Predicting The Google Phone

An anonymous reader writes "Inside The GPhone: What To Expect From Google's Android Alliance (an article at Information Week) argues that you can predict what the GPhone(s) will look like very easily, simply by listing the technologies of the Open Handset Alliance partners. According to this theory, the phone will have a user interface from Sweden's TAT, VCAST-like multimedia capabilities powered by PacketVideo Corp., and an iPhone-like capacitive touch-screen, from Synaptics. Hardware-wise, it'll probably be built around Texas Instruments' OMAP processors, which enable a single-chip world phone (GSM/EDGE/GPRS). "While the GPhone won't be revolutionary, it'll connect the pieces in pleasantly new ways," argues author Alex Wolfe. Should Apple be concerned?"

Comments

well

[moogied]

It has a web browser that can play youtube..

and its can be on sprint?

Yes, Apple should become concerned.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

We should buy Google stocks now before it's too late. Don't miss the boat!

Re:well

[Andy Dodd]

Any Windows Mobile device (They exist for all carriers) can already do this.

Re:well

[openldev]

I wish I would have done that 2 years ago ...

Re:well

[moogied]

yes but windows mobile is not exactly "User friendly". Its still marketed more towards CEO's and always gotta be in contact buiness type. They have not made a push to make it "cool" like google undoubtedbly will.

Re:well

[NeuralSpike]

The biggest advantage the iPhone has is its ability to be used at any wifi hotspot for free internet access. The gPhone cannot match this capability since it can only be used at g-spots, which are supposed to be difficult to find.

Re:well

[ClassMyAss]

FWIW, people haven't exactly been blown away by the user-friendliness of Android's interface, either, at least as used inside the emulator - now maybe a lot of this is because it's awkward to simulate mobile phone controls on a PC screen, but I'm not entirely sure. The difference, of course, between Android and Windows Mobile is that the current incarnation of Android is as an early prototype, not a finished product; Google has been pretty clear about the fact that they are actively seeking input from the public, so it's likely that the product will improve substantially before it actually hits phones. That's one reason it's very smart to release things and collect input for a while before they are used. Anyone that played with early Sugar (the OLPC OS) prototypes and has since gotten to use an actual release candidate XO knows that even over the course of several months, the entire feel of an OS can change considerably if it is under active development, especially if the developers actually listen to people trying to use it.

I agree with the "cool" comment - if Google does this right, they'll push an iPhone-style campaign and make sure everyone wants one months before they are even out.

Re:well

[moogied]

Thats the big difference, is that windows took something that natively works on a PC, and pushed it to a cell. It works, and people are familiar with it because it is a PC.. but it doesn't work RIGHT. Google though made something for the cell, then is releasing it on PC for development(for the moment) and will push it to cells..

Re:well

[ozmanjusri]

windows mobile is not exactly "User friendly"

Talk about understatement!

That's like saying Cray's XT4 is not exactly pocketable...

Re:well

[phaggood]

> What will Google's phone look like?

It bloody well better look like this. Geez, Google, got NIH syndrome much? Get a clue! Do the final 10-20% ON SOMETHING OPEN SOURCE and stop reinventing the bloody wheel already.

I think I can answer that one...

[tgatliff]

No. Apple should not be concerned because they are great are doing hardware... :-)

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Apple should not be concerned because they are great are doing hardware... :-) Great are Apple doing! With you agreed I am! Hardware Apple excelling is! :-)

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[snoyberg]

No. Apple should not be concerned because they are great are doing hardware... :-)

I think Apple should be slightly worried. However, I think the same who will buy no mp3 player by an iPod will stick with the iPhone for the same reason: the bling factor.

I, on the other hand, didn't want an iPhone and do want a gPhone. I don't know how much of an overlap there is between the two groups, but my guess is its smaller than you'd think at first guess.

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[bkr1_2k]

I, on the other hand, didn't want an iPhone and do want a gPhone.

My question would be why do you want something you haven't even seen yet? For all we know the thing will be a monstrosity that doesn't work well anywhere. Are you simply saying you want one because it's Google or is there reason, other than a different form of fanboyism?

I'm not saying there's something wrong with supporting a company you like, just wondering whether there's some justification for your statement other than liking said company.

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[snoyberg]

I, on the other hand, didn't want an iPhone and do want a gPhone.

My question would be why do you want something you haven't even seen yet? For all we know the thing will be a monstrosity that doesn't work well anywhere. Are you simply saying you want one because it's Google or is there reason, other than a different form of fanboyism?

I'm not saying there's something wrong with supporting a company you like, just wondering whether there's some justification for your statement other than liking said company.

You are absolutely correct, the way I stated that sounded very much like fanboyism. Let me rephrase: before the iPhone came out, I was not interested in it at all based on the hype I'd heard surrounding it. By comparison, the gPhone sounds like something that I would want based on the hype.

Fair enough? If you're wondering, the main thing I like is the openness. Even if I wish they supported a language besides Java, it's still better than nothing.

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[Cajun Hell]

*sigh* This will eventually result in a new stupid meme. Apple will come out with a product, and Slashdotters will ask, "But does it run gPhone?"

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[bkr1_2k]

Excellent response. It just seemed odd to me that it sounded like you had no other reason. I suppose I could have rightly suspected the open-initiative thing if I had bothered to consider it carefully.

I have to agree with that, and I'm interested to see what happens, despite the fact that I'm not very likely to buy one of these phones any time soon.

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[SpaceLifeForm]

It will not have to be an Apple product.

Give me a day or two, and I'll try it out.

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[edmicman]

No. Apple should not be concerned because they are great are doing hardware... :-)

I think Apple should be slightly worried. However, I think the same who will buy no mp3 player by an iPod will stick with the iPhone for the same reason: the bling factor.

Ugh...my head hurts!

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[Cajun Hell]

You bastard.

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[senor_burt]

Have you considered OpenMoko? The Neo1973 is real phone. Here's a feature:feature comparison with the iPhone. Very competitive in my opinion. And yes, it runs Linux.

In all honesty, I'm due for a new phone now (I've got a discontinued SmartPhone - the Sierra Wireless Voq - which I picked up cheap from Tigerdirect - appx. $100), and am having some windows issues with it (needs occasional rebooting, doesn't always answer calls, has periodic bizarre bugs, like dropping me into flight mode spontaneously...). I don't know which I prefer - the OpenMoko Neo1973, or the yet-to-be-announced real gPhone/Android device.

Google will certainly have a bigger user community developing apps. And I'm a bit more confident in the hardware support. But it's a tough decision.

Re:I think I can answer that one...

[D4MO]

There will be support for other lanugages. Google created their own open source VM called Dalvik:
 
"So, Android uses the syntax of the Java platform (the Java "language", if you wish, which is enough to make java programmers feel at home and IDEs to support the editing smoothly) and the java SE class library but not the Java bytecode or the Java virtual machine to execute it on the phone (and, note, Android's implementation of the Java SE class library is, indeed, Apache Harmony's!)" http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/
 
I expect to see a c# compiler (http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Nov-13-1.html) and others in due course.

I didn't think it was possible...

[SuperBanana]

...but as of a day or two ago, I am more disgusted to hear the words "google" and "phone" than "iPhone."

In fact, in general, I'm tired of hearing about Google. (Filterable) category, please.

Re:I didn't think it was possible...

[jo42]

Some of us got tired of hearing "Google" all the time well over a year ago...

The only thing that they have done well is figured out how to make very many $$$$$$ by being advertising middlemen on the Internet. Otherwise they are a gaggle of high-educated idiots.

Re:I didn't think it was possible...

[enomar]

Yeah, all they've done is create a company with a market cap over 200 billion. They're dumb. You could have done that. What you're forgetting is that "being advertising middlemen" required them to create a huge, scalable infrastructure that spans the globe. Then they had to figure out the distributed software architecture to make it all work. I love when people say Google doesn't innovate or that they buy all their products. What few people realize is that Google is the Walmart of technology. They've innovated by engineering massively scalable, highly distributed systems AND they've figured how to incorporate dozens of great applications into that infrastructure. They have essentially streamlined the "information supply chain". What have you done?

Re:I didn't think it was possible...

[rtb61]

Never confuse the gullibility of investors with the true worth of a company. Google has two successful products, search and it's shares. It is also quite a successful viral marketer, but in the case of mobile phones it will not really help.

PS, if you wont to promote google you shouldn't associate it with wallmart, cheap, nasty, and scams it's employees but then again ;).

Re:I didn't think it was possible...

[Anonymous Coward]

Never confuse the gullibility of investors with the true worth of a company. Google has two successful products, search and it's shares. It is also quite a successful viral marketer, but in the case of mobile phones it will not really help. Sounds a lot like Apple.

5 years behind apple

[backslashdot]

According to some patents, Apple may be working on cooler stuff like pressure sensitive screens etc.

Also, the resolution of most Open Handest/android applications are going to be for QVGA screens since that is what the SDK encourages. It will look like shrunken crap on VGA or WVGA screens, so dont expect any handset vendors to make decently priced phones above QVGA.

So, in short, the iPhone 2 will be 4 years ahead of any Google Open Handset Alliance phone.

-Johan

PS> Maybe google should have made this platform good for non mobvile phone stuff too like for in cars or whatever

Re:5 years behind apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure thing. It's not big deal to throw on a car/elevator/escalator/microwave-oven api. Can't believe those tards didn't think of that to begin with. It case you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic.

Re:5 years behind apple

[JCSoRocks]

Actually his suggestion isn't that unreasonable... Most car nav systems aren't that different than google maps. You get directions, business locations, etc. From my understanding the phone is supposed to natively run Google apps - including Google Maps. What would make it so impossible to adapt the software to work with a different sized touchscreen and just use Google Maps?

P.S. Are we going to have a freaking article about "the google phone" every day until it comes out? There have been a ton of them. It's getting ridiculous.

Re:5 years behind apple

[jrumney]

Most iPhone applications will look just as much like on future VGA or WVGA models, since the current hardware encourages developers to develop for HVGA. At least with Android, developers are aware that they are designing for a variety of hardware, and those with half a brain will avoid sizing things in pixels where possible.

Re:5 years behind apple

[0xdeadbeef]

If only it weren't so hard to write applications that scale intelligently with screen size... or use the switch that tells the emulator to run in the same dimensions as the iPhone and a gazillion other devices. Maybe when the iPhone SDK is released we can steal their secrets of basic algebra.

Why did an Android thread turn into a ridiculous predictions from Apple zealots thread?

Re:5 years behind apple

[Vulcann]

According to some patents, Apple may be working on cooler stuff like pressure sensitive screens etc ...So, in short, the iPhone 2 will be 4 years ahead of any Google Open Handset Alliance phone.

Apple may hold patents on these but if you look at the present state of things, the iPhone is far from revolutionary. In terms of pure technical specs its probably outdone by other phones on the market which are cheaper too. Even mp3 players for instance existed way before the iPod came out.

Apple does make they're stuff look pretty. But I wouldn't count on it being technically superior than say, the topline smartphones on the market. Also the android SDK only encourages QVGA use, it doesn't demand it. Also considering Google has only just released the SDK nothing says they wont adapt to larger screens later.

Re:5 years behind apple

[daviddennis]

There is a rumour, which I hope is true, that Mercedes-Benz will be working with Apple on a state of the art car user interface. It does seem strange, though, that they wouldn't take it to BMW first since BMW had the first iPod integration in their car. Unfortunately, BMW is in bed with Microsoft since they use Windows for Cars, aka iDrive (a definite reason for me to boycott BMW, alas). So Mercedes seems likely to get the newest Apple technology if it wants it.

It's amusing to note that Mercedes' COMND system, which I have in my 2000 S-Class, was widely panned by reviewers as being complex and difficult to use, until BMW came up with iDrive, which was even MORE complex and difficult to use! So now whenever a giant comparison of full-sized luxury cars is offered, the take away is that Mercedes' system is OK but BMW's infamous iDrive is an embarrassment.

If you're unfamiliar with it, COMND integrates the radio, navigation and a bunch of other features, so that (for example) when you get directions from your GPS the radio volume fades down first, just like iPhone will fade out music whenever you get a call. It also offers cellphone integration which probably works in a similar way, although the option was not installed in my car. (I bought it used about a year ago.) Like any modern navigation system, it offers the usual range of onscreen maps, driving directions and so on. Of course the screen in 2000 was considerably lower resolution than we have today; I think my iPhone's resolution is higher than the in-dash display even though the display is about twice as large.

I quickly checked out the latest S-Class and it has a much improved COMND system with a much higher quality LCD, better maps and the use of a DVD instead of CDs, making it possible to get national maps on a single DVD instead of (if my memory serves) about six CDs for the whole USA in COMND.

So as you have said, COMND is already similar to a small computer or cellphone and so using cellphone software to enhance it is certainly far from unrealistic. It would be really nice, in fact, to just pop iPhone in a slot somewhere and for the big navigation display to be used to manage calls and maps in the same way iPhone does, tied in to the already existing in-car GPS. Perhaps that's something Apple is working on too.

D

Re:5 years behind apple

[SnowZero]

4-5 years ahead? I remember people saying the same thing about the PowerPC chips in the early 90s. Apple's been doing a great job lately, but betting on your future, based on success in the previous generation, is far from a certainty. Just ask Sony.

No, actually that's wrong

[nilbog]

The processor used in the first Google phones will more likely be the Qualcomm 7200. This is the new chip going into the latest HTC phones (such as the AT&T Tilt/Kaiser/Tytn II/whatever). It is a dual CPU that integrates the Imageon hardware for 2d and 3d graphics acceleration. I believe this is HTC's current choice for their first "gPhone."

Although Qualcomm hasn't released a proper SDK for the processor yet, so hardware acceleration is not fully implemented.

Re:No, actually that's wrong

[Andy Dodd]

I was about to make the same comment, for different reasons - I get the impression that it's nearly impossible to implement a UMTS phone without using a Qualcomm MSM, at least while remaining cost competitive with an MSM-based solution. TI's OMAP series are still EDGE-only.

It's not a dual core CPU. There's a second coprocessor core that is for radio functions ONLY. It's not an SMP dual core CPU.

Re:No, actually that's wrong

[jrumney]

And of course, there's the third reason that the Qualcomm MSM7K family is being maintained at git.android.com.

Re:No, actually that's wrong

[jrumney]

Sorry, that should read: And of course, there's the third reason that the Linux port for the Qualcomm MSM7K family is being maintained at git.android.com.

Re:No, actually that's wrong

[sr180]

Hence why you will find the processor slows to a crawl while responding to touch screen input.

Re:No, actually that's wrong

[nilbog]

Right. Not dual core. Dual CPU.

Yay!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Another cell phone! Woot! The market was so sparse!

Maybe they can release an MP3 player next! Boo-yeah! Or a WW2 FPS game!

Re:Yay!

[Garridan]

WW2 comes to Web 2.0 in... Google Concentration Camp Simulator!

Oops. Godwin's law.

Re:Yay!

[stormguard2099]

I won't cave to the fad until I can mindlessly talk on my phone, play a WWII FPS AND listen to fallout boy ALL at the same time on the same device!! I'm sure everyone else on the metro will love me for it!

Re:Yay!

[FiveRings]

Your comment's kinda funny, but if you look at the Asian markets, they have 10x more choices than the US cell phone market as well as being years ahead technologically.

Maybe I want the option of paying for things at a vending machine with my phone...maybe I don't. Or a browser. Or touchscreen. Or 3D. Or video. Or monkeys.

So ya...

"Another cell phone! Woot! The market was so sparse!" minus the sarcasm.

Re:Yay!

[garphik]

Adaptability is the only way to survive

Re:Yay!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Your comment's kinda funny, but if you look at the Asian markets, they have 10x more choices than the US cell phone market as well as being years ahead technologically.

So?

Maybe I want the option of paying for things at a vending machine with my phone...maybe I don't. Or a browser. Or touchscreen. Or 3D. Or video.

*shrug*

Or monkeys.

OK, that one I"ll give you. When Apple releases the iPhone with free helper monkey, I'm so there.

the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[netsavior]

Apple makes fashion accessories.

Google makes software that works.

There is hardly any market overlap. I mean seriously you can't use the iPhone for business, you can't use it to omgkfcbbq Instantmessage your friends. You can't use it for social networking. You can use it to show off that you paid 600 dollars for an animated MP3 player with integrated google maps, and a fun voicemail toy.

Should Prada be worried that Samsonite is comming out with a new suitcase line? No Prada sells expensive jewelry that looks like a purse, Samsonite sells luggage.

The iPhone is jewelery, it doesn't have to worry about ANY Phone competing with it.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[2nd Post!]

Funny, I would have said:
Apple makes hardware that works
Google makes software that works

You misinterpret the iPhone's initial market if you think it is suitable for business (it isn't), for instant messaging (it doesn't have that feature), or social networking (unless you want to use the built in Safari web browser).

All the iPhone does (for now) is:
Phone
Internet
Media
A light smattering of accessory applications

And I only paid $300 for mine. $600 was so four months ago. The 8GB iPhone is only $399.

And at the things it does, meaning phone, internet, and media, I have never seen another phone nearly as good. And as time goes on, Apple will be adding more and more features with, I presume, the same usability and polish that the first three applications shipped with.

There is significant overlap between Google and Apple, in this case, in that Apple provides the ultimate prototypical platform for a gPhone while Google provides the ultimate framework for developing the applications and UI that the iPhone OR gPhone would need.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[teknopurge]

Apple makes fashion accessories.

Google makes software that works. LOL

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[bkr1_2k]

"You misinterpret the iPhone's initial market if you think it is suitable for business (it isn't), for instant messaging (it doesn't have that feature), or social networking (unless you want to use the built in Safari web browser)."
Which is why the GP said (bold emphasis mine): "I mean seriously you can't use the iPhone for business, you can't use it to omgkfcbbq Instantmessage your friends. You can't use it for social networking."

Other than that, I agree with you completely. Google will make an OS that will provide programmers the capability to do everything the iPhone should do. But with the SDK out now (or soon) for the iPhone, I expect we'll see a lot more functionality for the iPhone long before the google phone ever hits the market.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[Mysticalfruit]

It's good to see competition actually work. For everbodys sake, the gphone only has to be a marginal success before owners of iphones will demand that apple add features like IM.

What will be interesting, once the iphone SDK comes up, what you'll actually be able to do. I'm suspecting that every application that goes on the iPhone will have to be signed by apple, etc... Thus, getting mame on your iphone without voiding your warrenty will be out of the question.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[nine-times]

Apple makes fashion accessories.

Google makes software that works.

I'll be sure to inform the users of OSX, iWork, iLife, Aperture, Final Cut, and Logic that Apple's software does not work.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple makes fashion accessories.

I'm probably responding to a troll, but, Apple makes hardware/software/service solution that are usable for the average person. The iPod created the mainstream market for portable digital music players because it was the first one where the entire user experience was easy enough for the average person (who until then was using a portable CD player). Until Apple stepped in it was too hard for most people to buy music online, rip CDs, and load that onto the player.

The iPhone is the same thing all over again, but replacing "portable music player" with "smartphone." It is the first cell phone with Web and e-mail, an organizer, a music player, SMS, and a few apps that is actually usable for the average Joe.

A lot of people don't understand Apple's success and try to dismiss it. They look at bullet points of features and the price and think Apple is providing too little for too much money. For some people, especially technical people that like to tinker, that is true. For the average person, however there is a lot of value in a polished user interface and overall experience.

Google makes software that works.

My experience is Google makes online services that work, and mediocre software to interface with them.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[Anonymous Coward]

I can do that too..

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22iphone+problems%22

and mine got more hits.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[bkr1_2k]

I'm not really familiar with the SDKs since I'm not a coder, but I don't believe this is the way the OS X/aqua/whatever is appropriate SDK works so why would the iPhone SDK work that way?

I mean, the point of releasing the SDK is specifically so people can create software they want, within Apple's current framework. Obviously they're not going to provide tools that allow you to break current functionality limits or cause contract concerns with AT&T, but why would adding mame or IM be any kind of issue?

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[2nd Post!]

If the SDK is constructed such that all programs are "encrypted", digitally signed as it were, and iPhones crafted that they would only run signed code, then third party unsupported software would have to be hacked to run on an iPhone, no different than today.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[AaxelB]

Apple makes fashion accessories.

Google makes software that works. LOL

Hmm, that actually seems like relatively few results for "$PRODUCT problems". Especially if you compare to the results for "iphone problems" or "ipod problems".

(For a cheap laugh, compare to "vista problems")

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[netsavior]

I will agree that ease of use is important, and that apple products tend to do ok at this. But you have got to be fooling yourself if you think that the average n00b had any reason to other than fashion ditch their 8gb iPod in favor of a 20 40 80 whatever. sure they play video now, but I somehow doubt Joe sixpack is ready to pay $12,000 on iTunes, or even rip 12,000 of his own songs, or even use his pod as a usb drive to transfer files. The features, the convenience, the interface did NOT sell iPods. At least not to the average user in my experience. The distinctive earbuds are probably the most important feature in that device and I am not trying to be facetious. It is definatly more important to be seen with an iPod than it is to have one. Look at the commercials. Look at the Mac store. If you still say it is not about fashion first and technology second, I guess I lost ya. Beyond occasional searching for music to play a particular song, I have not really met anyone who needed a slick interface on their Music files, they just hit random and go. Not only that, but how many people bought an iPod because it was the greatest thing ever and N-E-V-E-R use it? Well the iPhone solves that problem by making a fashion sensitive device that you will use, for which you do need the functionality. If the iPhone was exactly an iPod with no new interface but with a simple cellphone built in, I believe the success would be very similar. The iPhone is a very good way to get people to pay monthly to be seen with the latest (or at least standard) slick gadget. It really is very smart from a fashion perspective.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[teknopurge]

Agreed, however, you need to compare apples-to-apples, or at least more closely then a webmail application to an operating system or piece of hardware.

"mail.app problems"

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[Blitzshlag]

Wow really you can't do instant messaging or social networking on an iPhone?

Someone should really tell Apple: http://www.apple.com/webapps/socialnetworking/index_top.html

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[AaxelB]

Yeah, they weren't good comparisons, but I was having trouble thinking of a comparably popular webmail app. This was about my train of thought: "What's a good comparison to Gmail? Hotmail? Does Hotmail still exist? Shit, what other mail sites are there? Screw it, I'll just use the iPod. Oh, and the iPhone would actually be relevant!"

I've only been using Gmail and my university address for a while, and using a web app to check email just seems silly to me compared to a nice IMAP.

On topic, though, Yahoo mail would have made an apt comparison, but they actually had fewer results, so it would have undercut my point, and I just can't accept with a clear conscience any evidence that contradicts me.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

But you have got to be fooling yourself if you think that the average n00b had any reason to other than fashion ditch their 8gb iPod in favor of a 20 40 80 whatever.

The earbuds look the same on both. For the most part, that is all anyone sees. I only know two people who bought video ipods, both because they wanted to use them for watching video (one while commuting, one at a night job).

...but I somehow doubt Joe sixpack is ready to pay $12,000 on iTunes, or even rip 12,000 of his own songs, or even use his pod as a usb drive to transfer files.

Last time I saw numbers, something like 1.5% of music on iPods came from the iTunes Music Store. The rest was from CDs and from downloads (P2P, other music services). I know a lot of people with more than 8 Gb on their iPod.

The features, the convenience, the interface did NOT sell iPods.

So why did iPods become popular and a fashion item in the first place?

Look at the commercials. Look at the Mac store. If you still say it is not about fashion first and technology second, I guess I lost ya.

They certainly market them as "cool" but so does everyone else with their products. The Apple store seems to have people ready to demo features and all the sales pitches I've heard deal with what they can do, not how they look.

Beyond occasional searching for music to play a particular song, I have not really met anyone who needed a slick interface on their Music files, they just hit random and go.

Being able to operate it one handed with ease, while jogging is of use to people. Having software to easily rip CDs and load the songs onto the iPod is of a lot of use to people. I knew a guy with a doctorate in satellite imaging who had so much trouble getting his CDs ripped using Windows, included software, and the software that came with his mp3 player he loaded iTunes just for that purpose.

For a whole lot of people having a slick interface lowers the barrier to entry and learning curve enough so that it is convenient enough for them.

Not only that, but how many people bought an iPod because it was the greatest thing ever and N-E-V-E-R use it?

I don't know. Do you?

If the iPhone was exactly an iPod with no new interface but with a simple cellphone built in, I believe the success would be very similar.

If the iPhone was a phone without an iPod function, but it worked as well and easily as the iPhone I think it would still be a success. I don't own either an iPhone or an iPod, but as a user interface expert I certainly admire the work that went into them and I wish any of the cell phones I've ever owned had an interface that was even close to as easy to use.

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[teknopurge]

You didn't use a literal so your results include everything that has the word "bugs" in it.....

try this instead foolio

Re:the gPhone and the iPhone are different markets

[weston]

The iPhone is the same thing all over again, but replacing "portable music player" with "smartphone." It is the first cell phone with Web and e-mail, an organizer, a music player, SMS, and a few apps that is actually usable for the average Joe.

More than that: it's a smoother experience even for many people who *are* capable of navigating other smartphones. I haven't bought in yet for a few reasons (don't want to drop the $ on it yet, still thinking of trying something with real 3g instead), but the basic experience of doing all those things is an order of magnitude more compelling as the nearest alternative I've tried.

The average joe isn't the only person who's interested in the kind of experience Apple has to offer with their products.

Are there any more things you dislike?

[Peaker]

Because maybe you should tell us about them too!

I always enjoying hearing about things people find disgusting or that they dislike.

Its so interesting!

Re:Are there any more things you dislike?

[sm62704]

I always enjoying hearing about things people find disgusting or that they dislike.

Well then, my latest slashdot journal is just for you - not just a rant, but a curmudgeon rant! What more could you ask for?

-mcgrew

Ummm.. CDMA?

[LWATCDR]

"Texas Instruments' OMAP processors, which enable a single-chip world phone (GSM/EDGE/GPRS)"
Funny how that is a "world" phone. GSM is only a standard for Europe. In North American you have both GSM and CDMA, Korea is mostly CDMA and I think Japan is also uses a lot of CDMA.
Also Sprint is one of the carriers that is involved in this and they only do CDMA.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[crunzh]

GSM is the most used standard in the world. There are no significant country that only runs CDMA and only one that dont support GSM (Japan), even korea have gsm networks. So a world phone needs to support GSM.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts are actually against you.

South Korea is transitioning to WiMax and W-CDMA (HSDPA data access) with LG Telecom remaining the sole CDMA provider for the time being.

Japan is the progenitor of W-CDMA with both NTT DoCoMo and SoftBank Mobile using the standard with HSDPA data access, while KDDI's AU is the sole CDMA carrier on the island. GSM and its high-speed variants (including W-CDMA) are in use in over 140 countries according to the ITU.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[king-manic]

"Texas Instruments' OMAP processors, which enable a single-chip world phone (GSM/EDGE/GPRS)"
Funny how that is a "world" phone. GSM is only a standard for Europe. In North American you have both GSM and CDMA, Korea is mostly CDMA and I think Japan is also uses a lot of CDMA.
Also Sprint is one of the carriers that is involved in this and they only do CDMA. GSM: All or Europe/Russia, most of Asia including china and th ephilipines, most of India, Australia, most of Africa, and most of south America
CDMA: US, Canada, Japan, Korea.

I think your point about GSM only being for Europe is very much wrong. GSM covers a great deal more countries then CDMA. It's a world phone because you can take a GSM phone to nearly any country with cell service and buy a sim card and get connected. With a CDMA phone coverage is sparse or non existent in anywhere but the 4 countries I listed.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[bkr1_2k]

Yes GSM isn't necessarily as heavily adopted everywhere as it is in Europe, but it is most definitely more widespread than anything else. Despite what Japan and Korea do, the rest of Asia uses GSM fairly consistently. At least China (#1 GSM market worldwide), Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, and Thailand. India also has a growing GSM market.

CDMA may well be a technology that is chosen as it is growing more rapidly than GSM due to 3G application apparently, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. People like the ability to move around the globe and use local providers, and right now GSM is the only way to do that I know about but I'm not up on the latest mobile technologies, admittedly, so there may be some other technology that allows that easily.

http://www.cellular.co.za/news_2002/120302-cdma_now_has_159m_users_worldwid.htm

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[Andy Dodd]

"World" means "At least one carrier in every area supports it", not "works with every carrier in existence".

The U.S. supports both GSM and CDMA.
Same for Japan - DoCoMo is GSM/UMTS. KDDI is CDMA2000 I believe. Fairly certain Softbank is also GSM, as many HTC GSM devices are rebranded by Softbank.

I think Korea is one of the few (if only) countries that has no GSM service at all. (And they may have a GSM carrier.)

That said - If you read TI's pages carefully, they market themselves as a manufacturer of "3G" chipsets, but somehow despite providing "3G" chipsets, you cannot find any information on UMTS products anywhere. All of their OMAPs depend on an external (TCS) wireless interface chipsets. They have them for CDMA2000 EVDO I think, but not UMTS. GSM capability from TI is limited to EDGE.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[cyngus]

"Funny how that is a "world" phone. GSM is only a standard for Europe."

Wrong, try again. CDMA is used in the US, Korea, and Japan, that's it. I know Japan also has GSM available.

GSM on the other hand is used in the US (AT&T and T-Mobile), North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia (except maybe Korea). So yes, GSM *does* make it a world phone. Good luck using that CDMA in Nigeria!

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[Zach978]

They reference the TI chip, but I'm pretty sure that the phone they use in the demo is the all in one chip in the Qualcomm MSM7K series.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[Anonymous Coward]

CDMA is largely an american effort at producing a mobile network technology. It's not a standard (there are a number of different flavours and two seperate ISO standards), whilst GSM is, and is used by an estimated 82% of mobile users, so GSM can be classed as a worldwide standard, whereas CDMA isn't even standardised across different carriers in the US. Plus W-CDMA, as used in 3G networks, isn't related to CDMA.

The Wikipedia article comparing the various standards shows GSM at 80-85% market share, CDMA at 10-15% and various niche technologies making up the remaining percentage. CDMA market growth is basically flat, growing as the market grows, but not gaining any market share. GSM, including W-CDMA (which as mentioned above isn't related to CDMA) is slowly gaining market share at the expense of the niche technologies.

Lastly, CDMA is why the American market get fewer decent handsets than Europe and the far east, so if it did have the massive market share the parent suggests, then surely more companies would be building cutting edge handsets based on this technology?

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[stormguard2099]

ephilipines So ThePirateBay didn't buy just one island, they bought a whole bunch of islands!!

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Funny, I travel extensively for a living, and my CDMA-only phone (LG "The V") works in China, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, India, Australia, Chile, Brazil, Columbia, Argentina, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Philippines, Taiwan, Russia, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Mexico and a host of other countries...

In fact, it's really only Western Europe that is GSM-only (barring Portugal, Iceland, Ireland and those listed above). The rest of the world is pretty much dual-standard supporting both CDMA and GSM.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[Trashman]

You should also put US and Canada in the GSM list because GSM is widespread there too.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[jrumney]

Which Korean network is using GSM? When I travelled there on business a few years ago, Japan and Korea were the only two countries I couldn't roam in with a tri-band GSM phone (the US is patchy, but at least most major cities have a GSM signal). After getting a WCDMA phone, only Korea was left, but now I think they have a WCDMA network too.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[jrumney]

Same for Japan - DoCoMo is GSM/UMTS. KDDI is CDMA2000 I believe. Fairly certain Softbank is also GSM, as many HTC GSM devices are rebranded by Softbank.

I think Korea is one of the few (if only) countries that has no GSM service at all. (And they may have a GSM carrier.)

Docomo and Softbank use PDC for their 2G services, not GSM. They don't have dual 2G/3G phones, it is one or the other, so many 3G phones sold over there now come with GSM for roaming with. Korea and Japan were the only two countries listed by Vodafone UK where you could not roam with a triband GSM phone a few years ago.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[sznupi]

Hmm, troll or...you don't know the capabilities of your phone.

Because Poland and Russia is purely GSM. I should know, I live here...

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[LynnwoodRooster]

OR... MAybe I HAVE a CDMA phone and can actually check these things? At the very least you could do a quick check of the capabilities of your own country.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[sznupi]

So I did...and ONE city has CDMA.

Hmm...let me see, not beeing able to get a signal on my GSM phone never, EVER, happened to me; doesn't matter in what mountians/middle-of-nowhere I was. That's what I call "purely"...

PS. And you have to remember that "beeing able to use your phone" also means "not beeing ripped by roaming costs". When I go to different country, I simply buy prepaid sim card of local operator.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[LynnwoodRooster]

TPSA covers the country; I know it worked for me when in Warsaw and Gdansk.

For Russia, I know I got coverage in St. Petersburg and Moscow. I'd consider those pretty important cities for coverage.

As far as the cost of coverage, to me it's more than worth it for my clients to be able to reach me anywhere, by just dialing one number. A cell phone is now a worldwide "800 number" to use. I use a Gionee H6 in Europe and Asia with local SIMs to return calls, but I need my CDMA on since it's the number everyone already knows.

SO I guess you didn't know your country as well as you thought?

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[sznupi]

Don't spin this other way around; you don't even know that TPSA is NOT a mobile phone operator, and their coverage (ok, so it seems not only one city...few?) is rather pathetic...

Really, cities aren't everything. I don't know the reason why you don't see this (is coverage in US that poor?)...I've had GSM reception EVERYWHERE here for quite a few years. And that should matter to you if you value your customers.

And BTW, every operator I know supports call forwarding, for which you pay. I suspect your customers would be happy if they could get to you cheaper, with much greater probability of you beeing in range. And you would have to carry only one, GSM, phone.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[crunzh]

Oh, I think I was mistaken, korea got UTMS networks (3G GSM), but not regular 2g GSM. There is a nice list of countries using GSM here: http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/index.shtml

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[shutdown -p now]

"Not GSM-only" is not the same as "split between GSM and CDMA". For example, you've mentioned Russia in the list of countries where your CDMA phone works. Which is correct, but only if you are in Moscow or a few other cities. And vast majority of people even in Moscow still use GSM phones, and wouldn't ever buy a CDMA one. I would imagine this is similar to many other countries in your list.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[Andy Dodd]

In that case, a TI OMAP will indeed not allow a worldphone (minus Korea), since they do not support UMTS.

The Qualcomm MSM7k series, on the other hand, does do UMTS, and right now all evidence other than the (almost surely incorrect) article indicates that the initial Android-based handsets from HTC are going to be MSM7k-series based.

There must be a way for a quad-band GSM/multiband UMTS phone to work with Softbank, since they offered the HTC Hermes as the X01HT.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[jrumney]

There must be a way for a quad-band GSM/multiband UMTS phone to work with Softbank, since they offered the HTC Hermes as the X01HT.

Softbank has a UMTS network. UMTS is also compatible with Docomo's FOMA network.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[LWATCDR]

"I think your point about GSM only being for Europe is very much wrong. "
I never said that GSM was only for Europe. I said that it is only a standard in Europe.
There is a difference between the two. GSM is available in many places as is CDMA. CDMA seems to be technically better since UTMS is based on CDMA. I was more commenting on the idea that GSM is a World Standard when in reality it is mainly a standard in Europe and from what I hear Africa.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[LWATCDR]

"Because Poland and Russia is purely GSM. I should know, I live here..."
"So I did...and ONE city has CDMA."
So you where wrong. Purely implies that only GSM is available and you called him a troll, liar, and or an idiot that didn't know what his phone could and could not do.
Is it so hard to admit that you where wrong? Or even to apologize for being insulting?
He was right and you where incorrect. He could and probably did go to your country and use a CDMA phone.

Yes the SIM card is a great feature of CDMA phones. But it isn't tied to GSM for any technical reason. There is no technical reason why CDMA phones couldn't have a SIM card. UMTS is in fact much closer technically to CDMA than GSM. CDMA provides for more bandwidth then GSM does and is growing in popularity.
My post was mainly about how people in Europe tend to be very Europe centric when it comes GSM. They are under the impression that it is a Standard every where in the world but the US. I was just trying to point out that GSM wasn't anymore of a world standard than GSM. And yes I can take you places in the US where you probably couldn't get a signal on your GSM phone but where I could get a signal with my CDMA phone. None of them would be in a major city and I am sure I might find places where there was GSM coverage and not CDMA. The US like Russia, Canada, and Australia still has some big empty spaces.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[king-manic]

I never said that GSM was only for Europe. I said that it is only a standard in Europe.
There is a difference between the two. GSM is available in many places as is CDMA. CDMA seems to be technically better since UTMS is based on CDMA. I was more commenting on the idea that GSM is a World Standard when in reality it is mainly a standard in Europe and from what I hear Africa. Your going to have to define what you mean by standard. If you mean "uniformly available" then all the areas i highlighted utilize the standard, GSM is readily available in all those regions. If you mean the area the standard was derived then GSM is European and CDMA is American. If you mean that option is the default or most prominent then again the areas I listed have GSM as the "standard". GSM has a lot more penetration then CDMA. In most of Asia if you bing a CDMA phone with you you will have to go out of your way to find a carrier(if one exists), but if you have a GSM phone you can pick up a compatible sim at numerous locations (in the Philippines you can buy them at any major store, and minutes at any "store", china is the same, HK is more diverse). The reputation of GSM as a world phone is tied to this ubiquity.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[sznupi]

The whole point of mobile phone is to get reception EVERYWHERE. It's not like in US, where it's sensible to evaluate which operator/network type has range in places often visited by you. Here, if you don't want to be confined to few major cities, you choose any of 3 GSM based operators.
So my point still stands; as only GSM is really useable, my country are purely GSM.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[LWATCDR]

You just can not deal with being wrong and saying your sorry can you.
What about when you told the person posting that they didn't us their phone in your country. And you insulting them.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[sznupi]

I can deal with beeing wrong - sure, I was when it comes to some _insignificant_ details.

However where do you get an idea that I should say "sorry"? There's so many things wrong with this expectation...like I don't actually feel sorry; somebody who calls me insulting repeatedly wants to force me into certain state of mind that matches their expectations; if the initiall things I've said (on an internet discussion forum, no less) are so hard to swallow I'm not sure how anybody could get by in real life...the list goes on.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[LWATCDR]

Why should you say your sorry?
Well for one you called him a troll and a liar. Then you said that he didn't know the capabilities of his own phone.
Then when he showed you that you where wrong you justified it by saying your error didn't matter.
"I can deal with beeing wrong - sure, I was when it comes to some _insignificant_ details."
You where wrong in EVERY aspect of your comment. You said that Poland was purely GSM. It wasn't You then implied that he didn't know if his phone was GSM or CDMA and it was. Now you say that was insignificant.
There is no reason to say your sorry for being incorrect. Making mistakes is one of the ways that we learn. You have learned that in at least two cities in your country CDMA service is available.
I wasn't trying to force you in to matching my expectations. I was just observing your actions. No matter how many facts you get wrong you must go forward with pride in your errors. I call you insulting because you where. If I see someone snatch a purse on the street and I call them a thief that is not being judgmental that is being observant.

Just take a look at our original post honestly.

"Hmm, troll or...you don't know the capabilities of your phone.

Because Poland and Russia is purely GSM. I should know, I live here..."

So one by one
"Humm, troll" Not insulting ? Not in error. A troll implies that he is a liar and or just posting to cause an argument.
"or...you don't know the capabilities of your phone." So he isn't bright enough to know what his phone can nor can not do? Yea on a technical message board that isn't insulting.
"Because Poland and Russia is purely GSM." So he couldn't possible use a CDMA phone there, so he is a liar or an idiot. But that was later proven to be false.
"I should know, I live here..." Again saying that there was no way that he was telling the truth. But you didn't know that there where CDMA providers in your country did you?

So in the end the only thing in your original post that wasn't wrong is that you live in Poland or Russia.
You errors and mistakes have no real impact on my life. I doubt that the guy you posted at really cares because he has proven himself right. More just trying to help you see your own actions more than anything.
Have a nice day.

Re:Ummm.. CDMA?

[sznupi]

It's a bit fascinating how you blow this totally out of proportion... (and YOU again menage, by your standards, to be insulting while trying to prove me not only that I should say something but now that I don't know what I wrote...nevermind the thief analogy (prove to whom? If to me...I wouldn't care if you're right. Rest of /.? They don't care. To you? Perhaps, I don't see why anybody would waste their time for posts like above; at the least don't rationalise everything you see/read trying possibly to convince yourself that the world is just))

Why is it that you so care when the poster didn't about specifics of my first post. Which might have been rather harsch (probably influenced by my irritaion on the state of discussion on "Steam Survey", check my comment to see what I mean...), but again so what, everybody got over it (I believe I wrote good reasons as to "why" in previous post). Well, almost...

What about the Neo?

[thefekete]

Has any one tried running android on a Neo1973?

Re:What about the Neo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want Android on my Palm! (Palm should be shitting it's pants right now, not Apple!)

Re:What about the Neo?

[matt_martin]

Absolutely, this completely moots the rumored Palm Linux phone unless they can completely wow everyone with innovation. And they haven't done that in, well, hmmm, I guess about 10 years.

So do they just get on the cattle car ?

Re:What about the Neo?

[sricetx]

Is the Neo ever going to come to market? It seems like the holy grail of cell phones (open so you can do anything you want with it), but it was supposed to be released in October. It's November 13th today, and one still can't buy a consumer version of the OpenMoko Neo. Not a good sign.

Re:What about the Neo?

[juhaz]

As far as delays go, few months (supposed to be december now) are hardly uncommon. You can start talking about bad signs if it's not there a year from now.

Re:What about the Neo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and it doesn't work. See: http://benno.id.au/blog/2007/11/21/android-neo1973 for details.

Cheers,

Benno

Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[radimvice]

Apple's iPhone is a single, phone that's very well-designed and includes a slick interface. Oh yeah, and it has the Apple brand (and the corresponding price tag). Reports are that Apple's phone managed to successfully establish itself a niche in the mobile phone world, but that they failed to sell as many as they had hoped.

Google's Android platform, on the other hand, is more than just a single gPhone, as they like to say it's 'thousands of phones', made by dozens of companies, spanning the super high-end iPhone killers to the low-end cheap free-after-rebates you get with your carrier subscription. The operations that Google has set into motion - departing from the traditional JCP standards process, releasing a new non-Sun Java-like Virtual Machine - these moves have a huge potential to transform the entire mobile phone industry as a whole - and, though it's still early to say for sure, the transformation will more than likely be for the better.

So Apple's iPhone is a great, very well-designed product for a few people, but it is overall much less significant than the potential Android has to seriously shake up and inject innovation into the mobile industry. The two are honestly nothing alike, as much as the media would like them to be.

-Will

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

Isn't that like arguing, in 2001, that the iPod was a single device while the PlaysForSure platform was hundreds of MP3 players made by dozens of companies spanning both the high end and low end... that ultimate got killed by the iPod Classic at the high end, the iPod nano in the middle, and iPod shuffle on the low end?

You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[taskiss]

No, it's like arguing that 2 birds in the bush are better than a bird in the hand.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[pebs]

You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?

Not while AT&T is the only service provider.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[e2d2]

You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?

Not really, considering 2007 is almost over and I have yet to meet anyone with an iPhone. Yet almost everyone I know has an iPod or a clone. Now I may be wrong but I thought the consensus on the iPhone was "meh" at best and "piece of sh#@!" at worst. Did I not get the memo?

Google is not going after Apple's iPhone, they are trying to change wireless all together. They see wireless as the greatest way to deliver internet and all it entails globally.

Hype? Let's look at two things:

1. Google's attempt to acquire the 700mhz band for use from the FCC
2. Open Handset development - android and related hardware.

So here we have a company trying to reinvent the market through the infrastructure - Google. And then we have Apple making it's flagship entrance into the mobile market with one specific vendor, with barely anything innovative beyond the hardware touchscreen and a few other nice to haves that can easily be cloned by any hardware manufacturer, including Google's OHA hardware partners.

So comparing these two is really just a misunderstanding about what android is and what the Open Handset Alliance is really about. Hell Apple's iPhone could even benefit from Google's initiative!

I might be wrong but opening up the development platform and then having them put their full weight behind it might really shake things up. It's not hype, it's real and it may even benefit you.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[nametaken]

People really only insist that their ipod plays music, looks nice, and is easy enough to use. Not necessarily in that order.

People insist that their mobile phones do virtually every task known to modern computing. With Apple being openly hostile to tinkerers, hobbyists, developers and deathly allergic to competition... they're doomed in the business phone market. They've been like this for decades, and as such I sincerely doubt they'll change things up just so they can fight every dug-in mobile phone and mobile phone OS manufacturer in the world. Seriously, are they going to write world-class integration with Exchange to simultaneously compete with, and support, Microsoft? Hell no. Will someone write it for Andriod? You can bet your ass.

I'll bet that more than one group are already working on the prize money from Google writing a mobile outlook work-alike.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[aztektum]

The only *REAL* problem with the iPhone is AT&T.

$399 is hardly the classic Apple price tag. Yeah sure there is the 2yr service agreement, but anyone buying an iPhone probably has budgeted that into their lives for a while now anyway.

For the innovative interface and the included function of the device, this has to be one of Apple's LEAST "over priced" products. People keep saying "It's just a phone." It's a wifi enabled multifunction device, and yes a proper SDK is still vaporware, but it's coming. Try buying a wifi PDA, wifi digital camera (ok it's crap), a wifi mp3 player, and a cellular phone with an interface an invalid could navigate, all for $399 (without rebates or other glitzy bullshit marketing promos).

Personally, I think something like that is what computers WILL be in 10 years or more. All the user ends up doing is docking it. If that's the case, you know Apple will be getting props with it's "antique iPhone", deserved or not. They're like Blizzard of the hardware world. They take obvious fucking ideas, cutting edge technology, and sell it in a form that anyone from nerd to grandma loves. Apple isn't perfect but at least they try (and this is only their first stab at it).

FWIW, I'm not even an Apple fanboi. I bought my first iPod last March (when my 512 flash one died and I only bought an iPod because of how familiar I was with the interface) and haven't touched their PC's outside a retail store at all this year. I'd say the iPhone is far more useful for more than a few people. The gPhone demos don't really do anything that the iPhone doesn't. Only time will tell.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know multiple people with iPhones. When my old roommate bought a first-gen iPod, he was the only person any of us knew who had one. Clearly not such a good indicator of future success.

"that can easily be cloned by any hardware manufacturer"? Have you ever used Windows, or held a Zune in your hand? Just because you can copy the details doesn't mean the end result will be as good as the original. People have been trying to copy Apple for ages and haven't gotten it right. Other companies make stuff that's just as good, but those that try to out-Apple Apple usually seem to fail.

-A

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

What makes you think the Google SDK and iPhone SDK are incompatible?

Regardless, your point is irrelevant. Apple has an incredibly successful and profitable niche without directly addressing the business environment, yet.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

You compare four months of iPhone availability against six years of iPod availability and think the iPhone is a failure?

The iPod was released in October of 2001 and didn't hit 1 million iPods until June of 2003, almost 2 years later. Conversely the iPhone hit 1m only 3 months after release, and you somehow thing iPhones are a flop? Or did you run around in 2003 saying, "I have yet to see an iPod, and the consensus is lame"?

I'm not decrying Google's Android at all. I have high hopes for it (especially since I own GOOG), but where we disagree is that I think the iPhone has a great impact AND it will benefit from Android.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

The iPod was originally Mac only, for the first 9 months. That didn't seem to stop it, either.

The AT&T bundle works to both parties advantage, for now. Don't think the landscape won't change in six months; Apple is probably working on a 3G phone as we speak.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[LWATCDR]

Not really.
There are a lot of Smartphones on the market that offer more features than the iPhone today.
When the SDK comes out that may change.
The iPhone is only available from AT&T and lacks high speed.
Android may be a big winner. It may not. The iPhone my fad because other cheaper phones replace it.
I am looking at getting a new phone soon and so is my wife. It isn't going to an iPhone.
I was looking at the new Palm but it lacks voice dialing and GPS.
I was looking at the MotoQ but it lacks GPS.
I really want a smartphone that has GPS, voice dialing, and is available on the Sprint network. I don't like Verizon because cripple their phones so you have to get some of there services. Thinks like not allowing FTP or OBEX bluetooth when the phones support it. And they put their own slow BREW software on the phones.
So hopefully in two years when I am ready for a new phone I will have some better choices.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[joh]

You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?

No, because the iPhone (as other modern phones) is a *platform*, not just a single-purpose device. The iPod was hardware, design, iTunes and ITMS, the software on/for it (games etc.) was mostly irrelevant. With phones this is very different. Apple doesn't seem to get this, that's part of the problem with the iPhone.

Or they just think "Hey, let's make lots of money by selling a slick phone to 5% of the potential customers and luring them into expensive plans we get a fair share of". This may work out fine. 5% will than buy an iPhone, 80% something running Android and the rest, well, whatever. This is not a healthy plan for a platform, though. Any new popular service requiring Android will leave the iPhone out in the cold then.

The iPhone is not great because it is such a great thing, it is great because the OS and software on other phones sucks that much. Change that and the iPhone is just a proprietary, expensive brick.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[chipace]

Wasn't the iPod Classic the first hard disk mp3 player? A person could carry their entire music collection on a single device... this feature was much more attractive than re-filling flash based players. This was the killer feature. I believe that most people were not primarily buying it for it's ease of use. I don't own an iPod, so I can't speak from my own experience.

iPhone appears to be an innovation on ease of use... and that in of itself is not a killer feature.

I don't think that Apple will repeat history.. or should be expected to repeat history.

PlaysForSure is a valid comparison to the Gphone, as they both certify that music/programs can be used on a specific hardware product. The motivation for Microsoft to launch PlaysforSure was to promote it's DRM and codec... neither of which is attractive for the consumer. Google wants to promote it's server services, which is certainly attractive for the consumer. I believe Google will be successful because it has consumer support, and thus will have manufacturer and service provider support.

I wouldn't be surprised if Google subsidizes consumer service contracts to promote their services... that's the difference between them and Apple.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

And yet doesn't that sound exactly like the iPod in 2001?
1) Lot of MP3 players with more features (bigger battery, more storage, FM radio, flash, support for Windows, drag and drop support, WMA support, etc). Yet here we are.
2) The iPod was only available for Macs and used Firewire instead of USB. Somehow Apple managed to add support for Windows, port iTunes to Windows, AND support for USB2.
3) Cheaper MP3 players could not displace the iPod; somehow I don't think cheaper phones will displace the iPhone; we need BETTER phones.

I hope you have better choices in two years too. My AAPL stock hopes the iPhone will suit you (3G, GPS, extensive Bluetooth support, etc)

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

It was at least the 3rd HDD player. Creative and Compaq both had ones out before Apple.

And you misunderstand Google; they aren't promoting server services... they are promoting another platform from which they can collect data, package it to advertisers, and sell ads.

That, and everything Google accomplishes with Android, Apple can port to the iPhone! Thank you Apache license.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Come on, PlayForSure? You have to see the difference. No one is that stupid.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[e2d2]

The parent said "in 2007" so I'm sticking with it. Overall I have no idea how the next gen+ will be received. I'm not sayings it's a piece of shit, I don't own one. But it's not the next iPod so far. The iPod sold HUGE during the first release holiday season and then just went up. We'll see after this holiday season if it's the same. I have doubts.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?

No. The market is not the same and this one already have big players.

http://www.mobileisgood.com/statistics.php

In the music players market there weren't many brands in the beginning, I only remember apple and creative.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[e2d2]

That's very true, apple's hardware is pretty nice. But remember the iPhone is not made by Apple, it's made in China. Already we are seeing exact clones of the iPhone that are _better_ than the original.

Now as far as the user experience goes, if it's anything like the one on my iPod it's probably very user-friendly. That's gonna be the hard part for anyone trying to compete directly against such a premium brand.

I don't think Google has any intention of competing in that area, instead trying to focus on the platform and the tools to build such devices seems to be where they are going. It's not gonna be one "gPhone", it will be a competition for Symbian OS. That's really my point here, iPhone isn't a problem for Google here, not that the iPhone is crappy.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[Draek]

no, because DRM was something consumers didn't want, so it was the question of "who will fuck me less?", not "which one offers better features".

if you want a much closer analogy, look at the PC-compatible/Mac war from a few decades ago: on one side, a platform that you're free to use and develop for, and on the other, a platform controlled in it's entirety by a single company. And we all know how *that* one went.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[suggsjc]

What makes you think the Google SDK and iPhone SDK are incompatible?

I'm just guessing all of the statements that start with

import com.google.andoid.*

Besides, Apple does NOT want a truly open platform. They want to control the hardware (and software) that goes into/on the iPhone (or any of their products for that matter). I would actually be more shocked if 3rd party software doesn't have to be signed and sold *ONLY* through iTunes than if they actually allow people to put "whatever" they want on their phones...especially if that happens to be something that would cause them to get ATT upset (read voip). Two different models, two different approaches, two different SDK's.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[LWATCDR]

Only if they move off of AT&T.
Or are not and AT&T exclusive. Sort of like when the iPod stopped being only for the Mac.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[intheshelter]

"The iPhone is not great because it is such a great thing, it is great because the OS and software on other phones sucks that much. Change that and the iPhone is just a proprietary, expensive brick."

Yeah, you're right, the iPhone isn't the technology equivalent of cold fusion. But, the OS, the software, the interface, the experience, the ability to sync with your computer easily, etc., THOSE functions are what make the phone great. It's not an expensive brick because it works so well, while other phones are cheap bricks because they have horrible interfaces. What other aspect were you expecting on the phone to make it great? Some of the hardware complaints about the technology not being cutting edge are valid, but I don't need cutting edge technology to be happy. I need a phone that is easy to use, combines most of the functionality I want, and doesn't limit me to buying overpriced games/music/etc. from the service provider. The iPhone is THE FIRST phone I've seen that gives me the features I want and made them easy to use and that is why it is great and why it will continue to build tons of market share.

Sorry to those who disagree, but the iPhone has redefined mobile phones and right now there is no device in its league.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[intheshelter]

"Reports are that Apple's phone managed to successfully establish itself a niche in the mobile phone world, but that they failed to sell as many as they had hoped."

Whose expectations are not being met? Apples? The iPhone is meeting Apple's stated expectations just fine so far. It's the hype analysts who are "reporting" (if you could call it that with a straight face) that it is not meeting expectations, but those are expectations the analysts have set, not Apple.

I think the iPhone has more potential than you're giving it credit for in your post. I don't think it's a well designed product for "a few people". It's a well designed product for a lot of people. People in the US market are just not used to actually buying a phone so on the surface this appears to be a luxury phone for the rich. They're used to getting cheap, barely usable phones for free and not using 80% of the features because it's so annoying to use (and another 10% of the features that carriers disable). I think the iPhone is going to slowly change public expectations of how a phone should operate and how it should be free of carrier imposed disabled features. People are going to be more open to paying more for a phone that is easy to use and works the way they want it to work.

Maybe Android will turn out some nice stuff, but will the carriers allow it to be enabled? The iPhone is not tethered to AT&T solely for revenue. It's tied to them because Apple had to find a way to loosen the carriers grip on allowable features. When the 5 year contracts are up people will be more used to having enabled phones because of the iPhone's influence. My question is whether Android will convince the carriers to allow the currently locked down features the way the iPhone has opened AT&T's grip on those? I predict that fear of the iPhone's success will motivate carriers more than any of Android's merits.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

Except it's doing 10x better so far.
1m iPhones in 74 days vs 1m iPods in 20 months!

The Zune, in comparison, did 1m in 6 months; the iPhone certainly isn't a flop, either. And I think Apple reported 125,000 iPods sold by January of 2002.

Apple sold 3 times as many iPhones in their first 24 hours than they sold iPods in 3 months. And you think this holiday quarter won't be gangbusters for Apple?

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

You mean the Chinese clones like this that won't be out for another month?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_miniOne

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[e2d2]

No actually I meant the HTC touch, which is already out: http://www.htc.com/

Not an exact clone, but it has everything and more.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[e2d2]

Fair enough, I didn't know it was so popular given my limited sample (my friends lol). I stand corrected.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[pebs]

The iPod was originally Mac only, for the first 9 months. That didn't seem to stop it, either.

The AT&T bundle works to both parties advantage, for now. Don't think the landscape won't change in six months; Apple is probably working on a 3G phone as we speak.

The contract with AT&T is much longer than 9 months (it's 5 years). They have promised to be exclusive to AT&T for 5 years. I don't think the iPod would have been nearly as popular if it was still Mac only.

Sure, after the 5 years is up, and they expand to other providers, the iPhone may actually become relevant (especially since they will improve it during that time). But until then, its not going to happen. Maybe in other countries where they don't have exclusive contracts... But in many other countries (like Japan), cell phone technology has advanced far ahead of what the iPhone offers.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[2nd Post!]

But Apple has every opportunity to introduce OTHER iPhone models that aren't under contract with AT&T.

And this isn't about "technology", everything in the iPhone, like everything in the Wii or iPod, is current technology. It's in the design, usability, and functionality.

Nothing right now exists that is ANYTHING like the iPhone. When the iPhone adds more technical features to catch up, it's usability will leapfrog past any other competition.

Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant.

[pebs]

But Apple has every opportunity to introduce OTHER iPhone models that aren't under contract with AT&T.

I'll repeat my original post:

Not while AT&T is the only provider.

If they figure out some way around the 5-year contract (with a new model, or whatever), great. But until that happens, the iPhone is just not that relevant.

It's in the design, usability, and functionality.

Personally I'm not impressed with the touch-screen technology. I find the virtual keyboard makes the iPhone pretty unusable for anything but consuming media. Put a real keyboard on it and it might be worth something to me. So its a decent music player, phone, photo browser, e-mail reader, web viewer, etc. But if I want to actually send a text message, e-mail, or type into a web form its a pain in the ass. And I'm not the only one who has a problem with this. All I want is a simple phone that is comfortable and quick to text message with. I want a phone that's a communication device, not a consuming device. The iPhone can't do the one thing I care about well. Sure, what I want doesn't represent everyone, but still I'm one person who doesn't want an iPhone.

Predicting?

[sm62704]

Hey, I'm great at prediction. Just listen to what I say, and the exact opposite will happen.

I've noticed that most prognosticators are about on a par with me, or even worse. What's that meme, er, something about nothing and moving along?

-mcgrew

FPS (universal MMOG)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there needs to be a universal FPS engine so anyone can battle!
Lets talk about mobile gaming. GIS's. Tag...

ILKO

Ad-free printer-friendly version

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Ad-free printer-friendly version

It will most probably look like the emulator

[ishmalius]

If you download the Android SDK, and run the emulator, you will see what the phone will almost certainly look like.

Re:It will most probably look like the emulator

[junk]

You're making that assumption about the hardware or software side? Since it's only an emulator (and shows only a single platform), the ugly piece of hardware around around the UI is probably not a reflection of what a production model would look like. If you're talking about the software side, well, it's the first iteration of a development product that's open for public hacking. That's one UI, using the base virtual machine, of a system that's in it's infancy and highly open to hacking. I'd be willing to bet that the current UI is only a single (early) example of what one of the UIs will look like. But hey, maybe I just expect to much from the OSS community.

dontgooglemebro

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't Google me, bro!

sleek userinterface?

[mixenmaxen]

Am I the only one to think that the "sleek user interface" looks like Winamp pimped up by a Paris Hilton loving teenager? Not exactly a sleek user interface.

I think that Apple has nothing to worry about in this regard.

Opera Mini?

[feranick]

TFA goes a long way suggesting the GPhone will sport Opera Mini as its default browser. Although it will be possible to run any piece of software (according to Sergei Brin), in its current form, the Android platform already has a quite capable browser, based on WebKit. I can't see what Opera Mini can do that it's not possible within the built in browser. I was testing it yesterday on the Android emulator and the browser is both fast and accurate in rendering. I am sure Opera will make a Gphone version, but I bet Mozilla will too. In other words, it won't matter what browser will be ported, because the user will have a great deal of choice.

This is no iPhone (which is Safari only...).

Re:Opera Mini?

[AirLace]

It looks like the article authors do not know what they're talking about. Yes, Android does use WebKit and they are feeding patches to upstream at a fantastic rate, suggesting that they're sticking with WebKit in the long term. Given that Opera is not even a member of the OHA, this looks like some really bad journalism, or worse, product placement.

good luck

[burris]

I remember when ACE was announced. For you youngin's, the Advanced Computing Environment was an alliance of Compaq, Microsoft, MIPS Computer Systems, Digital Equipment Corporation, and the Santa Cruz Operation to build the next generation of computers in 1991. Basically, they wanted to wrestle control of the industry away from Intel. Steve Jobs was famously quoted as saying industry alliances always fail because there are just too many competing interests. He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.

Can anyone name some successful computer industry alliances composed of competing members? This alliance has tons of members who compete directly with each other: handset manufacturers, software companies, chip manufacturers. The idea that these companies are going to align all of their interests, come together and produce anything is pretty far fetched IMHO.

Re:good luck

[jmcdood]

Java has been quite successful (not so much at applets, of course, but otherwise) and it is developed and supported by a consortium of major companies (JSRs, JVMs, etc). Anyway, it's pretty clear that Android is being led by Google and they're using Java as an example to follow.

Re:good luck

[imstanny]

He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances. OPEC

Re:good luck

[north.coaster]

Ethernet.

It was originally invented by Xerox, which later teamed up with Digital Equipment Corporation and Intel to define the DIX standard. Lot's other companies then jumped on the band wagon.

The rest is history.

Re:good luck

[Red Flayer]

Steve Jobs was famously quoted as saying industry alliances always fail because there are just too many competing interests. He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.

OPEC. RIAA. MPAA.

Can anyone name some successful computer industry alliances composed of competing members?

Oh, computer industry alliances.

Let's see... IEEE Computer Society? The Linux Foundation? Not sure if we could call those industry alliances, but at least for the IEEE, isn't a standards group a kind of industry alliance?

I think one reason specifically that computer industry alliances fail is that there has been a 800-lb gorilla in the room that does not want those alliances to succeed -- and is an order of magnitude larger than 20 4-lb gorillas or 4 20-lb gorillas working together. Were control of the industry a little more distributed, I think we'd see alliances be more successful.

Re:good luck

[imstanny]

Can anyone name some successful computer industry alliances composed of competing members? This alliance has tons of members who compete directly with each other: handset manufacturers, software companies, chip manufacturers. The idea that these companies are going to align all of their interests, come together and produce anything is pretty far fetched IMHO. IMHO, you should read the report. The companies listed are not competing with each other. Unless of course Syanptics is producing processing chips and Texas Instruments is generating revenue by making touch pads.

Re:good luck

[cpeterso]

It was originally invented by Xerox, which later teamed up with Digital Equipment Corporation and Intel to define the DIX standard. Lot's other companies then jumped on the band wagon.

Yes: Ethernet was invented by Xerox, not an industry alliance.

Re:good luck

[jcausey]

ANSI
IEEE
Wifi Alliance

Re:good luck

[DdJ]

He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.

OPEC?

Re:good luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs was famously quoted as saying industry alliances always fail because there are just too many competing interests. He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.

RIAA, MPAA, BSA and so on.

Oh wait, you mean industry alliance in technological innovations and not industry alliance in lawsuits.

*pause*

'Kay, I got nothing.

iPhone is Part of the Apple Ecosystem

[BoRegardless]

The question is whether gPhone can establish a profound ecosystem of its own. It might do so & still not materially affect Apple, since Apple is offering an integraded personal digital ecosystem that gPhone is not aiming for in Android.

Besides everything else, I predict that given Google's tight relationship with Apple, we will see Google ads at some point on the iPhone.

With the volume of handsets worldwide, there is plenty of room for 2-3 GREAT players.

I'd buy one because...

[Boomer_Zz]

Google will probably let me do what I want with it and not try to brick it. I bet I have access to it's memory intentionally!

Re:I'd buy one because...

[C0rinthian]

Not after the cellular provider is done with it...

Re:I'd buy one because...

[j.sanchez1]

Google will probably let me do what I want with it and not try to brick it. I bet I have access to it's memory intentionally!

Exactly. I am not a mobile developer, but I'd like to be able to do things like add music, ringtones and wallpapers with just a USB cable (without feeling like I am "hacking" it) or like Open Moko is doing, let me change the "theme" of the UI easily.

Re:I'd buy one because...

[BotnetZombie]

That only applies to the US, and only there as long as none of the major carriers gives in to the inevitable pressure for non-restriction.

Not the end but the means that's important

[wonkavader]

Um, well, yeah, that's a good idea, though it's not going to kill the iPhone. But what could cause such a thing to be launched IS a way to kill the iPhone. A really open platform that's easy to develop on. A plethora of free, fun, useful apps, some of which will be amazing and an overnight success in a way that the phone itself won't be.

Someone here pointed out that Apple is a Prada to Google's Samsonite. As far as people see it that way (and there are lots, I know), Apple has nothing to worry about. But the gPhone will slowly catch up and pass, in terms of functionality, and will develop some incredible applications, because of the sheer number of people who could develop for it.

The iPhone is going to be for people who are willing to pay a LOT more for both a phone and for phone calls, in return for status and slick user interface. But the gPhone will be what they're forced to use so they can get applications they need, either for business or just life.

Article is not informed

[NicenessHimself]

Its clearly not from someone in the business. As someone in the business, but not involved in gphone, take my word for it.

There is no "gPhone"

[sound vision]

I'd like to correct the misconception (which wasn't really addressed in the summary) that Google will be producing a singular gPhone. What they are doing is forming an alliance with various hardware manufacturers and software developers to create a standard that phones can be developed to. So what we will have will be a multitude of phones conforming to the alliance's standards, thus having similar capabilities.

Playing catch-up

[rueger]

Let's ignore the touch screen, which I'm not sure is the greatest idea for a cel phone anyhow. Beyond that I'm comparing the features promised by both Apple and Google to a Nokia N82 soon available in Europe and I see:

It boasts a five-megapixel camera with a xenon flash and Carl Zeiss optics, and sports a 2.4in display that rotates from portrait to landscape view at the flick of a wrist, thanks to a built in accelerometer. The device includes Assisted GPS technology ... and compensates for weak satellite signals by sending data about your current location over your carrier's network ... several TomTom-esque maps come preinstalled and Nokia's thrown in a trial of its voice-guided navigation utility... it's also a quad-band GSM/GPRS/Edge device and can make HSDPA 3G connections for data and video calls. There's 802.11b/g Wi-Fi connectivity on-board, and downloaded content can be stored on the bundled 2GB Micro SD card. Additional connectivity options include USB 2.0 and Bluetooth, with A2DP for streaming audio to wireless headphone...

I haven't sat down to do a side by side comparison, but this sure looks like a more useful tool than what Apple and Google are selling. The Nokia looks like it would do everything that I want from a phone, and includes features that the Apple at least lacks.

uhhh

[dfj225]

Well, you could do all that or go to the Android site (code.google.com/android) and download the SDK as well as watch the developer videos that are posted. Having done this, you can see the UI as it stands now. Which, by the way, is very different (and much more pleasant, IMHO) than what is shown in the images linked from TFA.

In addition, you can also see from the SDK's emulator what chip is being emulated (ARM926EJ-S [41069265] revision 5) and how much ram is available (96MB) and so on.

Why so much pure speculation when there is much more accurate data available from the published SDK?

Re:uhhh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, quite brilliant. Clearly, this article was written before the publication of Android, but published after.

So it is based on what was known when only the list of partners was published. How stupid do you have to be to write a completely speculative article with no knowledge whatsoever, when it is already clear that all the answers will be there (and make you look completely stupid) by the time it gets published.

Re:uhhh

[jrumney]

ARM926EJ-S is not a chip, it's a core which is licensed by a number of chip manufacturers. But the Qualcomm MSM7k family, which Google just released a Linux kernel port for (big hint there) is ARM11 based, so I think the ARM926EJ-S is probably just the most recent ARM core that QEMU can emulate.

And you are...

[Anonymous Coward]

A fucking karma whore

Article Website

[TheMeuge]

Given the number of flash-based ads and overlays on this site, it's safe to assume that if Google can come up with a mobile platform that is capable of handling the page with TFA, they're geniuses.

Why Predict? Here's a Demo

[asphaltjesus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb2N0QzX1NI

This doesn't look particularly revolutionary from an end-user perspective. The video uses a bunch of different buttons to do stuff, so I don't know how a touch screen would improve matters dramatically.

If someone says, "Just wait. It'll be great!" I dunno, there appears to be a bunch of gui-stuff already done and that's the hardest and least sexy part of the work that hardly anyone is willing to re-do.

gPhone : iPhone :: PC : Macintosh

[Shimmer]

And we all know how that turned out for Apple (vs. Intel/Microsoft).

If you want a high-end phone and are willing to pay a premium so that that software and hardware work together seamlessly (because they're both made by the same company), you'll buy an Apple iPhone.

If you want a commodity phone that runs a ubiquitous UI (OS), but maybe doesn't work perfectly in all situations (e.g. driver problems), you'll buy a gPhone containing standardized hardware (read: cheap, in both senses of the word).

Apple will continue to be the high-end boutique. But someone else will make most of the money.

Re:gPhone : iPhone :: PC : Macintosh

[2nd Post!]

Hmm, Apple making billions a year, switching to Intel, and growing at 30% a year is somehow bad?

The difference and problem with your analogy is that Google doesn't get a cent off Android unless it is through ads, software sales, or some other licensing agreement. Also wrong with your analogy is that all of the PC manufacturers are suffering from razor thin margins while Apple has nice healthy ones. So Google can't be Microsoft and the handset manufacturers don't want to be Dell, Compaq, or IBM, they want to be Apple.

Finally, anything developed for Android can be trivially ported to the iPhone, thanks to the Apache license and the fact that OS X is fundamentally similar to Android!

In the end I think what will happen is Android will be #1 in sheer volume, but iPhone will be #1 in pure profit. Apple will copy the best features of Android and Android will copy the best features of the iPhone. Microsoft will be relegated to a very distant third.

Re: gPhone : iPhone :: PC : Macintosh

[Shimmer]

Growing at 30% a year is somehow bad?

Of course not. However, they have a much smaller market share than, say, Microsoft. If you go back to the 1980's (the time of the PC/Mac split), Apple clearly took the "boutique" route. It's worked out OK for them, but it worked out much better for the other folks.

Also, I don't think much of Apple's recent growth has been fueled by Macintosh.

The difference and problem with your analogy is that Google doesn't get a cent off Android

I think that's actually fairly consistent with my analogy. Google is defining an open platform just like IBM defined the PC platform, but never made a cent off of Dell's sales.

Android will be #1 in sheer volume, but iPhone will be #1 in pure profit

Isn't that pretty much what I'm saying too? Apple will take the high-end sliver of the market. High margins, but low volume.

Re: gPhone : iPhone :: PC : Macintosh

[2nd Post!]

Look at Apple's recent quarterly reports.

Over 56% of their income is Mac related.
Macs are growing at 30+% a year

Those Macs cannot be ignored in Apple's growth.

Not that I disagree with you...

[msimm]

The final products are way too far off to know, but the software demo did look promising and barring any hardware SNAFU's I don't see too much they can go wrong with (that can't be fixed from within the community).

OMAP

[edivad]

It looks like they're more targeting the Qualcomm chipsets, since their kernel repository is for that: http://git.android.com/

KISS.

[urcreepyneighbor]

I just want to transceive calls and vanilla text messages. :(

Hmmm...

[kc2keo]

They should run Multics on it! I made a funny...

Not the hardware - the IDEA

[SharpFang]

The phone itself, if ever created as such (and not just a dozen platform-compliant phones from different manufacturers) won't be revolutionary by and in itself.

It's the software it can come with that is the true revolution. You'll get a fully programmable, and EASILY programmable device providing you with mostly everything you desire. And because of the 'free software' idea, you won't be limited by silly patents.

Imagine this:
Combine GPS capablity (positioning relative to specific BTS, not the satellites) with ringer phone settings: entering theatre or lecture hall turns "silent" on.
Hack the GSM connection or even bluetooth, and you have a functional walkie-talkie for short-range talking for free.
Port Gameboy, NES and some more emulators.
Allow for morse code SMS text input (way faster than multitap, often faster than T9) and readout (read SMS without taking the phone off your pocket)
Skype->VoIP could come cheaper than most mobile connection rates (especially interntational)
GPS without GPS module - use BTS pings to triangulate your location and find yourself on Google Maps.
All kinds of weird shit you can pull out with the multitap, including fingers-smearing OpenCanvas-like multiplayer painting.
Combine a few of these for a bigger screen.
Use a bluetooth full-size PC qwerty keyboard. Maybe somehow a 17" screen too.
Emulate iPhone (and annoy the shit off Mac users)
Combine it with some GPIO hardware and use it to drive stuff remotely (a car?)
Get a handful of simple hardware (maybe Chineese will produce something that will plug into USB), run the emulator with modifications and change your laptop or even desktop into a (rather big) gPhone.
Build your own. The specs are quite open.
Run a modified manager process that keeps 95% of the phone's features powered down unless you specifically switch them on (including screen and most of the software) keeping the phone to run two weeks on a single charge (all power used by other chips goes to GSM).
Stream mp3s from your home server.
Use internal temp sensors and battery controller for a "hand warmer" function.
Scanner, Mouse (using camera) or Trackpad (using touchscreen) for PC.
Precisely tune the vibration motor timing, accelerometer input and the camera input and change the phone into an RC/autonomic vehicle moving using vibrations of precise waveform making it slide in a specific direction... ...and a thousand more which are just too difficult with Symbian and iPhone.

Re:Not the hardware - the IDEA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes sure... The software... fully programmable...

I tell you what will happen... After a few free software downloads,
sure enough, the average Joe cellphone will end up like what
the average Joe windows desktop is today, a slow viral ball of hairs
full of poor quality, but sure enough free and open applications
and junk libraries...

For 90% of the consumers, a cell phone is an appliance... for 10%
of the geeks out there it is a cool runtime environment and so what
is you have to reboot/viruscheck/re-install once in... a week :)

I do not need this open crap on my cell, I prefer the
closed version form Apple...

So what is next for you, an open TV or Radio or Alarm clock on
which you can install linux and recompile doom againt ? pathetic...

Re:Not the hardware - the IDEA

[InakaBoyJoe]

I can't believe you forgot the Beowulf Cluster!

We don't need new technology!

[erroneus]

We need today's technology unhindered! Every time you turn around, the phone companies reduce or remove functionality built into the phones so they can make more money somehow... preventing people from sending attachments, preventing people from creating and transferring their own ring tones to their phones from their PCs and on and on and on.

We don't need anything that's not already available. We just need something unbroken.

A better guess

[belliott4488]

I think this video gives a better view into the possibilities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg&eurl=http://code.google.com/android/

Is it really an alliance?

[rmcd]

I think that calling this an alliance is just PR. Maybe I'm missing something, but they don't all have to produce the same thing. They don't have to use exactly the same application software, they don't have to use the same form factor, they don't have to agree on which features to ship or enable.

This seems more to me like the industry following Compaq and standardizing on the IBM BIOS in the early 1980s. With that decision out of the way, you could produce computers in a variety of form factors with whatever software you wanted. There was a base on which to build.

In this case, Google seems firmly in control because they've already built a basic and extensible software platform. They're not asking for agreement, they're saying here it is, who wants to use it, and who wants to extend it?

It seems to me that what's critical is gaining critical mass before the platform forks (which it will eventually).

Re:Is it really an alliance?

[burris]

I think you're right on in your analysis. As others pointed it, its a lot like Java/Sun's strategy.

Not Apple. Microsoft.

[BearRanger]

As others have pointed out, Apple produces an integrated stack of a product. Hardware and software that are designed to work together. That's true for the Mac and it's true for the iPhone.

Google and their associates are looking to create a software stack that will run on a variety of hardware platforms. Exactly whose business model does that emulate? I think Apple has less to worry about than Microsoft does. This new platform is designed to fit exactly into the same niche that's currently occupied by Windows Mobile.

Saying Apple should be worried generates lots of headlines and readership, but it seems to me the ongoing Google - Microsoft "war" just opened a new front.

What a crap article

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of bollocks that article is. I stopped reading when it suggested that Opera Mini would be the browser. Have they not read ANYTHING about android? Does the author not realise that android comes with a webkit browser built in? More like "missinformation" week

Demo Video of "Android"

[MichaelWhi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FJHYqE0RDg

Successful computer industry alliances

[James Youngman]

1. VESA
2. The Open Group
3. IEEE
4. GSM
5. The Unicode Consortium
6. Bluetooth SIG
7. CAN
8. EIA (responsible for, among other things, JEDEC, who are responsible for DDR and related standards)

Apple is only a player in the media's mind

[Aeonym]

Sales of the iPhone are are currently around 1.35 million units. To put that in perspective, in 2007 about 1.13 BILLION handsets will be sold worldwide. So Apple's market share could be generously estimated at about 0.2%--they just aren't a real player in the phone market.

Apple shouldn't be concerned about the Google phone. They should be concerned about what will happen in a year or so when the media hype has worn off and there are a dozen viable (and more functional) iPhone equivalents.

Re:Apple is only a player in the media's mind

[phoebusQ]

You realize that you're parrotting many of the predications made around the launch of the iPod.

Android suitable for the mid-range?

[edxwelch]

Android is a great idea, but the more I hear about it the more it's looking like a heavy weight OS more suitable for bulky PDA-type phones. That would ristrict it to a niche market.
Don't think Android will every be able to run on lower mid range phones like
Nokia and Sony ericsson are producing now (thinking along the lines of SE K610, or Nokia 6131)... cheap, powerful, slim line phones like this are going to rule the market

Re:Android suitable for the mid-range?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are partially correct, the android platform seems to be a bit high-end for the current mid-range slim phones, but what about the mid-range slim phones that will be coming out with Android on them? Sure, it might not be at launch, it will probably start out with the higher-end phones, but I don't think it would be very long before hardware costs drop to the point where it would be a feasable platform to run on an "average" phone.

emulator UI

[Anonymous Coward]

The Android phone emulator doesn't respond to clicks on the screen. Plus it has, like, eleven buttons. I don't see it having much of any iPhone UI hardware.

The PowerPC

[bgspence]

PowerPC is a RISC microprocessor architecture created by the 1991 Apple-IBM-Motorola alliance, known as AIM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

likewise

[xkhaozx]

I predict that we'll all have flying cars in the year 2050.

I hope google is predicting

[Anonymous Coward]

that People are going to try to use this for criminal purposes.
I have been waiting for a long time for this and I predict that if they don't get it right noone will follow suit in giving us creative people a decent platform.

Should apple be concerned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is Apple a significant player in the worldwide cellphone market? It has, what, 1% market share? They should be concerned about surviving, period. The real question is should Nokia, Sony, Motorola and Samsung be concerned?

have you heard of SEMI/Semicon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone name some successful computer industry alliances composed of competing members?

SEMI is comprised of competing companies and they seemed to have aligned their interests in furthering semiconductor manufacturing.

If it's truly open...

[audi100quattro]

Why not port it to existing phones? It would take some work, but there's got to be a large enough user base of linux-bootable Razr/etc.. users to make it worth it a la new firmware on routers. If only every capable phone came with Apple fanboys attached... The iPhone is probably disabled from booting anything but the OSX it has, but the amount of reverse engineering was impressive considering the same mount or more could be accomplished with other phones too. ...and hey, google's giving you the whole middle-ware stack for free now! Is the SDK just the middle-ware or does it have the kernel with drivers too? I'm almost curious enough to download it.

clearly wrong

[sentientbrendan]

in actually it is common knowledge that the GPhone will have a 3d user touchscreen combined with psiso-optical megnetopherometer based inductance that will allow time travel along not just the normal time dimension, but along a 2nd heretofore undiscovered dimension of time, which Google has coined "GTime". Google is hoping to tap into the market of those who want to talk, check email, browse the web, and time travel on the go.

Before you mod me down, consider that I have exactly as much evidence for my conclusions as the person who posted the original slashdot article.