fribourg (DIUF, diuf.unifr.ch) in Switzerland. This enquiry has been

performed in the scope of his diploma thesis about synchronization issues.

Dr. Rudolf Scheurer, head of the Telecom Research Group (diuf.unifr.ch/telecom) of the

DIUF, supervisor of the diploma thesis.
http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://diuf.unifr.ch/http://www.unifr.ch/http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/http://www.unifr.ch/http://diuf.unifr.ch/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/


3/25


- 3 / 25 -

Contents

1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................4

1.1 SyncML....................................................................................................................4

1.2 The goal of this enquiry............................................................................................5

1.3 Concept of the enquiry.............................................................................................5

1.4 Procedure of the enquiry..........................................................................................51.5 Notations..................................................................................................................6

2 Results ............................................................................................................................7

2.1 General part .............................................................................................................7

2.2 Technologically part .................................................................................................9

2.3 Development and products part .............................................................................15

2.4 Marketing part ........................................................................................................18

3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................20

Appendix A: The email sent to the companies......................................................................22

Appendix B: Companies that answered the enquiry .............................................................24

Appendix C: Links for SyncML .............................................................................................25


4/25


- 4 / 25 -

1 Introduction

Mobile devices like handheld computers, mobile phones and laptops are used more and

more. They serve as personal information management (PIM) devices, are used for

business critical data and also just for fun. One important field related to the usage of mobile

devices is the synchronization of data. For private users, this could be just a backup, butbusiness users usually need to maintain data consistent with backend systems.

Until recently, every product used a proprietary protocol for syncing data. This leads to

compatibility problems as soon as devices from different manufacturers are involved. In the

year 2000, the synchronization markup language (SyncML, see below) initiative was

founded. The aim of the initiative is to establish SyncML as a general standard for

synchronization issues.

The Telecom Group of the University of Fribourg (CH) is interested in the area of data

synchronization for mobile devices. To investigate about industrial activities related to data

synchronization and specifically SyncML, an enquiry was set up. This report describes the

results of this enquiry and was written within the framework of a diploma thesis.

This chapter first describes what SyncML is, in order to know what this report is all about.

Then, the goal of the enquiry gets described. At the end of this chapter, there are some

remarks on the concept and the manner the enquiry was performed.

Chapter 2 contains the results to the four parts of the enquiry:

1. General part: Information about the companies of the answering persons

2. Technologically part: The possibilities of SyncML and its limits

3. Development and products parts: Examples of what has been realized using SyncML

4. Marketing part: How SyncML is used in marketing

Finally, in chapter 3 some conclusions are drawn from the results. In the appendixes, the listof companies that participated in the enquiry is given and the e-mail sent to invite companies

to answer the enquiry is shown, as well as a small link list of resources for SyncML.

1.1 SyncML

The acronym SyncML stands for synchronization markup language. A committee called the

SyncML initiative develops the specification of SyncML. The committee was founded in

February 2000 and the first specifications were released in December 2000 on the SyncML

website http://www.syncml.org.

The SyncML initiative founders want this XML extension to become a standard language for

synchronizing all devices and applications over any network. The focus is on mobile phones

and PDA's that need to synchronize to database servers, but other scenarios are envisaged

as well. To provide flexibility, SyncML can be used over HTTP, WAP, infrared and other

connections. Other parts of the specification address mobile device management, in order to

administrate large numbers of devices centrally.

SyncML provides a framework not only for complete synchronization but also for small

updates of changed data. This is especially important for slow wireless connections. The

hardware limits of mobile devices like maximal record size of free storage capacity are taken

into account with the exchange of Meta information.
http://www.syncml.org/http://www.syncml.org/http://www.syncml.org/


5/25


- 5 / 25 -

1.2 The goal of this enquiry

The Telecom Group of the University of Fribourg (CH) wants to determine the potential of

general standards for synchronization of mobile devices.

The SyncML specification has been open to the public for a year now. During this year,

some products for SyncML were developed and released. The Telecom Group wants to

know how large the interest in SyncML is and what experiences are made by companiesdeveloping SyncML solutions. What has been realized using SyncML and how well does it

work? What are the possibilities of SyncML and in which direction could development go in

future? The possible alternatives to SyncML were of interest too.

1.3 Concept of the enquiry

This section describes some of the principles for the design of this enquiry. Expecting just a

limited amount of replies we preferred open questions in order to get a more rich view of the

problem. Thus, for several questions with the normal response style yes/no, an open design

was implemented, i.e. it was possible to provide a more precise answer. The answers to

those open questions were categorized for the diagrams and relevant examples of some

more elaborated answers given in the text.

Because the questions cover different areas, they have been split into four parts. There are

general questions about the company, technological questions about SyncML, questions

about experiences related to SyncML development and products, and questions about

marketingand customer interest.

The idea was not only to group the parts for clarity, but also to allow employees of the same

company to answer the part they know best. Only one company, however, used this option.

For all other companies, one person answered all questions.

The number of answers changes for each question, as none of the answers was forced tobe non-empty.

The exact questions are given next to the answer diagrams and the questionnaire can be

viewed online at http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/syncml.

1.4 Procedure of the enquiry

To estimate how reliable the results of an enquiry are, it is important to know by which way

the answers were collected. We sent an email to 274 companies, asking for their

participation in the enquiry. The email is shown in the Appendix A of this document. The

companies were selected from the following sources: The SyncML.org web site, the ITValley Fribourg(an association of companies and educational institutions committed to IT in

the area of Fribourg, CH) and some important firms like IBM, Microsoft and SAP1.

Additionally, we posted into the newsgroups comp.text.xml, microsoft.public.xml and the

Yahoo forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syncml/, but nobody answered the

questionnaire because of this posting.

1Unfortunately, we got no answers from this last category, the important firms. This may mean

disinterest, but as we used general contact email addresses or the contact web form, our message

was maybe lost.
http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/syncmlhttp://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/syncmlhttp://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://news//comp.text.xml/http://news//comp.text.xml/http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&group=microsoft.public.xmlhttp://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&group=microsoft.public.xmlhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/syncml/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syncml/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/syncml/http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=de&group=microsoft.public.xmlhttp://news//comp.text.xml/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://www.itvalleyfribourg.ch/http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/syncml


6/25


- 6 / 25 -

To facilitate the handling, the questionnaire had to be filled in using a web form2. This web

form was open for answers from 15.1.2002 to 13.2.2002 using any browser over the

Internet.

1.5 Notations

For each diagram, you can see the N=XY, meaning the number of valid answers for thisquestion. As no question was forced to be answered and empty answers were not counted,

this number changes for each question.

Where multiple selections were allowed, the sum of all selections is given as = XY.

For diagrams with percentages, the absolute numbers for each category are given in the

format part saying yes / total number.

2

It is online on http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/syncml until end of 2002.


7/25


- 7 / 25 -

2 Results

There was a considerable echo to the enquiry. Of the 274 companies asked by email to

answer the enquiry, 61 visited the enquiry web site. About 50 companies , answered the

questions. The names are listed in the appendix (except for those 5 which dont want to be

mentioned).

Please note: the amount of 50 usable answers is clearly not enough for statistical

reasoning, but the answers can give an idea of the usage and perception of SyncML

and show some of the related problems.

In the following subsections we present and discuss the results of the enquiry, each

subsection dealing with one part of the enquiry questions.

2.1 General part

Now follows the evaluation of the answers to general questions about the companies. Those

answers position the field of companies that answered the enquiry and can help to estimatethe significance of their opinion.

2.1.1 Sectors the answering companies are active in

Multiple selections of sectors were possible. There was also an entry called other giving the

means to enter free text.

Sectors

4

17

27

15

9

8

13

31

23

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

No selection

Other (revised)

Consulting

Customizing

M-Commerce

Other Hardw are

Mobile Devices

Softw are on order

Softw are development

N= 61

The answers for the entry Other were (in summary): Infrastructure (6), Service (4),

Education (3), Association (2), Press (1), Selling (1).

=147


8/25


- 8 / 25 -

2.1.2 Company size

The next question was about the company size, i.e. the number of employees. The possible

answers were grouped into sections for small (less than 10 employees), medium (between

10 and 100 employees) and big (more than 100 employees) companies.

The figure illustrates that about half of the answers came from medium sized companies, a

quarter from rather big ones, and few from small companies.

2.1.3 Position of the employee answering the questions

To know more about the persons answering the questions we asked for the persons

position within his company. As mentioned in Chapter 1.3, Concept of the enquiry, we

actually expected that different persons in different positions could answer the questions. As

this has occurred only once, this diagram is just shown here and not repeated for each part

of the enquiry.

Position of the answering employee

Management

50%

Production

5%

Human

Ressources

2%

Other

15%

Research/Development

21%

Selling

7%

N=61

About half of the answers come from managers. Together with research / developer staff,

they are about of the persons.

As we will see in question 2.3.2, half of the answering companies are not (yet) working with

SyncML, but the bigger part is engaged in other soft- or hardware development (question

2.3.1).

Number of employees

100

21%

Not given

13%

N=61


9/25


- 9 / 25 -

2.2 Technologically part

One important goal of this enquiry is to find out how the SyncML technology is seen and why

companies are or are not interested in.

Note that the number of answers (N) gets smaller, because some 10 persons did not answer

the rest of the questions.

If you compare the questions to the questionnaire, you may notice that the ordering of the

questions in this report have been rearranged to a more logical sequence.

2.2.1 Did you know what SyncML is?

As not only companies known to be involved with SyncML had been addressed for this

enquiry, this basic question was needed to know if the answers are based on experience or

rather speculative.

Know what SyncML is

yes

(SyncML)

43%

yes

(IT Valley)

19%

no

(IT Valley)

38%

N=47

About two thirds already knew SyncML. If we only look at the companies of IT Valley

Fribourg, there is still one third knowing about SyncML. Of the companies known to workwith SyncML, all answered yes.

2.2.2 If not, does it seem interesting to you, now that you have heard about it?

As the question indicates, only persons not knowing SyncML before had to answer it. (which

explains the much smaller N).

If not, does it seem

interesting?

yes

39%

perhaps

61%

no

0%N=18

This could mean that everybody is at least a little interested in SyncML. But we think it

means rather that only people interested in SyncML answered the enquiry, so this result isnot representative for the development community in general.

All 18 answers come from IT Valley Fribourg Companies.


10/25


- 10 / 25 -

2.2.3 Do you think SyncML will become important for the mobile industry?

Will SyncML become

important?

less22%

no

5%

very

73%

N=41

SyncML is expected to become rather important. This is not only the perception of the

SyncML companies but also of companies from IT Valley Fribourg.

2.2.4 What do you think, how many of the mobile companies will support SyncML?

Mobile companies to

support SyncML

Majority81%

Minority

11%

none

0%All

8%

N=36

The opinion that SyncML will become important is reflected by this result. Even of the 9

companies who dont think SyncML is very important, 3 expect the majority of mobile

companies to support it.

2.2.5 How many of the database companies do you expect to support SyncML?

Database companies to

support SyncMLAll

9%

Minority

24%

none

9%

Majority

58%

N=34

For databases, there is more doubt whether SyncML will become the one standard that hasto be supported by all serious products.

Will SyncML become

important?

(IT Valley Fribourg only)

less

32%

no

5%

very

63%

N=22


11/25


- 11 / 25 -

2.2.6 What are the main benefits of SyncML for your work?

This question was an open question. The answers are categorized and some interesting

comments listed below. Some answers mentioned more than one category, so the sum of all

categories is more than 38.

Main benefits

6

7

11

11

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

No benefits

Other

Data backup /

synchronization

Good base for

development

Common / Open /

Licence Free Standard

N=38

Notes on the categories:

The benefits of open standards are explained in some answers as being the

independence from other companies for implementation, wide support and

interoperability.

Companies that hope to implement SyncML within their products see it as a good base

for development.

Some answered that they use SyncML for Data backup / synchronization, which is

interpreted as that the company uses SyncML solutions as tools for its own work.

Other mentioned points are:

o Support for different devices.

o Less development effort needed.

o Easy integration with existing business applications.

o Especially for areas with poor network coverage / quality.

o Web development.

The most important feature of SyncML is being an open standard. The synchronization

framework is seen as a good development base for syncing devices. Some companies use

SyncML products as tools for their own work.

Some of the companies not interested in SyncML can not see any benefits at all in theexistence of SyncML.

2.2.7 What are the most important problems of SyncML?

Like the previous question, this question was posed openly. The answers are once again

categorized and commented.

=48


12/25


- 12 / 25 -

Other points mentioned:

Implementation of the protocol: some features are mandatory although they are not

very important

SyncML is missing a clear leader

Standardized access to network data stores

Interoperability of devices, SyncFest3 is not the correct way

Problem with big objects, because SyncML 1.0.1 cannot split objects into parts for

transmission.4

Clearly the largest doubt is if enough manufacturers will support SyncML to become a

general standard. Some fear that the big companies like Palm or Microsoft could try to use

their own proprietary concepts. SyncML can only play its role if most devices support it

(mobile phones, PDA, PC, databases and other back-end systems). There were also some

complaints about the implementation, especially about usability and access control. Only one

person wrote explicitly that there are no problems.

The 23 persons who did not answer this question either had no problems or, more likely,

have never worked with SyncML.

2.2.8 In your opinion, can SyncML cover all synchronization tasks or does your company

have to make extensions?

This once again is an open question. The answers are categorized into yes, no and not

decided. In a second diagram the answers are related to the duration of SyncML

development (see question 2.3.2).

Do you need extensions?

7

13

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Don't know

Need for extensions

It covers all

N=33

3SyncFest is an event by the SyncML organization where new devices can be tested for their

standards compliance.4

This problem has been solved in SyncML 1.1, published in February 2002

Main Problems

1

5

10

13

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

No Problems

Other

Implementation problems, Usability

Becoming w idely accepted

=29

N=26


13/25


- 13 / 25 -

This question is rather undecided. Some of the persons who said that SyncML covers all

theirneeds expect that, depending on the project, there are special cases where extensions

will be needed. Most who indicated the need to build extensions did not specify what for. But,

twice the connection to proprietary systems was mentioned.

Most of them who didnt know if they need extensions don't do SyncML development at the

moment.

Some comments on extensions where:

The main add on is to send a SYNC without command, only data (ITEM) to ask a

synchronization of two services.

Relational synchronization needed (the official specification for this field is in alpha

stadium)

Only the fields of mass market are important to be really standardized (agenda,

address book)

Companies that need to build extensions

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Since the

beginning

6-12 Months 3-6 Months < 3 Months

Duration of SyncML development

%t

hatneedextensions

N=19

There are not enough answers to make this relation representative, but it indicates that little

of the firms, which worked with SyncML for some time, needed to build extensions.

Of the companies that started with SyncML development in the last half year, more needed

extensions, (especially those who already released some products). Maybe they dont know

SyncML well enough to see how to use it, but more likely, they are making innovative use of

SyncML that was not thought of during the specification phase.

2.2.9 Are there also other standards and if yes, has your company investigated them?

Are there other Standards?

13

15

2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

No others

Only proprietary protocols

IrMC

N=30

Exact numbers(See Chapter 1.5)

beginning: 3/9

6-12 months: 1/3

3-6 months: 3/5

less than 3: 1/2


14/25


- 14 / 25 -

This open question yielded a whole bunch of proprietary protocols that are used. Only one

more or less standardized protocol was found: IrDA Mobile Communications (IrMC)5.

This industry standard defines some protocols for infrared communications. It defines

exchange of data via IrOBEX, a HTTP style protocol. One of the companies naming IrMC

said that SyncML would replace it. It may be seen as a predecessor of SyncML with limited

capabilities.

Proprietary protocols mentioned:

ScoutWare from Aether Systems Inc

PalmOS Hotsync

Microsoft Outlook

PocketPC

Instant Messaging standards such as Wireless Village (message exchange and

presence service6) or SIP/SIMPLE

7. Not directly within syncing, but may be relevant in

the syncing arena.

Some other protocols, not specifically designed for wireless applications were mentioned:

MPEG-7, formally called "Multimedia Content Description Interface". This is notintended to be a general sync standard but a multimedia description standard for wired

and wireless devices.8

SNA (Systems Network Architecture, general secure network concept by IBM)

TCP/IP

2.2.10 Will you continue working on proprietary synchronization protocols for your products

or are standard protocols sufficient for your needs?

Continuing on proprietary protocols

perhaps

41%

no

31%

yes

28%

N=36

This question reveals that SyncML will not replace the proprietary protocols. And the large

wireless companies like Palm, Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson or also Microsoft did not participate

in the enquiryAs mentioned in question 2.2.8 about making extensions to SyncML, the integration of

proprietary protocols seems to be difficult.

5Read more about IrMC on

http://www.irda.org/design/irmc_solutions.pdf

http://www.extendedsystems.com/NR/rdonlyres/idqkwvz3ycwvk6owme6iorqlle7eqn5rvuwooa2tpkml7cz

jftodeftt2wjn23xxovp3ogqv7w3426ogpe4wlkh4sh/bt_synchronization.pdf6Read more about Wireless Village at http://www.wireless-village.org

7For more information see the homepage of the author of SIP: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/sip/

8More information on MPEG-7 http://www.darmstadt.gmd.de/mobile/MPEG7/


15/25


- 15 / 25 -

2.2.11 Comments

Some interesting comments where made to this section:

There are no existing products for sync between phone and pda/pc.

(Only for syncing with special servers)

Device management is a very important feature.

Devices supporting SyncML will become widespread for 2003 or later only.

2.3 Development and products part

2.3.1 How long has your company been active in the development of hard- or software for

the mobile industry?

To get an idea of the general development experience, the duration of development had to

be selected among the given choices.

Duration of development

3-5 Years

15%

Recent

15%

None

26%

2-3 Years

26%

5-10 Years

7%

> 10 Years11%

N=46

About a quarter of the companies that answered the question are not developing own

solutions. Those are either consulting companies or educational associations. Of the others,

about half have been in business for a long time, the other half are rather young companies.

2.3.2 How long has your company worked with SyncML?

As SyncML is relatively young, the choices can be made quite precisely. The beginning of

SyncML is December 2000, because then the first official specification 1.0 was released.

Duration of SyncML development

6 Months - 1

Year

9%No

56% 3-6 Months

11%

less than 3

months

4%

Since begin

20%

N=46

More than half of the companies did no SyncML development at the time when this enquiry

was held. But some of them did not answer the remaining questions, so the fraction of

experienced companies is more than 50% for those questions.


16/25


- 16 / 25 -

2.3.3 Are you currently developing SyncML support for some of your products? If yes,

which products?

Currently developing SyncML support

16

23

0 5 10 15 20 25

yes

no

N=39

The products being developed are:

SymbianOS

PIM9

(2x)

Voxoffice, VoxPIM, VoxClub

atchik VAS multi-access platform

Synthesis Sync Server 1.0

SyncWiseMobile (SyncML server platform)

NeXync(tm) clients (WindowsCE, PalmOs, Qualcomm REX, AMX, vxWorks version),

NeXync(tm) server

XTNDConnect SyncML client SDK, XTNDConnect Server

Hermes

Healthcare Mobility Solution - MobileDOC; Containing modules for physicians and

nursing desk to automate and mobilize their operations and information access

methodologies

2.3.4 Do you already have products that are SyncML compliant (tested by the SyncML

Interoperability Committee, SIC)? If yes, which products?

The SyncML Interoperability Committee (SIC) tests products submitted by the manufacturer

to ensure their compatibility with other SyncML systems. Those tests are made at the Sync-

Fest events. Only if this test is successful, the SyncML logo may be used in product

marketing material.

SyncML compliant tested products

7

32

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

yes

no

N=39

This shows that much more products are being developed as have been tested by the SIC.

For an interesting opinion on SyncML compliance, see also section 2.3.7,Comments.

The tested products mentioned are:

SymbianOS SyncML Client v1.0

VoxSync Operator Server, VoxSync Enterprise Server, VoxSync Companion for PC,

VoxSync Companion for Palm, VoxSync Companion for Pocket PC

SyncWiseMobile9

PIM stands for Personal information management, this commonly means integrated service for

mobile/handheld and outlook, lotus notes or other backend system.


17/25


- 17 / 25 -

DCM SyncML Client

NeXync (tm) client, NeXync (tm) server

XTNDConnect SyncML client SDK, XTNDConnect Server

2.3.5 Do you plan to let the SIC test some of your products?

Planning tests

13

22

0 5 10 15 20 25

yes

no

N=35

That there are so little products already tested does not mean that companies dont want to

test, as this question shows. It seems rather that most have not yet reached a stable version.

The interest in certifying the standards compliance is rather large for the companiesdeveloping their own products. 3 companies said that they are offering services and design,

so they have no products, which could be tested.

The products mentioned are:

SymbianOS

atchik m-Organiser

MobileDOC - but not right away. May be after a couple of months.

Address Plus, de COBRA

PIM offering

VoxSync Operator Server, VoxSync Enterprise Server, VoxSync Companion for PC

Hermes

Synthesis Sync Server 1.0

eXync (tm) client, Nexync (tm) server

As some of those are the same as in question 2.3.4 above, this may be understood as the

intention to test coming versions of those products.

2.3.6 Companies having SyncML products in relation to their size

Companies having SyncML products

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Small Medium BigPer

centofcompaniesofthissize

thatansweredtheenquiry

N=53

Exact numbers

Small: 1/9

Medium: 8/31

Big: 9/13


18/25


- 18 / 25 -

This is the percentage of companies of the according size that have any SyncML products

(tested or untested). We can see that the big companies do SyncML development most

actively and there are few small companies with own SyncML solutions.

It seems there are not many small startups offering SyncML as an innovative service, as one

may expect.

2.3.7 Comments

The following two comments explicitly show the conflict between standards compatibility and

proprietary extensions .

I understand that SyncML is intended to be an open standard, etc. However, many

small-medium companies are going to suggest and implement other solutions due to

the cost of entry. That in it self makes SyncML less open.

We have only taken the part of SyncML that is useful for us and have added a

proprietary extension to it. Thats why we are not compliant. Today we don't have the

need to become compliant. This comment may sound like one coming from a big

company not caring too much about standards. But in fact, it has been made by a

medium sized company.

2.4 Marketing part

The marketing section is not very large. We just wanted to learn the companies view of the

market interest in SyncML. As SyncML is not as famous as other standards, we didnt expect

that companies do much advertising for the SyncML aspects of their products yet.

2.4.1 Do you know if your customers are interested in devices supporting SyncML?

This was an open question; the following diagram is built using the categorized answers.

Are customers interested

in SyncML?

No

32%

Yes

50%

Don't

know

18%

N=38

Some pointed out

High interest for high value customers (business), Interest in service (but not regular

use) for medium to low end customers (mass market).

The end customer of a service provider probably does not care if the underneath

technology is SyncML or not. He wants the service to be convenient and to work.

The customers are not interested at devices supporting SyncML, but at the

functionalities and the user friendliness of the solutions.

Some customers are not even aware of their needs and what mobile computing

solutions could solve. The few of them who are do not have an idea of the options

actually available.

I don't know. In fact, I think that our customers don't even know that SyncML exists...


19/25


- 19 / 25 -

The interest of customers seems to be moderate. Private users probably won't care too

much about how it works as long as it works.

Business customers on the other side need interoperable services already. This is also the

primary customer sector interested in automatic device management.

2.4.2 Does your company use SyncML support as an argument in advertisements?

Advertisment with SyncML

plan

33%

no

46%

yes

21%

N=39Only 8 of the companies make advertising with SyncML. This probably reflects the fact that

customers do not care much about the used technology (see 2.4.1 "Do you know if your

customers are interested in devices supporting SyncML?)

None of the IT Valley Fribourg companies actually use SyncML as an argument in

advertisements, but 6 of 20 plan to use it.


20/25


- 20 / 25 -

3 Conclusion

SyncML raises a certain interest. The enquiry revealed no other open standard protocol

specifically for sync issues. Of course, data synchronization can be implemented building a

proprietary protocol over lower-level protocols like TCP or IrDA. This is being made by the

mobile and PDA industry as well as server industry. But the effect is that you need a special

plugin to synchronize Palm to Outlook and another for Lotus Notes etc, not to think about

syncing the Palm with an address book on a mobile phone.

As some answers to question 2.2.6 about the main benefits of SyncML show, companies

see SyncML as a ready to use protocol that covers most of what they need without having

to pay license fees and staying independent of any specific company.

If everybody is using the same protocols, servers and clients can easily be replaced. This is

good for customers, but a challenge for the manufacturers of the systems. They cannot sell

the simple fact that their system can synchronize, but the whole service it is providing must

convince the customers. This will improve the competition among manufacturers.

The largest doubt about SyncML is not of technological nature, but of an economic one. WillSyncML become widely used? If not, the goal being a general standard cannot be

reached. Or, as someone in the enquiry wrote poetically: it fails to meet to the very standard

of being a standard.

There are some companies behind the SyncML initiative that have the potential to make it an

important standard. The main sponsors are Ericsson, IBM, Lotus, Motorola, Nokia,

Openwave, Panasonic, Starfish and Symbian. Those are not only mobile phones

manufacturers (Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia), but also providers of backend systems (Lotus,

IBM, Starfish), and operating systems companies (Openwave, Symbian). Unfortunately, we

did not learn their opinion. Except for Symbian, none of the contacts given on the web page

http://www.syncml.org./contacts.htmlanswered to this enquiry at all.

There are not many innovative small startups building SyncML solutions. The companies

most active in developing are rather large and not very young (c.f. 2.3.6 Companies having

SyncML products in relation to their size).

SyncML in itself is just a protocol. For a solution to work there must be support from all

devices and there is need for a flexible server that can manage all this information. There

are no SyncML adapters for industry standard systems around, but rather whole servers

especially for SyncML. For private users, those small, specialized server can do, if they are

cheap and user friendly enough. But business customers will need SyncML connectivity for

their Oracle database, a SAP or Lotus back-end system.

As SyncML might not completely replace proprietary protocols, interoperability with them

could be an important field. But answers to question 2.2.8 (In your opinion, can SyncML

cover all synchronization tasks or does your company have to make extensions?) indicate

that SyncML seems not to be prepared for this binding. Perhaps this could be an extension

for a next version of SyncML.

Another problematic issue of SyncML is related to the encoding of the content data. The

SyncML standard defines the concept only, but no content encoding. The content type is

specified using media type definitions like text/vCard. If implementers work with other data

than the typical contact and calendar entries, they are likely to choose different media types

or even build new ones. But, if client and server dont understand the same type, they cant

exchange data.
http://www.syncml.org./contacts.htmlhttp://www.syncml.org./contacts.htmlhttp://www.syncml.org./contacts.html


21/25


- 21 / 25 -

Astonishingly enough, there is just one comment that mentions this fact. In question 2.2.8

(In your opinion, can SyncML cover all synchronization tasks or does your company have to

make extensions?) someone wrote, Only the fields of mass market are important to be

really standardized (agenda, address book).

There is no big hype about SyncML, not like, for example, WAP, or even SOAP. The end

users mostly dont know about SyncML, as question 2.4.1 (Do you know if your customers

are interested in devices supporting SyncML?) indicates. The primary interest lies in

business customers with many employees using corporate date and address management.

But with more and more devices and services, we expect the need for a general standard to

grow for private users as well. Syncing one mobile phone with Microsoft Outlook on a PC

works well. But with each family member having his personal phone and computer plus

some PDAs plus a web-based PIM, there are too many combinations for proprietary

protocols.

There is no other common standard for synchronization in sight. If SyncML succeeds getting

over a critical mass, it may become commonly used as the standard for mobile

synchronization. The technological base is under fast development, during the enquiry,version 1.1 of the standard has been published. Some of the problems mentioned in the

enquiry have been solved, i.e. it is now possible to split large objects with help of the

tag. The developers seem to be aware of the problems of implementers and try

to solve them.

With the increasing number of mobile devices and the raising interest in open standards,

SyncML could become very important. But the success depends heavily on the support by

major companies.


22/25


- 22 / 25 -

Appendix A: The email sent to the companies

The following email was sent to the companies, asking them to answer the enquiry. For

some, an ID was assigned and instead of the link to the sign up page a personalized link

was given.

Dear Sir and Madam

We are conducting a market research effort at the University of

Fribourg regarding future trends in technology. We would very much

like to hear the opinion of your company on the subjects listed below

and we would therefore like to ask you to kindly forward this email to

the appropriate person within your company.

In order to minimize the effort and time required (approx. 20 min) and

to ensure a quick response, we have set up a web form. Please go to

http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/SyncML/ to sign up.

For more details please read further.

What this is about:

This is an enquiry about synchronization issues for using mobile

devices and the synchronization markup language (SyncML).

What is the purpose:

The telecom group of the University of Fribourg (CH)

http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom wants to determine the potential of

general standards for synchronization of mobile devices. This will

allow the development of hard- and software components for the mobile

industry to be gauged. The results will get published by the telecomgroup of the University of Fribourg.

Why do you need it:

You will be listed in the results as a reference for partners and

potential customers. You will receive the results of the enquiry for

your own purposes.

What are you supposed to do:

We kindly ask you to answer the questions in the enquiry web form

(http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/SyncML/) or to forward the

email to the appropriate person. Please do this by 12.2.2002.

Short Introduction to SyncML:The SyncML initiative founders claim this XML application to be a

common language for synchronizing all devices and applications over

any network. The focus is on mobile phones and PDA's that need to

synchronize to database servers. To provide flexibility, the protocol

can be used over http, WAP, infrared and other connections.

The SyncML initiative was founded in February 2000 and the

specification was released in December 2000 and can be viewed at

http://www.syncml.org.

We want to find out if now, after the specification has been open to

the public for nearly a year, enterprises are interested in SyncML and

if SyncML meets their needs.


23/25


- 23 / 25 -

Who is behind this enquiry:

Dr. Rudolf Scheurer, head of the telecom group is supervising this

enquiry, David Buchmann is working on it as part of his diploma

thesis.

The results will be published and sent to you via email. As we will

list the enterprises that answered the questions, this is an

opportunity for your company to show that it is interested in modern

technology.

We would be very grateful if you could answer the questions.

Best regards

Dr. Rudolf Scheurer

David Buchmann


24/25


- 24 / 25 -

Appendix B: Companies that answered the enquiry

The following 52 companies answered at least part of the questions and allowed to be

mentioned (ordered alphabetically):

AGI IT Services SA

Airping Technologies

ALRO Information Systems SA

Aranda - Conseils et Services Informatiques

Association romande des informaticiens - ARI

ATAG Asset Management

Atchik

BancTec

Birdstep Technology ASA

Bluewin AG

BNI - Business Network Integration

Boschung Mecatronic AG

Cambos Consulting

Chambre vaudoise de commerce et d'industrie CISEL Informatique

Colibria AS

COMMswitch SA

Compaq Comuter (Schweiz) GmbH

Comverse

CQS Srl - Member of IBIS Corporation

Cybernomade.com

Dartfish

DCM Technologies

Dpartement d'informatique - Universit de Fribourg

Dicoesa, Etablissements techniques SA

Euresearch

Extended Systems

Fenestrae BV

I.T. Unicorp (ITUC)

ICTnet

Info Media Com Management

Infoteam SA

InnoDeC Srl

Invoxis SA

Isoft Inc

La Libert

Megahertz Computer SA

Office cantonal de l'assurance invalidit

Orange Communications

Oxygen Company

PHOSPHORE - graphic design & communication

SATOM Informatique

Secrtariat d'Etat l'conomie

Serial SA

Solid Information Technology

SolveIT.ch Srl

Symbian

Synthesis AG

Toffa International Ltd.

VoxMobili


25/25


Appendix C: Links for SyncML

The homepage of the SyncML initiative

http://www.SyncML.org

The SyncML yahoo grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/SyncML

A java implementation of SyncML: sync4j

http://sync4j.sourceforge.net/

Research note by the Gartner Group:

http://gartner11.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/00089713.html

Nokia SyncML informations:

http://www.nokia.com/syncml/

Symbian SyncML informations:

http://www.symbian.com/technology/standard-syncml.html

The site this document came from

http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/SyncML/
http://www.syncml.org/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SyncMLhttp://sync4j.sourceforge.net/http://gartner11.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/00089713.htmlhttp://www.nokia.com/syncml/http://www.symbian.com/technology/standard-syncml.htmlhttp://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/SyncML/http://diuf.unifr.ch/telecom/projects/SyncML/http://www.symbian.com/technology/standard-syncml.htmlhttp://www.nokia.com/syncml/http://gartner11.gartnerweb.com/public/static/hotc/00089713.htmlhttp://sync4j.sourceforge.net/http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SyncMLhttp://www.syncml.org/

Documents

SyncML Enquiry