Slashdot Mirror
Google's Open Source Mobile Platform
As expected, today Google took the wraps off of the gPhone (as the media have for months been referring to the rumored project). Google is "leading a broad industry alliance to transform mobile phones into powerful mobile computers," and will be licensing its software to all comers on an open source basis under the Apache license. (The Wall Street Journal's Ben Worthen demonstrates a miserable grasp of what "open source" means.) Google's US partners include Nextel and Sprint, but not AT&T nor Verizon. Phones will be available in the second half of 2008 — not the spring as earlier reports had speculated. News.com's analysis warns that Google won't take over the mobile market overnight, though they quote Forrester in the opinion that Google may be one of the three biggest mobile players after several years of shakeout.
So is it an actual product like an iPhone or JUST a platform like Java ME?
But will it run li... perhaps it will!
The game.
Goatse is announce its Open Sores Mobile Anus Platform featuring all of your favorite Slashdot editors
coming to a town near you soon!!
sign up now
Especially since AT&T has the iPhone, and Verizon just doesn't like anyone. Man, I have to find a different cell phone provider. Which are the least opressive?
622677120
A lot of thought must have went into the name of gPhone. Good job Google, we haven't seen any other [lowercase letter]phones before.
For the past 3 days I've been trying to modify and mess with my Motorola V3M Razor and it's a glitchy hell to try and do. Any phone that's more open than the current phone Nazis keep them is fine with me. All those dollar per ringtone and wallpaper people can shove it. Oh and especially that chick on late night TV commercials with the weird accent telling me I can win like $32,000 if I unscramble the word and text it in. I hope Google tracks her down and gets her deported. Now some of you may be asking, "Do you have anger issues with cell phone carriers and their associates" to which I say, "Don't you?"
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
You read the article I take it?
Viruses need to self replicate.
Social Enginnering 'OMG Download this cool app d00dz' doesnt count.
There arent any easy ways to get a phone to send a virus to another phone.
The easiest way is Bluetooth or Wifi and then its still a pain in the ass to make it spread.
With Bluetooth you first need to somehow get another phone to connect to you, without user intervention which is impossible (without flaws in the stack).
Then you need to send data to the other phone in a way which makes it execute the code. Also basically impossible.
Whats the chance of Google's code having fundamental bugs like that? Nil.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Let me be the first to say DUPE.
Come ON! I guess Slashdot's speed at getting the original post on the front page threw you guys off. Usually these things come at least a day after everyone else.
(Not that I don't prefer Slashdot. I flame because I care.)
For the past 3 days I've been trying to modify and mess with my Motorola V3M Razor and it's a glitchy hell to try and do. Any phone that's more open than the current phone Nazis keep them is fine with me.
You simply bought a bad phone. If you want an extensible or modifiable phone, you can already get a Palm, Nokia, or Windows Mobile GSM phone; those are quite extensible. The advantage of Android over those existing systems is that it's probably easier to program because it gives you a full set of desktop APIs.
I think thats a bit harsh. He didnt even use the term 'open source', he just said 'open' and clarified what he meant by it, which is that anyone can write software for it, which is true (contrast that to the pre-SDK iPhone). I think his concern is a valid one. You could imagine a malicious application on the phone that uses Bluetooth to detect other phones nearby and spam them with SMS messages or something. But I'm sure google's thought of this and there will be security mechanisms, permissions, signed applications with digital certificates etc. etc.
"This sig is copywritten by the owner and may not be copied in any form without expressed written consent."
Um... I don't think you understand copyright. It has to do with rights, not with writing. Unless you are trying to make a clever pun...
-b
myselfmusic
Is great. Phones using the gPhone system will be a security nightmare for corporations because, SURELY, will be virus/trojans/malware for them. Have to love how informed and objective is that opinion. Is not like there are no virus already for smartphones (some that were in the wild probably?) but a lot of technologies dont need to have so easy for that kind of malware. Maybe he is generalization about windows, that probably is the only thing he can think of about PC, and that should be already a nightmare for corporatiosn because the traditional "security" of it (something that is instead a beautiful dream when it comes to other OSs seems... at least compared with it).
And that things are open dont means that could not be signed, or have authoritative portals for that kind of 3rd party applications for those phones integrated with them by default (something like the applets for iGoogle page, or any linux distribution repository).
It's still just a client device. Somehow I was hoping for a much bolder stroke from google, like if they'd bought up that new spectrum, thrown in their own fiber backbone, and used it to change the cellco/customer relationship fundamentally. So long as they're working through the same old networks, the US cellphone industry will stay pretty much as-is.
...welcome our Android overlords.
Good. With that out of the way, I have to say I'm really looking forward to seing what Google can do in terms of getting functionality that has typically been the domain of "smartphones" that typically go for more than $200 w/ contract into the domain of phones that range from free to $50 (again w/ contract). With the minimum requirements set at an ARM9 @ 200MHz, this platform should allow open development on a huge new range of phones. I've already seen people earlier today making dire predictions about how Google is not going to be able to compete with the iPhone or how they prefer phones based on Symbian...and I think these people are completely missing Google's whole plan. I'm sure that initially phones based on Android will fall closer to the smartphone price range, but I can't help but think that eventually Google has to be aiming at the free-to-$50 phones. The "just a basic phone" market is an area in desperate need of a unifyied platform. Between lack of openness and the lack of a properly standardized Java implementation development for a wide range of low end phones is pretty much intractible. If Google can get Android onto low-cost phones *and* ensure "write once, run anywhere" between them I think they will have all the developer support they need. And since they already have the ears of the carriers (T-Mobile, Sprint, etc) they've already ensured they have a way to get this on shipping phones.
Why do I think low end phones are so important to these companies in the open handset alliance, when they don't have the profit margins of smartphones or "feature-phones"? Simple: Emerging markets. For billions of people around the world it is too expensive or impractical to own and maintain an Internet connected PC. It may be because of upfront cost or it may be a lack of Internet infrastructure in their area. For those people a phone will be their first (and maybe only) connection to the Internet. Right now the browsing experience on basic phones ranges from useless to unbearably slow and there is an impressive *lack* of easily accessible third party applications. If someone could change that it would add incredible value to that class of phones. So what's in it for Google? Making sure that their page is the first one a couple billion people see the first time they get on the Internet is probably worth it.
^I'm with stupid.^
The sound you just heard was Walt Mossberg giving Ben Worthen a right bitch-slapping.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Why? Because it doesn't fit with some particular definition you prefer to use? You do realize that the first computer viruses involved users sticking a floppy disk with a "cool app" in a drive and running the program which happened to be infected by the virus. In fact the traditional virus would attach itself to other programs and had zero to do with the infection vector.
The Morris Worm on the other hand had a lot more to do with automatically spreading itself.
I'm a lot more worried if this is the Canter & Siegel moment for cellphones. If so then I'm going to find those wankers at Google and shake my finger under their noses. And possibly pee on their sneakers.
Verizon just doesn't like anyone.
Well, that's convenient. I don't like Verizon.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
> Also, am I the only one that would think twice before purchasing a phone like this for concerns over viruses, etc?
I'm not sure why you think this platform is any more susceptible than any others (apart from Microsoft ones, of course). There are plenty of Linux phones already (mostly Motorola ones and in China, IINM).
Of course, you should think twice about purchasing any phone (or anything else, for that matter) for that reason, but I don't think this one will be any different to others.
Max.
It seems there won't be any gPhones until the second half of next year, so you have basically a year to think about it.
No, it's not at all harsh for what is supposed to be a professional writer. He starts off with an idea, a dangerous beginning in the first place, that there should be some sort of software security specifically for interfacing phones and PCs in the office. A good idea (perhaps even a profitable one) and doesn't think it through at all. He starts off, not with the good idea, but with a broad, one-sided assumption that all open applications are prone to security issues simply because they are open. If he were somewhere in the ballpark range of competent he would have reversed the two topics and stated that we need security software for smart phone to PC interfaces and that the result of not developing it could be rogue open applications creating a security nightmare. But he didn't. He speculated on something that went well in hand with his idea, but he didn't have a clue about it worked, and also didn't do any research on it to get more knowledge. He even pretty much says all this (sans admitting that he doesn't know what he's talking about and didn't do any research, but that much is very obvious) in his rehash he added to the article to address the people who e-mailed him about his mistake. The update is almost as large as the article itself. I'd say he pretty much deserves to be criticized on his grasp of Open Source as it is demonstrated by this article.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
I love how in the reply he inserts the word "could" as if he used it the first time around. He did not. He clearly stated it would happen.
Is this how tech articles get written? The writer spews a load of bollocks and then backs out of his own assertions later by saying he merely thought they "could" happen?
Liberty.
I don't have any experience with Sprint but T-Mobile is probably the best in terms of being "open" of the big four mobile operators in the US. For example, until a few years ago you could get free web browsing through them by exploiting a hole in their free WAP access service. Instead of just shutting the hole and ignoring the people who didn't want to pay for a full Internet plan, they decided to shut it while transitioning to tiered Internet plans so people who didn't need to tether could still get the full web on their phones at a reduced price. Most phones also apparently will still let you tether with their cheap service, though T-Mobile will cut off your access if you use too much bandwidth while doing this.
They use GSM which is a big plus if you want to buy your own phone. I haven't yet needed to because, while all of their phones that I've owned were locked and had T-Mobile logos and "premium services" everywhere, none of them were in any way crippled like Verizon is infamous for doing. I even added a custom ringtone to one of my phones using only a standard USB cable and the manufacturer's ringtone transfer software. Their coverage is pretty good, the only time I've had trouble with it was when I was traveling through West Virginia which is a hard area to cover with cell phone service anyways. Their biggest problem is that they don't yet have any 3G service available anywhere (they're waiting for the spectrum they bought for it to become available for their use) and their customer service is nothing to write home about, but that's pretty much par for the course in this industry.
What if this signature were clever?
So I suppose instead of hot spots if you have a gPhone you look for gSpots....
We know that there are certain security issues that google does not worry about.
We know that google will put feature about security.
We also know that google is avoiding those with experience and instead hiring and training those who will tow the party line.
None of this seems particularly hopeful or optimistic. If a device is discoverable, it is easy enough hook up to and transfer a payload. In public areas I usually see at least a couple discoverable cell phones. Even if bluetooth security is working, people will pass trojans to one another, just like they did in the 90's. Trojans do count, and are the primary threat that must be defended aginst. To use and old metaphor, google is allowing a new generation of unsophisticated users to gain access to powerful and potentially dangerous applications. Not so bad in itself, but bad as google is a very young company, who seems to be blind to the benefits of experience, so appears to be ignoring the lessons of 20 years of security experience.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Bent Cardan says: Too bad about the gphone. Why can't they make their operating system open and protected like OS X?
Google have been running (on a small scale) something conceptually similar in Japan with one of the major carriers -- KDDI -- for a while now. KDDI have integrated google search as the default search system, and google mail as one of the "official" mail options for that service. In effect there is a KDDI co-branded Google.
/.
As far as I see it, Google mobile platform is the same thing inside an OS package. The platform will be "open" to carriers and makers who are participants of the Google alliance. However, nowhere in the Google materials have i seen a commitment to make the phone open to the outside developers. Nor does it make any sense for them to open it.
Depending on how it is rolled out, we may see some sources, but likely we'll never have a chance to apply a patch to the OS actually in the device, or build an application outside of whatever sandbox they put in the OS. There will likely be APIs and widgets tied to the google servers and services, but hardly much freedom beyond that.
Obviously that is very good for google, if they pull it off. It is less obviously good for the carriers or the makers, but the carriers will eventually agree to this in exchange for revenue-sharing, and because they have nowhere to go, and the makers will be arm-twisted by the carriers. The end result may be that only the "google internet" will be available on the mobile phones that use android. Sorta like an enhanced WAP, imode or EZ web.
I see no problem with this if one is very-very happy about storing their data on a google server and accessing it via the google phone OS. But I wouldn't call it free in any of the senses of that word we're accustomed to on
But I guess we'll see what it really is when they release the SDK.
What a load of spin.
and your trying to tag google as irresponsible because people might catch trojans? welcome to the fucking world. nothing on earth is going to prevent people willingly running annakornakova.jpg.exe.
to suggest google is somehow negligent in this area is too retarded for words.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
There is so much complaining about cell carriers, I feel that anyone who is happy with theirs must speak up for the sake of balance and perspective.
I signed on with Cingular maybe 4 or 5 years ago. I make phone calls and text messages with my phone and I've never had a problem with the company. I'm on my third phone and they've all worked very well and have nice interfaces (I admit the verizon interfaces look like sh*t though).
Whenever I've called with a problem customer service has been pretty helpful. I've never had a billing issue though I don't change my damn plan every other month either. I even broke my phone halfway through my contract due to my own fault (threw it against the wall), and they gave me a new one as long as I renewed.
What the F should I be doing with my phone? Somehow everyone here hates their cell carrier, but I've completely missed out on this bitchfest...and it would be great to join. You might complain about how expensive ringtones are, but how pathetic is it to even _want_ a custom ringtone ?! I wish that no one could even turn the ringer ON. (I can upload my own ringtones to the phone for free, btw). I might complain about how much they charge to send pictures (I can download those off the phone for free too), but it doesn't come up since I don't feel the need to constantly verify to my friends that I'm still ugly. Unfortunately coverage has actually improved quite a bit, so I can't complain about that as much either.
Eep. That's painful. I would have already spent $120 on data charges if I had to put up with those data rates in the past 2 days... I've only had my current phone for that long, too. Ouch.
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
I don't think they'll take over the mobile market overnight, either. I think it'll take at least a few weeks.
After all, who would want an open standard phone where you can install your own software and not be charged a buck for a text message or a ringtone? Who the fuck would want that?
expandfairuse.org
Did you miss the whole Sprint buying Nextel thing? They are Sprint/Nextel. Is the point to list them twice so it seems like more wireless carriers are on board?
What does this mean for OpenMoko?
"I can't buy want I want because it's free. Can't be what they want because I'm me." -Corduroy, Pearl Jam
This guy is so clueless, his Betamax VCR is still flashing 12:00...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think that's more him lacking any grasp of technology at all, not uncommon for the wall street journal (or most any news outlet). Out of the box any "gPhone" is going to have about as many security issues related to user-downloadable software as a Blackberry. Just because the operating system is open source in no way implies that the stock firmware shipped by the handset manufacturers or the carriers is going to let the phone do anything that it isn't "supposed" to do. It'll just be another phone running Java apps like all the other phones running Java apps.
Your average user isn't going to know or care about updating the operating system on their phone. What an idiot!
The Farewell Tour II
Sprint and Nextel is one company. Sprint acquired Nextel.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
First, it's a blatant rewrite in at least a few places -- while I saw what he was trying to say, maybe, it was worded so horribly wrong that I'd be amazed if it wasn't intentional.
"Google's operating system is open, meaning anyone can write software for it."
Yeah, that's not at all implying that it's about an open platform (vs iPhones locked down one), and not about an open source platform.
But more importantly, he's assuming that cell phone viruses are somehow new with this phone, and that they will somehow cause problems for a corporate network, and that the way to deal with it is anti-virus.
This is wrong on all counts. Cell phone (and mobile) viruses are not new, though they've never been widespread. They generally don't jump to desktop machines -- the corporate network should be safe. And generally, no one's stupid enough to run anti-virus software on Linux, and very few on the Mac -- even on Windows, the usefulness of anti-virus is questionable.
So, your IT guy might freak out -- but really, you've got a much higher risk of getting hit by some road warrior bringing his laptop back into the company network (from Starbucks or whatever).
So that's two for two. Spam him again. Any chance he'll write an update that isn't pure bullshit?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The first viruses spread themselves by infecting other files which were then moved by the users.
That fits the definition.
Social Engineering attacks cannot be stopped. People are extremely stupid and will do what a popup tells them to do.
IMHO if someone willingly installs malware on their computer, its their own fault.
Viruses which spread themselves are much more scary however especially the good ones.
Take a phone, stick in a 16gig ram chip; And you have a development environment that you can take anywhere. The Boss says, "Oh no! do not plug that thing into our network!", you say, "OK", and then email the solution to the boss, and yourself. Open platform implies that the bad guys can do some goofy things. But it also means that salvation is only a /. away. There is one problem, and that is time in between charges. Maybe a Solar Powered Charger, and I can finally develop,(software), at the beach! (memo to self, get the water proof gPhone)
It's Toe the line. As in "put your foot right there and don't cross over." The way you wrote it they'd have to be dragging around some festive rope or something.
I dunno... it really strikes me a lot like a number of the software standard alliances that Sun and the other Unix vendors tried to put together or participate in over the years. They always full apart because nobody's interests aligned in any lasting way and everybody had a bad case of NIH ("Not Invented Here").
I'm not saying none have worked, but I am asking honestly - how many technology projects with even half as many partners have actually succeeded in producing a stable platform? It seems to me that the truly successful open source projects have always been independent of any corporate interests - Linux succeeded in making a standard Unix-like platform where years of Dec / Sun / IBM / HP alliances failed and the business interests that have been successful with Linux have done so by learning to support efforts where there was already community leadership instead of trying to dictate a direction to the platform. Netscape did okay, I guess, but that wasn't a big business alliance and hasn't exactly been an exemplar of efficient platform production.
I'm just not seeing that this is a big deal, except that everybody thought that something much more exciting was actually going to happen.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
"I've read through the comments and most people seem to think I'm saying something I wasn't trying to say. That's my fault for writing sloppy." You're writing for the Wall Street Journal but excuse yourself with "don't mind me, I'm a lousy journalist"?
Sorry buddy, that pony ain't gonna fly. You don't get where you are with sloppy writing, you don't get the luxury of that excuse.
"I'm an ignorant arsehole too lazy to actually write a proper piece for this rag"? Sure, I'd buy that.
Both Nokia and Google have announced iPhone-killers and neither of them is going to ship one unit before the second half of 2008. Microsoft will need at least that long to shrink Surface down to the size of a Zune.
Nokia is promising touchscreens and multimedia and Google is promising open source and the Web. Like we already have in our iPods. And they're going to get that to us real soon now. Like in another year from now.
It shows how miserable Palm has become that Google didn't even buy them. Not even for the name.
You will have to forgive me for it being 7 AM, I may not be as irrational as normal ;)
:)
How did this guy get a job as writer for the "Business Technology" of "The Wall Street Journal" ? It's fairly obvious he doesn't know anything about technology. Open? I do not really expect the gPhone to be open to consumers like a linux PC is open to it's user. A bit more customizable then Windows Mobile, likely, but not anywhere near OpenMoko. The point it seems he is trying to make is that the phone is open in the way that everyone can make software for it. HTC makes devices running Windows Mobile I have absolutely no trouble writing applications for. And indeed, Windows Mobile isn't really open, but if you take a stroll down PPC hacker lane, you'll find that very little is sacred and most things (outside of normal application scope) are not that hard to tap into. It would not be difficult (at least for me, and I'm not a _seasoned_ WM developer) to write virus like or security breaching applications for those phones, and they've been around for what, 5 or 6 years now?
I guess (and purely a guess, as I haven't even been to the US) for you Americans the real problem is BlackBerry. It steals a lot of the thunder of the current top of the line mobile phones, because it offers similar functionality (be it in an outdated, obsolete and rediculously expensive way), but it is one of the dominant brands. Over here in Europe, where I live, carriers are nice, and everybody and their grandma has a WM-PPC; if not their primary pub-phone, then their work-related phone. I'd be surprised if 1 out of a 100 even ever heard of BlackBerry
In the context of TFA, there is nothing new or even relatively new to the gPhone. I would almost go as far as to say there is nothing 'new' about the gPhone at all - yeah, let's get a bunch of companies together and form and alliance with all the control, then call it open, while it probably isn't really open for end-users, just for the buzz-factor. It's not like we don't have enough 'open' mobile device alliances already. And Google really does seem to be becoming the new microsoft, it's eerie! I Not that I think Windows Mobile is the best thing since sliced bread, performance/power wise it's way lacking compared to Symbian, but nevertheless, it is a really nice platform.
Obligatory OpenMoko disclaimer; sure OpenMoko may be the shit, but the device simple doesn't fit my hardware needs. It's so horribly two years ago.
Google definitly gets /. props for mentioning the "open source" buzzword, but my question is: open to who?
/. At least, I haven't seen evidence of that yet.
I think a lot of Google/Linux fanboys right now are probably foaming at the mouth with visions of linux running on a phone that they have root access to, installing apps whenever they want, downloading music for free, and giving the middle finger to the carriers.
I don't think that's what Google is doing here. I think Google is creating an "open source" operating system, open to the carriers to do what they want. In all likelihood, it will be "closed" by the time you get it. It will still be locked to the carrier, you'll still be charged for ringtones, and you will still need to buy an outrageous dataplan. I predict this will end up a lot like Symbian or Windows Mobile. The only difference being that there won't be a licensing fee to use it from Google. It may be Free As In Beer, but not to the consumer.
I don't think this deserves the "open source" moniker that we throw around here on
-David
More information? I'd be curious to read this - last I'd heard they'd deployed to at least a dozen big cities (yeah, yeah, I know they're wayyyyy behind the eight ball, but still)...?
He realized later that he just assumed in his first post that Google's software for mobile phones was insecure. The picture included in the original article adds weight to this argument. And then he tires to defend himself with another interpretation of his article. He's a troll.
Sudheer Satyanarayana
www.techchorus.net
Well if it does end up being called a gPhone, I reckon it'll hit Apple right in the iSpot.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
anyone who refers to programmers of virus/malware whathaveyou should go back to the 2nd grade. Why does everything have to be good guys and bad guys. What if good guys wrote some virus or worm to take down a corporation that was doing something unreasonable! is that so bad? yes and no, its grey! bad guys! I will say this, if you look at comic books and movies in various countries. Almost every story in America is good vs evil. And in a lot of other places in the world the stories are usually more real and less dichotomous, for the most part.
Balderdash!
First, look at the guys forming the "alliance": Broadcom, NVIDIA, Wind River, who are all acting towards closing linux (Wind River was even a vocal opponent to linux some times ago). Furthermore, look at why they choose Android's licence:
Why did you pick the Apache v2 open source license? Apache is a commercial-friendly open-source license. The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community. Because these innovations and differentiated features can be kept proprietary, manufacturers and mobile operators are protected from the "viral infection" problem often associated with other licenses.
There. You can dream all you want about an open platform, like your traditional Fedora or Ubuntu desktop, but that won't be it. Go for Openmoko instead.
I couldn't find the cost for Windows Mobile but for Symbian it's as low as $2.50 (used to be up to $7.25).
(from http://www.symbian.com/news/pr/2006/pr20063401.html)
Karma: Good! Napster: Baad!
i say neither pish nor posh but woot and woot !
I was wondering what had prompted Apple to suddenly go out and publish the iPhone SDK. Now I get it - they don't want to risk letting developers flee to Android and miss potential killer apps.
Now let's see what comes out of Android. It can't be any worse than most current phone OSs anyways.
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Ben Worthen - "That's my fault for writing sloppy". And another irony meter explodes...
I have to agree with Mr.Radar. After my service contract was up with Sprint I bought an unlocked GSM phone and switched to T-Mobile. I've been much happier ever since. In addition, the vicious rumors of 'coverage problems' some would have you believe seem to be greatly exaggerated (then again I'm in the NYC market which is probably serviced well due to its size). There was only one location in the last two years where I got no signal, Lake Placid NY, but free ring-tones, wallpapers, fully-functioning bluetooth and the ability to install 3rd party Java apps makes that easily tolerable.
I don't think it's his understanding that is Worthen's problem. More the fact that he posesses all the style and journalistic finesse of a 12 year old. I haven't seen such poor writing from a professional journalist since they let Ann Coulter write a column.
OK, OK, I know we're only supposed to speculate here without actually knowing anything. But if you want to know about it, it's here. It does use a Linux kernel (how then can it be 'Apache Licence'?). Above the kernel it is running a custom virtual machine, which doesn't seem to be a JVM. 'Android', as well as being the name of the project, is the name of a company bought by Google last year which specialised in PDA operating systems; The SDK will be ready for download on 12th November.
Before they were Android, the people behind the product were Danger, and produced a phone/PDA called HipTop, which was largely Java based.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Well, cell phones have been stuck in a kind of cold war feature stand-off between Sony Ericsson, Nokia, Motorola and others for many years now, and while the phones have gotten more features and ever more buttons, they tend to be overly complex and buggy. I guess somewhere along the way, phone developers lost track of the users' needs and got bogged down in a Microsoft-like mindset of feature masturbation: to cram as many useless features and gadgets in there as possible. GUess what? People don't want more features. They want real usability, and those concepts are usually mutually exclusive, something the dominant players today will never understand. I hope the Android (and the iPhone SDK) will tackle this and not slowly fizzle out like the Palm OS, Symbian and Windows Mobile are doing. I hope Google et al can do this in a user-centric OS, and not create another feature hell and tarball of bugs. As we all know, the internets are just a series of tubes, and it's all about connecting the wires right...
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
I have been thinking about the use of Linux on smartphones and one of the conclusions that I came to, rightly or wrongly, is that there is a major licensing problem in the interface between the GPL software in GNU/Linux and the hardware and software employed in a telephony module, to the point that there is a fear that GPL software touching a telephony module would cause the telephony software to become unacceptably open, either from the point of view of business or regulatory authorities, and this is why there is no POTS option for Nokia's Internet Tablet range, and indeed why the iPhone is locked down. OpenMoko has broken this taboo, and will be a major advance in opening the telephony market *if* it passes FCA and European certification - there is no guarantee of this.
To this end I believe that the Google telephony platform will, in its early stages at least, be a GNU/Linux OS running on an ARM processor or similar with a closed interface to the telephony systems, and with Google Gears and a Java for Mobile Telephony, which may or not be the current Mobile Java, as the developer interfaces. There would still be no direct access to the phone module, and only the only open network access would be over wi-fi unless Google manages to obtain its own pieces of the spectrum across the world or can form deals with phone providers... hmm, does that sound familiar?
Right now in the UK for example, I can only see one provider even considering allowing the sort of access that Google would want, and that's the one that has no long distance infrastructure of its own and has just introduced a Skype phone that works over its network, partially to reduce its interconnect costs.
Then again, as most European 3G licences will be about halfway through their life when the OS becomes available, and with the licence holders finally coming to terms with the fact that uptake is being delivered by access to data rather than blocky film clips, the promise of a share of Google's revenues might be enough to encourage the phone providers to open up - a little at least.
This is all empirical but it's what the current state of telephony looks like from the view of an interested spectator. Feel free to correct me.
Symbian and the iPhone are successful because they don't try to fit an inappropriate interface to the devices. Obligatory OpenMoko disclaimer; sure OpenMoko may be the shit, but the device simple doesn't fit my hardware needs. It's so horribly two years ago. It's something which has the potential to revolutionise particularly business applications and processes.
Deleted
From my mobile running Windows Mobile!!
(unfortunately it took so long to load this page I had to post before the page finished loading...)
Yeah, no kidding, and it didn't stop. The word is "sloppily", dear Mr Worthen.
[ think ]
He isn't talking about open source. He's talking about it being an open platform like Windows or BSD instead of locked down like game consoles are and the iPhone tried to be. Is the difference really that incomprehensible?
The big announcement is vapoware? This shit didn't fly very far in the late 90's, and its not going to make it further than 2 years of promises. Google's bubble is going to burst... oh? Did you think their stock would continue to rise ad infinitum? Nope, sell now, it'll be down to $40 before 2010.
The Admin and the Engineer
I agree with you but that's true now. Next year or in some time more, phones will be used as computers: emails and internet will be normal. In that scenario, you'll receive email bombs with trojans or virus, or you'll get virus using the browser (in the same way you can get a virus using IExplorer). I don't mean that I wouldn't buy a phone with this problems but the threats exist as in ordinary computers. Pipaman
#include libgphone
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
So, no iPhone for me because I'm not on ATT (Verizon has much better coverage where I am, and first and foremost I need a phone to make calls). And now no Google software-powered goodness, either? Good grief. Ugly retarded phones, and no glitz features at all - way to go Verizon!
By that standard, then, we should be seeing a slough of malware for Windows Mobile phones, too -- they're every bit as open (in this sense) as Android. We haven't.
No, the WSJ author is an idiot on this.
well. that wsj article gave me a chuckle.
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
And I wouldnt care to have service from them anyway. Oh, and point of fact, "Nextel and Sprint" are the same company now.
From TFA:
You know what?
On my T-Mobile RAZR I'm able to just plug it in and access the microSD card as a removable drive, so I could just drop an mp3 into the Music folder in Windows Explorer (or in Metacity or Konqueror or Finder if I wanted to), then from the phone itself, copy it to internal memory, and use it as a ringtone. No need to shorten it to 30 seconds or use any special software.
for writing sloppily.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Not in the U.S.
Perhaps you're thinking of AT&T? They managed to secure some UMTS spectrum in the preexisting PCS bands and are slowly rolling it out.
T-Mobile was not - they're waiting for the 1700 MHz band to free up to roll out UMTS.
Unfortunately, very little hardware supports/will support UMTS1700.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I was just about to post along these lines, but you beat me to it.
Anyone can write apps for Windows Mobile. In fact, with the exception of OpenMoko, until Android was announced it was actually the most open of the phone platforms. Motorola's Linux implementations are horribly locked down (I wonder if they will figure out a way to do the same for Android?), and I've heard Symbian is really anal about application signing. Windows Mobile will warn you the first time you try to run an unsigned app, but will remember your response for that application afterwards (until the app's checksum changes, then it will prompt again.)
This makes me wonder, will Google take any sort of a stand against Tivoization? Most Windows Mobile devices default to being locked down such that they will only allow signed OS images to be loaded and booted (until the device is cracked, fortunately it seems to be pretty easy to crack the bootloaders, HTC devices seem to never last more than a week or so after release before HardSPL is ported to the new unit.), will things be the same for Android? Open source is pretty pointless if the hardware will only flash/load/boot a signed OS image.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Sorry, show me the numbers sunshine, I did not know the iPhone was the dominant phone in any market, but you may have details of this.
If anything the iPhone is trying to play the Nokia killer role, time shall tel but most likely they will remain a niche player in the telephony side at least (the lack of features is astounding and public in Europe and Asia are used to more sophisticated devices).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I am what one may call a fonephreak. I have boxes of old cell phones , and even an Iridium. My N95 is far and away the greatest mobile device I have ever had. In combination with the SW-8U folding keyboard, I can even do online banking, and with Gizmo Project, I use is as my WiFi phone at home.
Yes the iPhone is pretty, but I use my N95 for business so much, it has not only replaced my POTS phone, but most of the functions of my laptop.
I even do my online banking on it.
Oh, and it runs putty as well , so when i need to fix something at home while away, I just pop open the folding keyboard and go at it.
N95 roolz
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I'll admit that the popularity of a program does influence how secure it appears. There will be more attempts at cracking the dominant OS.
But, with an open source program, the more popular (and "standard") it is, the more attempts will be made at fixing it, also.
And, so far, I've seen nothing to convince me that a piece of software cannot be both ubiquitous and bulletproof.
Let me put it this way...
How many times has Google.com been cracked?
Now, yes, the same arguments could be applied to the iPhone SDK -- but I'd think they'd be applied to iPhones, period, no matter if you're allowed to run third-party apps on them. After all, being popular means someone will find a way to crack the iPhone's Safari and release a worm onto an unsuspecting Windows-based corporate network!!!
And I would have to laugh at any admin who starts banning either gPhone or iPhone. Security is about economics, not paranoia. Otherwise, you may as well unplug everything, including power, just to be safe! (Except, you won't be.)
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!