Google Announces "Open Phone" Coalition, No gPhone [Updated]

Ponca City, We Love You writes "USA Today has an advance story on Google's plans to announce a new operating system, geared specifically for cellphones with partners that include Sprint, Motorola, Samsung and Japanese wireless giant NTT DoCoMo. Although details won't be released until later today the new G-system will be based on Linux overlaid with Java and Google hopes to have a branded device ready for worldwide shipment by spring. Mobile Web browsing is notoriously slow and Google plans to change that by providing easy access to the Internet at PC-type speeds. Google plans to basically give away the software developer tools, used by programmers to write new applications. "If you're a developer, you'll be able to develop (applications) for the new Google Phone very quickly," said Morgan Gillis of the LiMo Foundation. AT&T and Verizon Wireless are noticeably absent from the coalition not wanting to support a device that favors Google over other providers. Sprint, the No. 3 carrier, supports the coalition, but it hasn't formally agreed to make the Google Phone available to its 54 million subscribers." Update 1727 GMT by SM: It's official, Google is releasing the mobile "Android" OS in place of the Google branded mobile phone that many expected.

Comments

It's offical

[neokushan]

Open Platform? Available to all? No hidden charges? It's official, Google is the polar opposite to Apple.

Re:It's offical

[timster]

Well, I am an Apple Fanboi (according to those with the time to track such things) so I'm obviously biased, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

Hidden charges: the iPhone is sold at retail for $400, giving the impression that you pay $400 and own one, but that isn't exactly the case. The device will not function (even as an iPod or whatever) until activated with AT&T. The AT&T plans available aren't exactly out of line for unlimited data plans but they aren't discount plans either. All these limitations are because Apple also receives a subsidy from AT&T, which is a sort of hidden charge.

As for "available to all", there are a few possible answers. As of now the phone isn't available outside the US and (without hacking) won't work with, say, Canadian carriers. Or if you speak in terms of development, right now nobody outside Apple can develop applications (without hacking).

The iPhone is still rather great, at least for those of us who happen to live in a place where AT&T coverage is really far better than any of the competing coverage. But I think everyone is glad to see Google put on some pressure in this space. Apple makes some good software but can get stuck in a bit of a cathedral mindset that can make their platforms a bit stale.

Re:It's offical

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still an Apple computer fanboy, but the iPod and the iPhone so far still seem like overpriced underspecced gadgets to me.

How is that really different than their computer business? Over-priced and under-specced is the ONLY thing that apple does.

Linux overlaid with Google?

[nahgoe]

I'm really interested to see how Linux can be overlaid with Java and Google.

Or maybe someone needs to brush up on their punctuation.

Privacy

[Yuioup]

Let me guess... they're going to offer it for free/at a reduced price in exchange for giving up all your privacy.

Y

Re:Privacy

[Reality Master 101]

Let me guess... they're going to offer it for free/at a reduced price in exchange for giving up all your privacy.

Privacy is just another asset I can use to barter. Why is it intrinsically "evil" for someone to choose to sell it? And yes, I understand that not everyone understands exactly what they're selling, but that's a consumer problem.

Re:Privacy

[moosesocks]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Google's privacy policy is probably a hell of a lot better than anything AT&T or Verizon have.

(AT&T taps your line for the NSA without a warrant, and Verizon will sell your personal information to marketers)

Google makes it plainly obvious that they're recording and storing what you do (and actually presents that data to you in a useful manner). A traditional ISP definitely has the capability to do the same exact thing behind your back. If the bits are passing through their tubes, they have access to it.

Re:AT&T?

[KSobby]

All AT&T said was that they didn't want to favor Google over other providers. We have to assume that they meant Apple. And why would they? They have a sweet deal with Apple. How is this in anyway hypocritical or evil? AT&T favors Apple, so they don't join.

People just look for any reason to be mad at someone.

Re:We already have fifty! Finish one!

[LingNoi]

Wait I read this wrong. It's not an "Open Phone" at all.

This phone is going to be like the Motorola A1200 Linux phone I already have.

The new G-system will be based on Linux, a 15-year-old computer operating system that is available free over the Internet. Google's version will be overlaid with Java, a popular computer language.

It's just a DRM'd Linux Kernel with their proprietary java OS running on top. This phone is no different apart from now they'll give you more information on how to write programs for it. Big wow...

Gillis says Google plans to basically give away the software developer "tools," used by programmers to write new applications. "If you're a developer, you'll be able to develop (applications) for the new Google Phone very quickly."

I can develop applications for my Motorola phone too. What the hell is new here?

Thus opening the third layer of the Internet

[christian.einfeldt]

Code, content, physical layer. Those are the three layers that Larry Lessig uses to describe the Internet. His concern, as expressed in The Future of Ideas, is that our common global culture could be locked down if we don't work hard to keep the Internet open. So Free Software, Creative Commons, and now this Google initiative are going to start to move us away from our dependence on Microsoft, ATT, and Warner Brothers / Disney. Google isn't perfect, but I say this is a step in the right direction. Don't underestimate the importance of having devices with open code at the fringes of the Internet. Microsoft wants to force you to have non-Free software to access the Internet. This effort by Google is one step away from that kind of lock-down. You go, Googlers!

Re:Thus opening the third layer of the Internet

[ms1234]

Quoting Redmond: Developers, developers, developers.

The easier they make it to develop the more popular it's going to be to make 'cool' apps.

Re:AT&T?

[digitig]

AT&T... [is] noticeably absent from the coalition not wanting to support a device that favors Google over other providers. WHAT?! They support devices that favor Apple over other providers. Does anyone else see this hypocracy? Not as hypocrisy, no. If they said that all coalitions should be provider-neutral it would be hypocrisy. If they just say that this coalition conflicts with their existing deals then it's not hypocrisy at all.

Re:Really.... how?

[Anonymous Coward]

nd how exactly is changing the OS going to make cellphone browsing that noticeably faster? Leaner/cleaner OS, leads to more processing cycles and memory available. This would speed page rendering, which can be ungodly slow on some smartphones. I am unsure if there is something they can do to solve latency, but this is a big problem with browsing. I also believe changing the way a page is rendered will help. IE on Windows Mobile is bad at times and refuses to render anything until it has everything (or so it seems). You could improve this as well, not so much with the OS, but if you are going to put in the effort, might as well go all out.

Re:We already have fifty! Finish one!

[kebes]

The article seems rather confused on the subject of open-ness. They say:

The finished product, expected within months, will unabashedly favor Google applications and services. "What's being developed is unlikely to be easily transportable to Yahoo (YHOO) and other (service) providers," says Morgan Gillis, executive director of the LiMo Foundation

But then they state:

Consumers are potentially the biggest beneficiaries. Currently, many cellphone carriers limit the services and applications that their customers can use.

Ummmm.... it sounds like this new partnership is offering something that will, again, limit the services and applications that customers can use. Yes, it's another player in the market, and that kind of competition is a good thing... but having a phone providing Google-only services certainly doesn't qualify as "open" in my book.

I understand that they intend to make it easy for third party developers to make apps for this thing, but the above quote suggests that some components (in particular the Google apps) will be integrated at a level that third party apps won't be able to modify.

Again, I'm excited about the possibility of a new phone challenging the status quo in the cellphone market, but this effort hardly seems to be the drive towards openness that OpenMoko (and the now discontinued Greenphone) is driving towards.

Re:Really.... how?

[Anonymous Coward]

I welcome an open phone platform, because the proprietary platforms give too much control over the feature set to the network operators who sponsor the phones. On the other hand, I really wish the effort wouldn't be spearheaded by Google, because we're being offered a Hobson's choice here: Full featured and extensible phones in return for giving Google even more of our privacy. Quite frankly, Google is the last company I would want to know where I am at all times.

Re:Really.... how?

[DarkTempes]

And I wouldn't be surprised if google was fine with that.

Most people would still use google in a new unlocked-browser, and google probably isn't too worried about a small niche of tech savvy people using an application (unless they screw up the initial browser the majority of users are going to use the original one aka MSIE vs netscape and friends)