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

Google phone, long awaited

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The new operating system will be called GNU/Goo/Do/Mo/SpriSamSun/Linux.

I, for one, welcome our new alliterative overlords.

What version of Java?

[$1uck]

So what version of Java? Micro Edition? or full blown Java?

Re:What version of Java?

[Constantine XVI]

AFAIK, Sun is working on deprecating JavaME, and since Java's OSS now, it opens up the possibility of Google porting Java to the platform.

Re:What version of Java?

[TheRaven64]

1. it didnt use AWT. instead they create yet another windowing toolkit specifically for micro devices. i dont understand why it was essentially a copy of awt. AWT was intended to wrap existing widgets. This doesn't make sense in a mobile device where there is likely to be little or no existing widget set. Swing would work, but it has higher overheads. The needs of a mobile UI are quite different to those of a desktop one, so a direct port would not make sense.

2. it didnt allow use of floats/doubles. Most mobile CPUs don't support floating point arithmetic. Removing floats from the language makes it obvious to developers that, if they want floating point functionality they are going to need to emulate it. When I learned to program, most desktop CPUs didn't have an FPU. Languages supported floating point ops, but except in rare cases (i.e. someone had bought an external coprocessor) they were all emulated. A single floating point operation can need a hundred or so integer operations to emulate, but came from the same amount of source code as an integer op that took one instruction. This lead to people writing some quite inefficient code because they didn't understand that the cost of a + b varied by an order of magnitude or two depending on whether a, b, both or neither were floating point quantities.

Re:What version of Java?

[BorgDrone]

1. it didnt use AWT. instead they create yet another windowing toolkit specifically for micro devices. i dont understand why it was essentially a copy of awt.
Why would you want the horrible, horrible AWT on a mobile ?

2. it didnt allow use of floats/doubles.
It does now, and has for ages. CLDC 1.0 doesn't support floats, CLDC 1.1 does.

Re:What version of Java?

[eric2hill]

It gets better! Sun also has the Sun SPOT embedded development kit. Hopefully Google and Sun will collaborate and come up with the G-SPOT.

Re:What version of Java?

[wmacgyver]

It's not that Sun is depreciating JavaME. But that JavaME and JavaSE will merge. More detail on this from James Golsing's blog entry.

Re:What version of Java?

[aichpvee]

Will this be called JavaXP?

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.

Really.... how?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Mobile Web browsing is notoriously slow and Google plans to change that by providing easy access to the Internet at PC-type speeds. There is so much wrong with this sentence that it makes me want to gouge my eyes out. I wasn't aware that PC-type is suddenly a benchmark for speed... and how exactly is changing the OS going to make cellphone browsing that noticeably faster?
Also...

One caveat: You'll have to use Google for navigation Do no Evil, eh?

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)

Re:Really.... how?

[bhtooefr]

Try putting Opera Mini on it.

Much faster.

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.

Re:AT&T?

[morgan_greywolf]

But that's different. Apple isn't Evil(tm) and Steve Jobs is a Demigod(tm). The iPhone is an innovative product that will revolutionize the world! Thanks to Jobs' powerful vision, we will all live in one happy Apple Utopia(tm)!

Am I getting the MacFanboySlashdotGroupThink(tm) thing right, guys?

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

[BuR4N]

Wonder if they plan to (with the assistance of the carrier) to serve up local ads based on where you are positioned when you make a search or accessing any other Google service.

In metro areas where the phone network is fine grained, the positioning is quite accurate.

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:Privacy

[Paradise Pete]

Next to the big ticket items such as our mortgage, the monthly cell bill is the single biggest expenditure in our budget for two people.

That I just don't get. Cell phone usage is very expensive and rarely actually necessary. There's not typically a need for people to be constantly accessible, it's just convenient.

Anybody in their twenties spending large amounts on things like cell phone bills is strangling their older self. When they are reaching retirement that compounded money will likely be rather important to future-old-guy. And he'll be wishing he hadn't made so many stupid phone calls.

I know it doesn't seem like it, but the future does eventually arrive, and one day you will actually be old and less capable of earning new money. You owe it to that version of you to take care of him now.

$100 a month spent as a 25 year-old steals (conservatively) $50,000 from the 65 year-old. Is it worth $50k to make those phone calls?

How open is open?

[KenRH]

The article states it will be linux-kernel + java, and of course it will be google servises as default for everyting. That is all fine.
But my question is; what if I want to use other services, will that be possible/difficult?

Re:How open is open?

[pavon]

Here is the actual Open Handset Alliance Website describing Android. Third party developers will have access to all the hardware capabilities and software libraries that the Google software has access to. So developers can do anything that the phone is technically capable of. I imagine it will be fairly easy for end users to load new software onto the phone.

We already have fifty! Finish one!

[LingNoi]

Isn't openMoko and others (something QT) developing an open platform mobile OS already? Why not just take what they've done and fork it or help out. What's the point in yet another open mobile platform when there are already people that have half finished implementations.

Oh I get it. This open platform would be closed from the public to tinker with and actually only be available to the mobile phone providers? Is that the idea?

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?

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:We already have fifty! Finish one!

[abes]

It isn't necessarily clear from a consumer's perspective why this is advantageous (I suspect we'll have to wait to see an actual product first).

However, there are some big benefits to both Google and the phone companies. For google, they get one step closer to world domination. They get a relationship with the phone companies, and the get to build a solid foundation for mobile devices (which will eventually cover more than just cell phones).

From the article, it sounds like they are planning on creating interfaces for their services. Like many of their services, part of the benefit they get is by simple collecting data on you. I wonder if they'll stick to web based (+Google Gears), or whether they'll make Java interfaces.

I suspect that they'll also create a new interface for Java (something along the lines of GWT, that uses native widgets). This might be a big boon to the cell phone companies which then only have to implement the specifics of the interface per new hardware device. I don't have a strong love of Java, but it's not a bad choice for mobile platforms -- especially considering there are chips have a hardware implementation of the JVM.

So the phone companies get: (1) software tools (Google doesn't have a long history of releasing development tools -- at least publicly, so it will be interesting to see how it actually fairs), (2) fast development of software with little to no licensing fees (OS, web browser, maps program, notepad?, etc.)

Also, an important note .. the partners are the companies that sell the phones, not make them. Which makes me suspect is seen as a good thing by the companies, as it allows them to tailor (i.e. control/limit use) services that they want. This can give them faster launch time for services, and a better way to annoy their users.

Again, no big win obvious for the consumer. However, I think in the end it will be seen by how good the interface is, how good the developer tools, and how things work together. The thing is, and a lot of people seem to forget this, is that phones are much more than just their specs. If the interface sucks, it doesn't matter the hardware, or what OS it's running. Likewise, if either the OS or hardware suck, you're equally screwed.

It will be interesting to see how OpenMoko fairs. I was a Linux user for a very long time. I remember when both KDE and GTK+ started off (and remember Enlightenment anyone?). I am therefore a bit skeptical when it comes to open source interfaces. Considering that they were developed by people on their free time for no money, they are great accomplishments. And at least the last time I used Linux and Windows at the same time (before XP), I could at least say that I preferred their interfaces over Windows any day.

HOWEVER, one of the big issues I observed was the inability to really create new ideas. The window managers seemed to always be a hybrid between Windows and OS X. I think a big reason for that is that innovation of that kind is really hard to do. It's hard because you have to come up with new ideas, and then you have to convince a bunch of people working on the same project that your idea makes sense. In large group projects, unless there is a clear leader, I think often the design ends up being a compromise between people. Which can make for robust interfaces, but not new.

Which is to say, I will be (happily) surprised if OpenMoko ends up giving new that other phone don't have. Google has the advantage of having large resources to throw at the problem, clear leadership on the interface issues, and a lot of people to help innovate. Of course, this still doesn't guarantee anything, but it is a long winded answer to why this is different.

Re:We already have fifty! Finish one!

[sciurus0]

Keep in mind that the quote about favoring Google applications and services is from the LiMo foundation, which is trying to produce their own Linux-based cellphone platform. The Open Handset Alliance claims the exact opposite: "Android does not differentiate between the phone's core applications and third-party applications. They can all be built to have equal access to a phone's capabilities providing users with a broad spectrum of applications and services. With devices built on the Android Platform, users will be able to fully tailor the phone to their interests. They can swap out the phone's homescreen, the style of the dialer, or any of the applications. They can even instruct their phones to use their favorite photo viewing application to handle the viewing of all photos."

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.

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:Need Women's Opinions

[somersault]

I'm a man, you insensitive clod!

What I want to know is

[biggyfred]

What does this potentially mean for joe users like myself as far as interoperability with linux programs? Does this mean a platform that will be friendlier with syncing? Does it mean a competitive alternative to the WM phone OS? I ask because I really don't know. Any insights on this one?

Re:AT&T?

[wolff000]

The only deal they have with Apple is for a single device. I don't see any good reason for AT&T not to join in. This is disappointing since they are my provider. If this platform turns out well I may be changing providers when it comes time to renew my contract. AT&T by the way has snubbed Google on most if not all of their devices. The phones they have come with pre-installed messenger apps and email notification and Google apps are not supported. The best you get is a download for gtalk but it is not integrated so you have to be "online" to use it. The others simple work without having to have the app open. AT&T has gone down hill since they started advertising fewest drop calls. That is when mine started dropping like mad and most of the people I know with service from them have had the same.

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:AT&T?

[elrous0]

Why is it that, every time I see a true Apple fanboy post here, I always get an image of James Earl Jones in "Conan the Barbarian," beckoning one of his followers to come to him by walking off a cliff?

My plan

[mikiN]

For all who are getting a little weary of all those great "Open Phone" initiatives being touted here and there without seeing much practical (affordable, stable, educational, worthwile) upshot coming of them, here's my plan.

1. Get a small (and I mean 'small', because it'll basically be the footprint of your phone-to-be), well-documented ARM development board, a small keyboard and a display.
2. Get one of them dirt-cheap GSM bugs (an online store recently mentioned on /. sells them for about $50 a pop)
3. Find out if it also supports a speaker-output, if and how programmable it is (some GSM bugs have an USB or serial interface on which you can send AT commands).
4. Hook it up to your board and test it.
5. Rig the OS for the board.
6. ???
7. Have Phun.

No brand tie-ins, undocumented hardware, binary blobs in the kernel, outdated development toolchains, whatever. Just dial and answer calls, damnit!

WIFI

[halfmanhalfpint]

So when Google gets into WIFI hotspots will they call them G-spots?

(oops) oh, so you want to browse teh intarwebs to?

[mikiN]

(scant reply to post below me)

If you want data too, skip the GSM bugs (well, maybe some have GPRS feature hidden in their firmware somewhere :-) ) and go for a full-feature GSM/GPRS module.

These guys sell one (not affiliated with them, just an example). It's got all you could ask for. Just add an antenna and a battery to your board and you're set.

Add everything up and you will end up half the price of an iPhone. Best of all, it will run _Your Stuff_, and _Your Stuff_ Only. (_Your_ as in: only the stuff that you decide to put on, no crapola, undocumented "features" or government mandated remotely 'provisioned' (i.e. push-downloaded onto your set while you're not looking) snoop vectors).

Sprint = WiMax

[Darth Cider]

Sprint has invested heavily in 2.5 GHz spectrum, with 85% coverage of U.S. households. Predicted speeds are 2-4 Mbp/s down and 1 Mbps up. Sprint's partnership with Google was announced in July. Quote: " '[T]his is not a cellular model,' said Atish Gude, Sprint's senior vice president for mobile broadband operations." At about the same time, Sprint announced a partnership with Clearwire, the other big WiMax spectrum-holder.

This could really put competitive pressure on telcos, especially if applications development leads to truly useful products. (Instead of silly little widgets.) Who wants a phone that can do less but costs more?

Re:Need Women's Opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, please leave age/sex/location? Kthx.

Why will this fail? Partners!

[mveloso]

I'm surprised that google is going the partner route. One thing that means is that the initiative is almost guaranteed to fail.

Why?

Because partners have their own agenda as to why they're partnering with Google.

Most carriers have long, and somewhat decent working relationships with their platform vendors. Apple comes out, and whacks all those relationships with a stick by producing a device that's arguably far superior to any US phone.

What are the other carriers to do? The phone OS's functionality is basically specified by the carrier, who picks and chooses various features depending on the phone's price point, how the phone will fit into the carrier's current phone mix, and the competition (not necessarily in that order). Google comes out with something that's "open" , and while it may be interesting, from a carrier point of view, that interest doesn't necessarily mean that it's going anywhere. Given how big Google is, the carriers may be on board just to sink the gPhone ship (welcome to corporate america).

Only time will tell. Will the gPhone be substantially better than Symbian etc?

more info...

[m2943]

From the video, it sounds like it's going to run X11, Gtk, Python, and all that good stuff.

Re:AT&T?

[djdavetrouble]

Which reminds me, a good application for this new phone would be a pop up laser that kills iphones dead to death.
You may be thinking , "why not just kill the owner and stomp on the iPhone?",
well, we want to see the owner break down in tears of course !

(this is all because I can't afford one, and am stuck with a stupid Sidekick, actually)

Give me it!

[Synthaxx]

Hey HTC, good to see you guys joining this historic venture!

Now please give us an android update ROM for your previous phones (universal, blueangel etc.) so we can all rid ourselves of the brain-leakingly-bad windows mobile.

Bonus quote of the day

Did anyone watch the http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gphone/googles-android-team-introduces-the-gphone-318878.php?autoplay=truedev movie?

I quote

To run X, To run GTK, To run a bunch of Unix command line software. I'm sure there's a good 5 people out there who read Slashdot who'll be all over that

Slashdot - we're in your phonez, and they know it!