T-Mobile Will Be First To Use Android

stoolpigeon writes to tell us that T-Mobile's upcoming phone will try to combine the best elements of many of the new smart phones, and will be using Google's Android software. "The HTC phone, which many gadget sites are calling the 'dream,' will have a touch screen, like the iPhone. But the screen also slides out to expose a full five-row keyboard. A video of the phone has been posted recently on YouTube. A person who has seen the HTC device said it matched the one in the video. The phone's release date depends on how soon the Federal Communications Commission certifies that the Google software and the HTC phone meet network standards. Executives at all three companies are hoping to announce the phone in September because they would benefit from holiday season sales."

Comments

A video of the phone has been posted recently on Y

[Junior J. Junior III]

From the summary:

A video of the phone has been posted recently on YouTube.

Come on, link! I'm lazy!

"Use Android"

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a nice way of saying robot slavery! FREE OUR MECHANICAL BROTHERS!

Re:"Use Android"

[Tumbleweed]

That sounds like a nice way of saying robot slavery! FREE OUR MECHANICAL BROTHERS!

Android Dream is clearly a female, you sexist pig! Think 'Gigolo Jane' from A.I. Android's Dream, however, is a novel.

Besides, it's clearly not slavery, as you won't be using it for more than a few years. It's more like being a serf.

Re:"Use Android"

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Gynoid.

Re:"Use Android"

[Tumbleweed]

Gynoid.

Gynoid-American(tm)! (assuming you're in the U.S.)

Note: Gynoid-American(tm) is a product of Fly-By-Night Corporation, a division of Harkonnen Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Do not taunt Gynoid-American(tm).

Re:"Use Android"

[amRadioHed]

I disagree, an android dream is clearly an electronic sheep.

Re:"Use Android"

[Mr. DOS]

I, for one, welcome our mechanical brother overlords?

Now just watch as I get modded redundant...

      --- Mr. DOS

Re:"Use Android"

[Mincer Lightbringer]

I prefer the term "artificial person".

Re:"Use Android"

[el cisne]

"an android dream is clearly an electronic sheep."

Or a white unicorn?

Re:"Use Android"

[rootooftheworld]

Those are some perverted androids.

FCC

[XanC]

The FCC has to certify software? That seem strange to anybody? Isn't regulation of the power and frequency enough, and everything else is between the carrier and the phone?

Re:FCC

[niceone]

Not so strange: the software will control the power and the frequency.

Re:FCC

[JustOK]

http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/ea/procedures.html

Re:FCC

[tepples]

The FCC has to certify software? That seem strange to anybody? Isn't regulation of the power and frequency enough, and everything else is between the carrier and the phone?

If software controls the power and frequency, FCC regulates the software.

Re:FCC

[oneal13rru]

Of course they do! It said Android!! They have to make sure it follows the 3 Laws of Robotics or the phone might take over the world!!

Re:FCC

[wealthychef]

It doesn't seem that strange. They probably regulate airborne communications, not airborne communications hardware. It's not the Federal Communications Hardware Commission, after all. Not that I think the government should have power not explicitly granted in the Constitution, but that's another story. :-)

Re:FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

No. What if the frequency and power were correct, but then the phone decided to sniff out other phone calls and interfere with them? It'd still be within the correct frequency bands and power limits. They have to make sure that the phone "behaves" properly on the network.

Re:FCC

[sm62704]

Well, considering that T-Mobile and Google are corporations and the FCC is a government agency, you don't expect it to have to follow the zeroth law, now do you?

Is the phone's code name "R. Giskard Relentlov" or "R. Daneel Olivaw"??

Re:FCC

[Tumbleweed]

Of course they do! It said Android!! They have to make sure it follows the 3 Laws of Robotics or the phone might take over the world!!

Too late to worry about that - it's Google.

Re:FCC

[Tumbleweed]

you don't expect it to have to follow the zeroth law, now do you?

0. [Classified]
1. Serve the public
2. Protect the innocent
3. Uphold the law

Hmmm...*that* doesn't inspire confidence...

Re:FCC

[gmuslera]

Considering that comes from all those corporations, I would be scared of hidden directives if the phone's code name is R. Obocop.

Re:FCC

[Sockatume]

What if controls the horizontal, and the vertical?

Re:FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Except counting to 3 still means having 3 of an item, even when you start from zero. 0,1,2...two, ah ah ah. Three, three laws!

Re:FCC

[Enderandrew]

Directive 4 was classified. I'm not sure what zeroth law is supposed to mean, but then again I've never read Asimov. Rather I recognize references to 80' sci-fi movies.

Re:FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Then its the Outer Limits?

Re:FCC

[Tumbleweed]

Directive 4 was classified. I'm not sure what zeroth law is supposed to mean, but then again I've never read Asimov. Rather I recognize references to 80' sci-fi movies.

Clearly, you have not yet received the upgraded humour module. Please to look up, "creative license."

Re:FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

4. profit?

Re:FCC

[Anpheus]

This clearly falls under the commerce clause, as unregulated spectrum falls under a tragedy of the commons: he who shouts loudest is heard best, to the detriment of everyone else.

We can't very well allow any corporation with a many-megawatt transmitter to drown out everyone else and damn the consequences. Likewise, our broadcast television, cell-phone and wireless internet infrastructure would never work if people and corporations were permitted to just use whatever spectrum they wanted at whatever output levels they liked.

Re:FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry about that. We'll take care of it.

Re:FCC

[Anpheus]

If the hardware stack is open source, good luck with that requirement.

Re:FCC

[stefanlasiewski]

There is nothing wrong with your government. Do not attempt to adjust the leadership. We are now controlling the information. We control the horizontal and the vertical. We can deluge you with a thousand unwarranted wiretaps or expand one your phone call to crystal clarity and beyond. We can hear you now.

Re:FCC

[mcpkaaos]

Is the phone's code name "R. Giskard Relentlov" or "R. Daneel Olivaw"??

My guess would be Caliban.

Re:FCC

[Tubal-Cain]

"A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

Basically, because it is the lowest numbered law (the lower-numbered Laws override the higher numbers), the Three Laws can be broken for the good of humanity.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Zeroth_Law_added

Re:FCC

[intangible]

No... it goes like this:

1. Serve the public
2. Protect the innocent
3. Uphold the law
4. ???
5. Profit!!

Re:FCC

[tyrione]

``Objects aren't as large as they appear.''

Re:FCC

[k1e0x]

The NSA has to make sure they can turn it on in your pocket and bug you.. you know.. for your safety.. in case Bin Ladden ever got one.. and if you don't like that then you must be hiding something..

Re:FCC

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC has to certify software? That seem strange to anybody? Isn't regulation of the power and frequency enough, and everything else is between the carrier and the phone?

If software controls the power and frequency, FCC regulates the software.

And the mind controls the software therefore FCC controls the mind.

Re:FCC

[dangitman]

I thought this was Directive Four:

4. Do not arrest or allow any senior OCP executive to come to harm

Re:FCC

[node 3]

No, you simply just don't understand. The Constitution is a document perfect in crafting. There is no fault with the Constitution. Any fault here is your lack of faith in the rightness of the Constitution.

If the Constitution doesn't explicitly address things like fire departments, libraries, schools, space programs, health care, nuclear weaponry or electromagnetic communications, those things clearly have absolutely no need for governmental attention. All problems related to any such issue can be completely, and solely, traced back to the fact that the government, in clear contravention of the US Constitution, has in some way addressed those issues.

The US Constitution isn't an imperfect document written by men, it is an infallible document which must never be questioned by imperfect men. To determine whether the doubter of the Constitution is an imperfect man (or women), one need only find the answer to one of two questions to be true:

1. Is that person part of the government (and not a libertarian)?
2. Is that person doubting the strict, literal and absolute reading of the Constitution?

And, if you think perhaps there are legitimate questions of interpretations of vague, ambiguous, or otherwise open-ended parts of the Constitution, you are wrong. The only valid interpretations must empower corporations, remove social responsibilities of individuals, and may, under no circumstances whatsoever, allow the government any powers beyond the enforcement of the amendments, using procedures outlined in the articles.

If a word (such as "privacy") does not exist within the Constitution, it does not exist for the government at all. The words "FCC" or "Federal Communications Commission" do not exist in the Constitution.

Re:FCC

[sm62704]

In science fiction, the Three Laws of Robotics are a set of three rules written by Isaac Asimov, which almost all positronic robots appearing in his fiction must obey. Introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although foreshadowed in a few earlier stories, the Laws state the following:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first passage in Asimov's short story "Liar!" (1941) that mentions the First Law is the earliest recorded use of the word robotics.[1] Asimov was not initially aware of this; he assumed the word already existed by analogy with mechanics, hydraulics, and other similar terms denoting branches of applied knowledge.[2]

The "zeroth" law was added not long before Asimov's death:

Zeroth Law added
Asimov once added a "Zeroth Law"--so named to continue the pattern of lower-numbered laws superseding in importance the higher-numbered laws--stating that a robot must not merely act in the interests of individual humans, but of all humanity. The robotic character R. Daneel Olivaw was the first to give the Law a name, in the novel Robots and Empire; however, Susan Calvin articulates the concept in the short story "The Evitable Conflict".

In the final scenes of the novel Robots and Empire, R. Giskard Reventlov is the first robot to act according to the Zeroth Law, although it proves destructive to his positronic brain, as he is not certain as to whether his choice will turn out to be for the ultimate good of humanity or not. Giskard is telepathic, like the robot Herbie in the short story "Liar!", and he comes to his understanding of the Zeroth Law through his understanding of a more subtle concept of "harm" than most robots can grasp. However, unlike Herbie, Giskard grasps the philosophical concept of the Zeroth Law, allowing him to harm individual human beings if he can do so in service to the abstract concept of humanity. The Zeroth Law is never programmed into Giskard's brain, but instead is a rule he attempts to rationalize through pure metacognition; though he fails, he gives his successor, R. Daneel Olivaw, his telepathic abilities. Over the course of many thousand years, Daneel adapts himself to be able to fully obey the Zeroth Law. As Daneel formulates it, in the novels Foundation and Earth and Prelude to Foundation, the Zeroth Law reads: "A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."

Better than the iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

iDon't think so

Re:Better than the iPhone

[sokoban]

We'll see. I'm guessing Google probably won't totally drop the ball on the software, but the hardware and integration between hardware and software will be interesting to see in the real world. Lots of companies make good hardware, and lots make good software, but Apple is usually better than most at integrating the two, which in a device like the iPhone or HTC "Dream" is pretty key.

Re:Better than the iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is better at integrating their own software and the hardware, but they have a tendency to put artificial restrictions in place to prevent that kind of integration between third-party apps and the hardware. Among other things, Apple's applications that come with the iPhone can run in the background and access the contents of the user's iPod...and those are just the two that you find out within 10 minutes of looking into what it would take to develop an app for the iPhone. When you dig deeper, there are quite a few artificial restrictions for app developers that go away when you decide to make your app non-official (i.e. require a jailbroken phone).

FWIW, I have an iPhone and generally love it. But all the apps I'd like to write for it (I've come up with 4 ideas so far) have run into some issue with an explicit decision Apple made in the SDK that makes them impossible. There's one app that I may end up writing using an undocumented work around, but I'm not sure I want to put in the effort because that API could change at any moment and there's a good chance Apple would refuse to distribute the app through the app store because of that.

If the Android SDK can focus on allowing third-party apps to have full access to the available hardware, the user experience will end up being better than on the iPhone. Initially, it will be worse since the basic apps that come with the phone won't feel as natural. But, over time, those apps will mature and third party apps will higher quality and more useful. I'm hoping that point in time is somewhere around the time my 2 year contract is up with AT&T because unless Apple opens up the SDK a lot more, I won't be getting another iPhone. As a developer, I'm not interested in any phone that prevents me from writing the kinds of apps that I want to write.

Re:Better than the iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

but Apple is usually better than most at integrating the two

It's not hard to integrate hardware and software when you simply leave out a lot of the hard stuff: full Bluetooth, full synchronization, background tasks, tethering, etc.

Apple's iPhone is crippled.

Re:Better than the iPhone

[ToasterMonkey]

Among other things, Apple's applications that come with the iPhone can run in the background and access the contents of the user's iPod...

If the Android SDK can focus on allowing third-party apps to have full access to the available hardware,

But, what you're asking for is full access to all the software. I don't think you're even going to get this on Android (or any phone in the near future).. your code all runs in a VM doesn't it? Hell, we don't even have full access to everything on OS X or Windows systems, just lots of clever work arounds that break in the next SP/release, right? Right now, how do you modify the iTunes DB without iTunes? Look what happened to anti-virus developers and Vista. Even Linux, about as open a system as you can get, doesn't go out of its way to let you do what you want with it. Give me a stable driver API.. errm, now, and for 5+ years? And can we get ZFS support merged please? Anyway, I think "being able to do something" isn't the same as "designed to allow you to do something". It's one notch higher than "designed not to allow you.." though :\

How about we focus more on functional software that helps us do useful things, rather than software that fucks around with our systems for the sake of it?
I know, I know, there are going to be many cases where a legitimate piece of functionality is held back because of artificial restrictions or real software limitations, but it just seems like most software is part of a big feedback loop, and when you step back, look at how it improves your life/business... wow... what are computers for again? Programming and fixing?

That's the only thing I really care about any platform, what are it's capabilities, what can it do, what DOES it do for me? In that light, both the iPhone and Android based systems seem to have equal potential to affect our lives, by making a few things a bit easier for us. But only one of them DOES much right now. They're both still just phones, and at best, PDAs :\

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[XanC]

here

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[pushing-robot]

Linked. But only because you're lazy.

No, wait! It's...

[XanC]

this one

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[wealthychef]

Here is a totally premature review and the video inline: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/08/15/first_google_android_phone_sighting_reveals_awkward_iphone_rival.html

many gadget sites are calling the "dream"

[niceone]

Is that "dream" as in "wonderous achievement" or "dream" as in "vapourware"?

Re:many gadget sites are calling the "dream"

[Constantine XVI]

It's dream as in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". Best guess, anyway.

Re:many gadget sites are calling the "dream"

[gmuslera]

Do Android Dream of Internet Searchs? Better guess.

Re:many gadget sites are calling the "dream"

[paimin]

Yeah, exactly. I had a "Dream" of a perfect phone made by Google. Then I woke up, walked down to the Apple Store, and bought an iPhone.

Re:many gadget sites are calling the "dream"

[Constantine XVI]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F

Geek card. Now. Hand it over.

Re:many gadget sites are calling the "dream"

[Anonymous Coward]

You know there is slight difference between just a dream and a nightmare, right?

GTFO, hipster asshole.

I looked at the Android software.

[LWATCDR]

Okay it was written by Google but I just didn't think it was all that special.
It was not as open as I would have liked. It only ran in an emulator.
You have to write you applications in Java. Which I do know but is some what limiting.
And the UI was just... Okay.
I will have to see what comes of it but so far it is just ok.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[andy1307]

You have to write you applications in Java. Which I do know but is some what limiting.

more limiting than objective-c?

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[LWATCDR]

I would say yes. I am a big fan of Java but on a small device like a phone I would think native code would be best for some applications.
On the other hand I can see the logic to keeping applications on a JVM so that locking up the device is less of an issue.
I have not really looked at the SDK yet so maybe it is all that and a bag of chips.
What I don't like is that I can not use it outside of the emulator. I would like to try it out as a Netbook Distro :) Seems like it could be good for some small screened devices that are a little bigger than a phone.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[samkass]

I would have preferred Apple had adopted Java back in the late 90's and done all of Cocoa in it, personally. That being said, yes, Java as it stands today is more limiting for writing rich client apps than Apple's Objective-C UIKit.

It's not about the language. It's about the libraries. And Apple is currently second-to-none in that department for user interaction.

And really, the amount of Objective-C specific stuff you have to know to write compelling content for the iPhone isn't that huge. The most popular apps seem to be either 90% Interface Builder work, or 90% OpenGL ES work.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[timster]

Well, it would have been nice if NEXTStep (aka Cocoa) had been written in Java, except that development started about ten years before Java 1.0 was released.

Keep in mind that the Apple/NEXT reverse takeover occurred in 1996, about when Java was showing up in web applets.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[pjt33]

ARM have been making chips which run Java bytecode natively for at least five years. Hardware isn't really my area so I can't say whether they're appropriate for this kind of application.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[WilliamBaughman]

I would have preferred Apple had adopted Java back in the late 90's and done all of Cocoa in it, personally.

I'm a fan of Java, but I really like my GUIs to run at native speed. Coincidentally, I'm a big fan of IBM's Standard Widget Toolkit (soon to have better cocoa support, hopefully!)

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[drspliff]

It's not really Java though, at least not when it's being run on the phone. The Android VM is very well done and specifically tweaked (from the design and onwards) to be suitable for embedded devices, even moreso than J2Me...
The SDK includes an optimizing JVM to Android VM translator, so performance shouldn't be much of an issue, while at the same time you don't have to worry about writing/porting code to a variety of different architectures.

Not to mention, you could probably compile other code to run on the Android VM, much like NestedVM does for C on the JVM...

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[TheRaven64]

Not to mention the fact that a lot of Cocoa would have been impossible in Java. Anything that relies on the forwardInvocation: mechanism (all of distributed objects, anything that uses NSProxy) can not be implemented in Java without ugly hacks like the command pattern layered on top of the language. Java has no second-chance dispatch mechanism, so if you want a proxy object you need to create one tailored for each class you might possibly proxy. You could probably hack something together with the reflection APIs (which don't fully support reflection, only introspection), but it would look horrible.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[speedtux]

It's not about the language. It's about the libraries. And Apple is currently second-to-none in that department for user interaction.

Really? As demonstrated by what?

Looks to me Apple has the same pushbutton/scrollbar/slider stuff as anybody else. And Objective C with XCode seems clunky and outdated compared to Glade and Python, or C# and Stetic.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[Ma8thew]

I'm guessing you've never used Cocoa. Try it, and be amazed.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[tyrione]

F***'in eh, you just made me throw up in my coffee.

Java is a poor-man's ObjC/Cocoa. It always has been. You'll agree with my prior statement after OS X 10.6 is released with all the changes being done.

The only reason SUN even went with Java is the political fallout between my former NeXT Management and Sun's former Management.

The Openstep Initiative had Openstep 4 ported to SUN Hardware, across the board, but they just couldn't put their egos aside long enough to manage an equitable arrangement on who gets what for the software and how it ties in to the cost of the hardware.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[tyrione]

NeXT you're going to tell me that Trolltech's Designer tool is on-par with Interface Builder or the Visual Studio tools for UI design are on-par with IB, but I'm betting you'll throw out that abortion of designing interfaces known as Netbeans?

It's clear to me that you really know nothing of ObjC and Cocoa and the tools Apple includes as well.

Please don't talk about Glade/Python as being superior to ObjC/Cocoa and IB. I can understand you not wanting to pay a dime for the Mac Hardware to learn the tools but remember your comment when you get sick of seeing 10.6 and the changes Apple implements by ripping out all the cruft that has held it back for the past decade.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[bnenning]

I'm guessing you've never used Cocoa. Try it, and be amazed.

I have. It blows Swing and Win32 away, but these days I prefer Python, mainly due lack of header files, built-in collections, everything-is-an-object (no primitive types or half-objects like SEL) and expansive standard library (where the heck is NSRegularExpression or NSTCPSocket?). wxPython isn't as good as Cocoa for the UI, but it's decent and cross platform.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[Bob9113]

It's not about the language. It's about the libraries.

I dunno, I'm a Java pro and genuinely like the language, but Obj-C is really nice. Smalltalk-like true messaging with default handlers? Drop to C (or most of C++) whenever you feel like it? Infix notation? The libraries may rock, but the language is also on a higher level.

I'm not bashing Java - I love me some Java, but Obj-C is truly a thing of beauty.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[samkass]

Look, I develop Java all day long and work on an enterprise-class distributed workspace written in 100% Java. I also have an app for sale on Apple's iPhone App Store. I'm entitled to my opinion, and I'm not talking from a position of ignorance.

I really do prefer Java as a language. But for user interaction, you just can't beat Interface Builder and Apple's libraries. Especially Core Animation combined with the rest of UIKit for the iPhone.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[IamTheRealMike]

I suggest checking out the Java proxy class.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[LKM]

Really? As demonstrated by what?

I would guess GP referred to things like Core Animation.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[TheRaven64]

Thanks, very informative. I don't think I've looked at Java in detail since 1.2, so I missed that. It appears, however, that this is a special case - you can't do things like weak delegation easily in Java (where you provide a delegate object which implements some subset of the delegate methods and, at runtime, the ones it doesn't implement are not called), nor can you do some of the nice things with runtime code generation that NSProxy allows.

One thing that would be very difficult with Java's proxy class is higher-order messaging. In Objective-C, you can do:

[[aCollection allObject] doSomething];

In Java, the equivalent would be something like:

aCollection.allObjects().doSomething();

The allObjects method returns a proxy containing an enumerator (iterator, in Java). Any messages sent (methods called, in Java) to this proxy are then bounced to every object in the collection. This is has become a fairly common pattern in OO languages in the last five or so years because it's so flexible - you can implement map and fold operations in the same way - and removes a lot of syntax, leaving you with a clear and easy to read program.

To do this in Java, you would have to iterate over the collection when the proxy was created and collect all of the interfaces used by objects in the collection. You'd probably also need some messy casting to avoid the compiler complaining that your proxy didn't have a doSomething() message.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[speedtux]

I'm guessing you've never used Cocoa. Try it, and be amazed.

You're guessing wrong. I have both used and programmed Cocoa, and I'm underwhelmed: programming it is tedious. I think people who think that Cocoa is good must be MFC refugees and have never seen anything else.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[speedtux]

I can understand you not wanting to pay a dime for the Mac Hardware to learn the tools

I have owned about a dozen Macs (initially, because of the hype, later, for work-related reasons).

Please don't talk about Glade/Python as being superior to ObjC/Cocoa and IB.

Well, I'm sorry you don't want to hear it, but after developing for both, my conclusions is that even Glade/Python is better than Objective-C/Cocoa/InterfaceBuilder.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[speedtux]

I would guess GP referred to things like Core Animation.

Yeah, so after creating a bunch of animations, Apple refactored their code and made a library out of it. Big deal.

And the reason why Apple is a little ahead in having libraries for things like animation is simply because they are shipping higher end hardware at a premium price. Linux and Windows go easy on such things because a lot of people use low-end hardware.

Factoring out some animation code is not innovation, sorry. And it doesn't really solve the fundamental problems of today's WIMP interfaces, which Apple suffers from just as much as Windows, Gnome, and KDE.

Re:I looked at the Android software.

[LKM]

Factoring out some animation code is not innovation, sorry.

I don't think anyone claimed it was.

yes but what about the iPhone?

[e2d2]

A mention of Android? Cue iPhone debate.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[dfsmith]

Ugh! What a horrible, low quality video. Was it made on a cellphone or something?

Re:No, wait! It's...

[InsaneProcessor]

Shot with an iphone.

Open markets.

[B5_geek]

Now that Google has a 'shipping' product I am excited about the future for these reasons:

1) Google can pull an Apple'ish move and push for carriers to open up the networks.
or (even better)
2) Google can open up all of that dark-fiber that it has bought in the past and become a telecommunications juggernaught.

Google already has data centers all over the planet, they can match these up with worldwide GSM coverage and beat the existing companies at their own game.

I currently pay $150 CDN per month for the 'privilege' of using my phone anywhere in North America to make phone calls. If I try to use any data features I get charged $0.05/kb + US Roaming + US Data Rates/kb. To view the /. home page costs me almost $1.00 without viewing any stories.

Canada has been crippled by our 3 colluding state-sponsored ogilopies and I am desperate for another option.

Googles' ability to offer North America a non-draconian cellular service coupled with content/location-based advertising would be a god-send.

Scenerio: Motorist stranded on side of the road; does a Google search via cell-phone for tow-truck. Built-in GPS can show you the closest mechanics, and contact info.

Google; please take my money and give an option to ditch the horrible choices that I currently have.

Re:Open markets.

[thanatos_x]

For all the reasons that you mention, it makes me very glad Google is around. In general they're responsible for opening up a lot of markets that would otherwise not happen.

Youtube doesn't make much money, but it enables other online video companies a respite because everyone targets youtube. Of course all this online video creates a huge demand for increased bandwidth. It creates more videos, since they can now be uploaded, and it creates more data that needs to be searched.

Even if Google doesn't make money directly, they make money indirectly, either one degree away (providing bandwidth, if they decide to enter this market) or two degrees away (providing search for competitors or other businesses needing to sort this data)

All in all it's very refreshing to see a company that competes, and isn't afraid of helping 'competitors' because it knows that it can make money off them. It is the antithesis of the anti-net neutrality argument. All this video we have to transport will kill us. We hate that we'll have a higher demand for our service! Stop online video!

Re:Open markets.

[speedtux]

1) Google can pull an Apple'ish move and push for carriers to open up the networks.

Apple hasn't pushed for carriers to open up the networks to anybody but Apple. With an iPhone, you're far more restricted than with a Palm, Nokia, or Windows Mobile on any of the major carriers.

Re:Open markets.

[AaronLawrence]

Surely the dark fibre is the easy part? Actually building out a GSM network means spending billions of dollars and years negotiating to build cell sites everywhere.
While they have a few pieces of the puzzle, the cell sites themselves are the biggest and hardest part.

Re:Open markets.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh say can you see a solution to your problem?

Move.

Re:Open markets.

[vandit2k6]

Honestly you don't need to search for tow-truck on the phone. I remember I had an incident where something popped my tire. I stopped at the right lane and the next thing you know after I swear about 5 min tow truck was there to help me.

Re:Open markets.

[copdk4]

It is the antithesis of the anti-net neutrality argument.

This has gotta be the quote of the year!

Re:Open markets.

[Anonymous Coward]

A complete "side-step" of the telecom industry... Is this a common understanding of what google plans to do? Do you think? ..your the only other person I have seen pose this opinion :)

Customer Service?

[ThisIsAnonymous]

I take it they will use this android to replace their customer service team. Seriously, on one hand you have a lifeless being that resembles a human and on the other a T-Mobile customer service rep.

Oh wait, this is about that Google phone thingy. My bad.

The State of California Edition . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . will only support COBOL apps . . .

HTC Phone

[Deliveranc3]

Hey I found a HTC phone video on youtube. It looks sexy as hell but could definitely use a slide out keyboard. Does anyone have a link to a video where one does?

Re:HTC Phone

[Enderandrew]

The video I saw of the HTC Dream prototype had a slide out keyboard.

The HTC Diamond is pretty impressive, and the Dream is supposed to be even better.

Re:HTC Phone

[black_lbi]

From what I've read, it doesn't have an autorotate feature ... When the keyboard is out it's in landscape, otherwise it is in portrait mode ... I'm not sure if that's good or bad.
I kinda like the fact it has an actual qwerty keyboard, but i would have liked autorotate also ...

Re:HTC Phone

[Anonymous Coward]

You found *an* HTC phone video.

Re:HTC Phone

[Enderandrew]

That could be the case with the Dream, but doesn't the Diamond have auto-rotate?

Re:HTC Phone

[mcpkaaos]

As in an 'oop?

Re:HTC Phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, yes. The 'A/An' rule is determined by vowel sounds, not vowels themselves. For HTC, Aich Tee Cee, "An HTC phone" is proper.

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[Sebilrazen]

Please, for the love of all that is good and holy,next time try this:

<a href="your url here (with the quotes)">some witty text here</a>

Re:No, wait! It's...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know iPhone was also compatible with guns.

I can't wait!!!!

[martin_b1sh0p]

I have been waiting for the "Dream" because as much as I want/wanted an iPhone, I couldn't justify the $200 per line T-Mobile was going to charge me to get out of my contract to go over to AT&T. I really hope it lives up to the hype. In my mind it doesn't have to be better than the iPhone, it only has to be just as good (or really close).

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Do Google Phones dream of electric sheep?

t-mobile? why?

[randyest]

How unfortunate. Isn't t-mobile the smallest network in the US, with the least coverage, and no 3G/high-speed data whatsoever?

It was bad enough when Apple locked the iphone to AT&T, but at least they have some 3G and good coverage (after acquiring Cingular.) But t-mobile? That's not going to be good for business :(

Poor Data

[beatbox32]

Poor Data still being used. He must be wondering when he will finally be treated like every other sentient being.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile is far from the smallest network in the US, and they're launching 3G in major markets (it's already in NYC and LV) at roughly the same time as this is set to be released. Coincidence? Probably not.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Vectronic]

Not good business? From which perspective?

I have no idea about which companies have better coverage than the next in the US, but if T-Mobile is indeed the smallest, then it makes a lot of sense for Google to partner up with them for their first(?) phone, the contracts are probably better than they would get from going with a bigger corporation, bit cheaper, not as much loss if it fails, and from T-Mobile's perspective, they can't really go wrong, since its already got them a lot of publicity, stocks probably went up, more website/store hits, etc...

As far as I am aware there is nothing keeping "Android" from also being used on any other phone that supports it (or vice versa), and that may happen more now if T-Mobile's attempt is even a moderate success.

Besides, its a little more demand for 3G/better networks, or at least more awareness of the need even if it does fail.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-mobile does not charge for roaming. Where Cingular phones work, T-mobile ones do too.

Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[barzok]

to lock their phones down tight and wipe out the OEM software in favor of their own crap, the chances of me ever getting to use it are close to nil. T-Mobile's coverage is spotty at best in the areas my wife & I frequent, even AT&T can get iffy, so we're stuck with Verizon.

Re:Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[EXrider]

Same here, I HATE Verizon. But I'm stuck with them for the coverage. GSM calls don't even work in my house unless I'm standing in front of my living room window.

Now, if I could get 802.11 roaming to make up for the loss of coverage in my house FOR A REASONABLE PRICE, I'd switch to a T-Mobile based Android in a second.

Re:Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[martin_b1sh0p]

T-Mobile already offers 802.11 with some of their cell phones (last count was 4 different models)...and it's only $10 extra on top of your plan. I thought it was reasonable.

Re:Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[TubeSteak]

T-Mobile's coverage is spotty at best in the areas my wife & I frequent, even AT&T can get iffy, so we're stuck with Verizon.

T-Mobile will roam on AT&T/Cingular & Sprint's networks wherever they companies have agreements. m

The only catch is that if you roam "too much" (for undefined values of to much) they'll terminate your contract.

That said, you can always get a contract, try it out and you have 2 weeks to cancel it and get your money back.

Re:Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[barzok]

T-Mobile will roam on AT&T/Cingular & Sprint's networks wherever they companies have agreements.

T-Mobile & AT&T's coverage maps for my area are nearly identical. Stray off major roads and you're rolling the dice.

OTOH, with Verizon, we've found at most a handful of dead zones, and they're at most 100 yards in radius.

Re:Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough bullcrap already! Sprint is CDMA and Tmobile is GSM. So Tmobile phones are NOT going to roam with Sprint.

Re:Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[nerdguy0]

I have T-Mobile and one of those 802.11 based phones (the Nokia one). The $10/month charge is for unlimited calling over Wifi. The Wifi roaming is free; all it cost is the normal airtime charges you'd usually get charged. It works great at work where I get no reception at all in the building.

Re:Knowing Verizon's tendencies...

[EXrider]

So you're saying you can get free wifi roaming on supported handsets? Free as in, comes out of your normal airtime right? I did not know this.

I don't want to pay extra for wifi, because I don't need unlimited calling. I'm not interested in paying any more than I already do. I only have 300 "daytime minutes", unlimited nights/weekends and 500txt/mo for $45/mo after all the taxes and fees. Even with only 300 minutes, I've never went over.

How hard is the wifi roaming on the phone's battery?

T-Mobile 3G is rolling out

[hirschma]

T-Mobile is in the process of rolling out serviceable 3G. The new phone will have 3G, at least in some markets.

iDon't care.

[pavon]

If it isn't locked to the carrier, is better than a Treo, and is in the same price range, then that will be good enough reason for me to get one. Although I'll probably wait till a few more Android phones are out before deciding.

I might think about getting an iPhone if they stop locking it to ATT, but $299 + 24*($69.99 - current plan) is way more than I am willing to pay for a smartphone.

But does it run Linux?

[mini me]

It will be very interesting to watch the mobile computing space heat up. Can Android steal away the momentum the iPhone currently has on third-party development?

Re:But does it run Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has the name "Google" on it. It'll sell regardless of what the iPhone is doing. Google products are the next "Star Wars", with fans gobbling up whatever they have to offer. At least Google has better taste than Lucas.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[Ma8thew]

The thing which is choking iPhone development right now is the absurd NDA, and the absolute control Apple has over the App store. The NDA prevents any discussions about development, if you want to see the frustrations caused by this, just follow Craig Hockenberry's Twitter feed. He's the developer of Twitterrific.

And why risk investing thousands in an iPhone app, if in the end, Apple can arbitrarily reject it? Not to mention the ridiculous wait times developers endure to push out updates, whilst Apple review them. Especially bad if you inadvertently ship a show stopper bug.

Apple needs to sort this stuff out, or iPhone development will gradually die out. Which would be a shame, because they managed to get an awful lot of developers very excited about it.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[furball]

If $30 million/month in sales is what happens iPhone development is choking, I'd love to have my business choke too.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[Ma8thew]

By choking, I mean that iPhone developers are not fulfilling their potential due to the NDA, and are being turned off or giving up on the platform due to Apple's total control. For the record, this was typed on an iPod touch, and I really want the platform to suceed.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[dangitman]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Not many people actually buy google products. They get them for free. And, if you read the post you were replying to, it was specifically referring to third-party development. Not an area where Google has proven themselves yet. Heck, even their own software is continually in beta, and they haven't shown a lot of encouragement to third-party developers.

Re:But does it run Linux?

[dangitman]

I'm not seeing it. Developers may whine about the NDA, but I don't know of any who have actually stopped developing for the iPhone because of it. In fact, new developers and applications appear every day. If you ran a commercial software business, you'd be be pretty crazy to give up the easy money that comes with the App Store.

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[bluesk1d]

Considering the writer is a clear Apple fanboy who has never seen or tested the Android OS or the new device, it cant be called a review. It's simply the author hoping it doesnt burst his iPhone bubble.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[kcbanner]

Nobody said locking to T-Mobile. They are simply the first. RTFS maybe :)

hmm

[loconet]

But if it's "open" why does it matter if it's T-Mobile who will be first. I can use it on my provider right......

Re:hmm

[djtachyon]

If you want to pay retail for the phone (~$400), which they probably won't even offer.
Apparently only current T-Mobile customers will get the $150 pre-order option (which is crazy b/c they already have their customers' money).
So you would have to sign up for a 2-year account, get it for $250 (for new customers), pay a $150 breach of contract, and then you can put it on whoever you want :P

This is all mostly speculation, but you could just wait 3-6 months and buy an Android phone from your current carrier.

Android is an OS like Microsoft Windows Mobile, only better. There will be many manufacturers, with many models, on many carriers. You just have to wait a bit longer, though I may switch to crappy T-Mobile right now if it guarantees me a first Android phone for $150 :P. Not sure til I see if the HTC Dream has WiFi/GPS, etc...

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

How unfortunate. Isn't t-mobile the smallest network in the US, with the least coverage, and no 3G/high-speed data whatsoever?

It was bad enough when Apple locked the iphone to AT&T, but at least they have some 3G and good coverage (after acquiring Cingular.) But t-mobile? That's not going to be good for business :(

T-Mobile works off of Sprint.

Which does have 3-G and was the first large service provider to offer it.

Journalism on the best

[iznogud]

"The HTC phone, which many gadget sites are calling the "dream,"

It's not "the dream", code name of the gadget is HTC Dream, for Bob's sake!

iphone

[pak9rabid]

I'd totally be interested in a version of Android for the iPhone. I like the hardware and Unix-based OS on the iPhone...I just don't like resorting to jailbraking it in order to utilize it the way I want.

Re:iphone

[mraway]

iPhone is already running UNIX-based OS, which is called Mac OS.

Re:iphone

[slimjim8094]

Jailbreaking it is completely not scary. You download a program, load the software update (2.0.1 firmware support is working) from the iTunes folder, and let it run. When you update your phone with the 'new' software, you get a jailbroken iPhone

If it doesn't work, you can restore from the stock firmware. And you have a backup of all your contacts and settings for both cases.

What's scary is unlocking the phone from AT&T, which updates the baseband firmware. That will brick the phone.

Re:iphone

[dangitman]

...which is called Mac OS.

No, it's not. Mac OS is what runs on Macs. A different OS (with architectural similarities) runs on the iPhone.

Re:iphone

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a different OS. They both run Darwin. They do, however, have different libraries, etc. on top.

Re:iphone

[dangitman]

Bullshit. It's a different OS. If it were the same OS, then why is Mac OS at version 10.5.x, while the iPhone OS is at version 2.x.x? And if it were the same OS, then why can't I control my Mac using multitouch gestures - and why can't I control my iPhone with menu-based commands, or open multiple windows and applications simultaneously.

You must have been dropped on your head if you think the iPhone is running the same OS as the Mac. Like I said, they have architectural similarities. But using some of Darwin on each, does not make hem the same OS. There's a lot more to Mac OS or iPhone OS than Darwin.

Do you also believe that Windows Vista and Windows Mobile are the same OS? Is Ubuntu and Fedora the same OS?

Re:t-mobile? why?

[pavon]

T-mobile may own fewer towers than other companies, but they have the same coverage as any other GSM provider - they all have "roaming" agreements between each other that don't cost the user anything. You're close about 3G though - the only place they have 3G coverage yet is New York City.

I like them because they have good prepay plans. In fact, AFAIK, they are the only major carrier that does - the other decent plans are with prepay-only carriers like tracphone. I don't use my phone a whole lot, and cut my bill in fifth when I switched to their prepay plan from a monthly plan with Verizon. But folks like me that want a smartphone, but don't care about 3G are probably in the minority. So it is a strange choice.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[TJamieson]

You sure it's not this one?

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not going to be good for business :(

That's not going to be good for anyone

$CAD150/month?

[Animaether]

How on earth do you end up spending that much? Does that include making all your calls + roaming + etc?

When I was in the U.S. for 3 months I got a Cingular prepaid SIM card - traveled all throughout the U.S. and could make calls just fine.. cost me $10. I'd imagine it'd work just fine in Canada as well on any GSM provider there. So I can't imagine the $CAD150/month being some flat fee just so you can actually use the phone on GSM networks.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile is pretty big outside of the US, especially in Germany (where they're based) and the UK. Maybe Google want to go with the operator with both the most global brand as well as the best outlook for Android phones.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had t-mobile for the past year.

Their coverage is slightly spotty (no coverage around Mendocino except in the city of Mendocino or Ft Bragg) but I've not really had any problems with limited coverage.

On the other hand, they charge $20 a month for all-you-can-eat data plan if you already have (any) voice plan, they don't seem to care what you do with your sim (I moved mine from the bundled phone to a smartphone, a nokia E51), will unlock your bundled phone if you ask and have had your contract for 90 days, offer free or just use your airtime international VOIP if you use their GSM-over-802.11 (UMA), don't care if you tether your phone, etc.

In short, it seems like their corporate policy of allowing just about anything onto their network, so it makes sense they would offer android phones. T-mobile really is the anti-AT&T...

I have never been happier with a carrier.

T-Mobile has "new" spectrum...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a few years ago, T-Mobile won some stateside spectrum that they have yet to really launch: that said, maybe this Android will be using it in addition to the Edge coverage that exists?

Re:T-Mobile has "new" spectrum...

[DragonTHC]

T-Mobile is rolling out 3g in the near future.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile is rolling out their 3G capabilities and 3G phones at the end of the year. According to the sales representative I just spoke with at T-Mobile, of course.

Well, I don't know about the rest of you...

[Snarkhunter]

but I for one welcome our glorious Android overlords!

Re:t-mobile? why?

[TheRaven64]

Wow. T-Mobile in the UK have some of the best 3G coverage (they're the only network I can get a 3G signal with at my mother's house in the middle of nowhere) and are busy rolling out 3.75G a networks with a 7.2Mb/s maximum speed in big cities. It's often hard to remember that, apart from the name, the two companies have very little in common.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not possible. Sprint uses CDMA and T-Mobile uses GSM.

Which means that while Android phones might be portable between T-Mobile and AT&T, they'll never be portable between T-Mobile and Sprint.

And last I checked, Sprint does not offer true 3G - which they can't, because they don't use GSM. They do offer some "fast Internet" thing but only in select areas which they don't bother listing anywhere.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Google is also not taking the myopic view that the entire world market lives in the US. T-Mobile may be one of the smaller carriers in the US, but they have a lot larger presence than AT&T or Verizon do in Europe.

Then again, they've shown no indication that they're even considering tying Android's phones to any one carrier, so it's likely that T-Mobile just stepped up to the plate first and other carriers will follow suit if/when Android has been proven to be popular and work well.

Those are both things that Apple went the other way on by tying the iPhone to a single US carrier and delaying the release in Europe. Even the latest 3G release seems to have primarily targeted the US. If Android succeeds, hopefully it will spur Apple to open up the iPhone to any GSM carrier that wants to sell it. The iPhone has been hugely successful when there's very little to compete with it (Crackberry and Winblows Mobile don't really compete for the same market). But if there's a real alternative, Apple will have to do things differently or the iPhone won't be nearly as popular.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[EXrider]

How unfortunate. Isn't t-mobile the smallest network in the US, with the least coverage, and no 3G/high-speed data whatsoever?

It was bad enough when Apple locked the iphone to AT&T, but at least they have some 3G and good coverage (after acquiring Cingular.) But t-mobile? That's not going to be good for business :(

T-Mobile works off of Sprint.

Which does have 3-G and was the first large service provider to offer it.

Uh WRONG, T-Mobile is a GSM provider like AT&T/Cingular is. They have roaming agreements with AT&T, and therefore have similar coverage. They're way behind on the 3G, but they've begun to roll it out to markets.

Verizon, Sprint and Alltel OTOH are CDMA, you could say Cricket "works off Sprint", as they are also CDMA.

Slide-Out keyboard

[ArcticPuppy]

Seriously, who uses these? I got a HTC phone with one and not one day goes by that I curse the design.

Re:Slide-Out keyboard

[Cousin Scuzzy]

...not one day goes by that I curse the design.

So you like the design then?

Re:Slide-Out keyboard

[Overzeetop]

I presume you meant that I don't curse the design.

I wonder why, though. Have you used it so much the slide is too loose? I could possibly see that after a lot of activity. I can also agree with the issue that you can't number-text well on the keyboard, since it doesn't have the abc def letters over the keys (presuming, like me, you haven't memorized the keys).

I've got the Hermes (well, the Cing 8525) and I like the real keyboard. It's not ideal, but it's worlds better than the damned stylus-centric onscreen keyboard and number pads. I really like the tactile feedback for faster typing. I don't type enough on my mobile to be really used to the touchscreen and predictive typing, but I can't stand there and type l i k e t h i s w i t h a s t y l u s trying to put appointments or brief notes into the thing.

MS has really missed the boat in not making a custom phone OS vs a non-finger-centric port of their PDA software. I hope Google does a better job, but I also hope they attract lots of third party software. I've got 6 months 'til my 2 years is up on my plan, and I'd like to get a (subsidized) upgrade when my time comes.

Re:Slide-Out keyboard

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a better idea? You can have keypads like on the Curve but sacrifice screen size or you can have a never-get-used-to-typing touchscreen like the iPhone. Sliders are the best of both worlds. It's the only thing I miss from the god-awful Helio Ocean.

Cocoa pre-dates Java...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cocoa was already in existence long before Java was even a thought in the minds Bill Joy and his group of merry men, it simply had a name change in the late 90's, see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_Kit)

If they were tempted to dispose of Objective-C as legacy and re-write in another language I'd much prefer they use something a little more modern like say Python, Erlang or, OCaml.

It's been said before, but it's so true it's worth repeating:

Java _is_ the new Cobol

Re:t-mobile? why?

[hellwig]

It all depends on what you see as valid use of bandwidth. You ever watch tv on your Verizon phone? I don't even see commercials for that any more. I guess T-Mobile is waiting to see where the trends go before it devotes a lot of their resources into technology 90% of their customers WON'T use. I have a base plan with added text messages. I never felt the need to browse the internet on my phone. As far as needing directions or finding a place of business, that's what texting to GOOGL and my GPS are for.

Besides, the original iPhone came out a little over a year ago, and I don't recall it using only the edge network being that big of a deal. If the iPhone didn't need to support 3G a year ago, why are you complaining that T-Mobile has yet to support it (and I'm not saying you are a fan of the iPhone, just making a point).

Re:t-mobile? why?

[grayn0de]

Not good business for whom? Isn't Android open source? I mean, I've been running it on a Sprint Touch for a week, now.

"T-Mobile Will Be First"

[LarsG]

Erm.. Shouldn't it be "HTC will be first"?

Something must be seriously broken with the cell phone market in the US when $cell_carrier is considered more important than $phone_manufacturer.

Re:"T-Mobile Will Be First"

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you criticize the most free market in the world!

Your market obviously suffers from evil government interference if your cell carriers can't control what devices consumers may use. The purpose of private enterprise is to benefit the corporation, dumbass.

Re:"T-Mobile Will Be First"

[supernova_hq]

Actually, I find the carrier is more important. Sure the manufacturer may install the software, but it is usually the carrier that reinstalls the OS and threatens account deactivation if you reinstall it again.

Re:"T-Mobile Will Be First"

[LarsG]

And why is that?

If the carrier tried to control what you can connect to your landline, there would be a riot in the streets. Why is there no pitchfork-wielding mob when cell carriers do exactly the same?

Re:"T-Mobile Will Be First"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't all carriers now connect the same warrantless federal wiretap device to lines without even so much as a march in the streets?

I know that specifically AT&T is the NSA's pet.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[charlesnw]

They also have 3G coverage in Vegas and a couple other cities as well as New York. LA will have it in October.

Enterprise support

[VGPowerlord]

Does anyone know if the Data plan has Enterprise support?

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I am aware there is nothing keeping "Android" from also being used on any other phone that supports it (or vice versa), and that may happen more now if T-Mobile's attempt is even a moderate success.

Can someone who's more informed than me address this intelligently?

I'm starting to get confused about whether or not a phone really needs to be an "Android phone" to use it.

E.g., let's say a phone I love comes out but not with Android--some other OS, like Palm or Windows Mobile. Could I just install Android on that phone?

I presume there will have to be some compatibility issues, but I wonder how restrictive that would be.

So will anything stop me...

[Legion_SB]

... from picking up an unsubsidized phone and slapping my AT&T SIM card into it?

I have 3G data service and all that with my current phone, the BlackJack II.

Customer Service

[grahamsz]

I've used t-mobile in the UK and US for about 8 years and i've been consistently impressed with their customer service.

They've been head and shoulders above people like Verizon or Qwest

Re:Customer Service

[magicchex]

Agreed! I switched from Verizon to T-Mobile for this reason and eventually my entire family followed me and now many friends are following too. Customer service has been top notch for the 6 or 7 years I've had them in the United States.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[skidisk]

It's interesting to note that Andy Rubin founded Danger (before Android) and Danger's first partner was also T-Mobile. So it could be that the existing relationship played a role in starting with T-Mobile. However, it's probably that T-Mobile is more flexible, given that it is smaller and hungrier. It takes a long time to negotiate with the big guys. If/when it's a hit, the big guys will play ball.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[xxdinkxx]

Thank God They are partnering with T-mobile. T-mobile is the only cell company who was not in on the NSA wiretapping scandal. Yes I know Qwest was also not party, but they don't provide cell service as far as I know.

Here is an infinitely better video

[rickb928]

I found here of an earlier prototype. Video was released sometime in February 08.

It does not look substantially different, saved for being black instead of white.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[bluemonq]

Heh, no. It's 'atheism', as in 'a-the-ism'. Nice try though.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[Darundal]

Rickrollers should be forced to undergo and autopsy, be fed to fire ants, and then shot with bullets filled with pepper spray. In that order.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[antek9]

Yes, but that was an on-topic Rickroll for once, or wouldn't you agree Rick Astley actually is an android?

Re:No, wait! It's...

[sootman]

Hmm... I clicked 'watch in high quality' but it didn't help.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except "neighbor", "weigh", "sleigh"...

Re:No, wait! It's...

[lmnfrs]

Holy crap, I wish I had sprayed milk out my nose.. But I'm eating chili :(

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[Anonymous Coward]

some witty text here

It's iphone. replace 'w' with 'sh'.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Vectronic]

I can't reply intelligently... (pause)

But since no one else has commented, as far as I am aware its the same as any other Operating System, it has to be specifically designed for the hardware its going to run on, and unlike an full-fledged computer OS where it can have binaries and libraries tailored to all sorts of hardware requirements, Android would (presumably) be much more slim, and tailored for each device specifically, but that doesn't mean it wouldnt be possible to grab any phone that has some sort of OS on it, and swap it for Android, you would probably just have to get the right base kernel/libraries/drivers/etc for that device.

Android is based on the Linux Kernel (2.6x) which, may mean that it wont run on current Palm's, but should run on (almost?) anything that runs Windows Mobile, or SymbianOS, and most likely BlackBerry as well, as they either use 80386, or ARM Processors (although maybe not "legally")

Palm, is already planning on making a Linux derived OS, which presumably would mean it could be directly swapped for Android (if they don't just use Android to begin-with).

So, essentially, I think the answer is "yes, it could most likely be installed on most phones", but in some, possibly many cases, it may require that the phone's developers/manufacturers give Google (et al) access to what the phone has/does/is capable of, otherwise you'll end up with the same sort of problems as swapping OS' on a normal computer, no 3D drivers, or no network, etc.

But, im not intelligent...

Coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

But will Android turn my shitty T-Mobile coverage (4/4 bars but constant Error in Connection) into coverage I can use?

Sorry T-Mobile, I moved somewhere you claim I'd have great coverage and it's just unacceptable. Sadly, I have another year in my contract. I hope they use that time to improve the "service."

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks. That's pretty helpful.

For some reason I wasn't thinking of the chip, which seems obvious to me.

But would the carrier know anything about the OS that's being run? Or is all of that handled pretty much at the hardware level?

Say you have a new phone with Windows Mobile, just for example, that has a chip that would work, etc., and swap WM with Android. Would the it affect communication with the carrier (bugs and things like that aside)?

I'm tempted to think not, given all the shenanigans with iPhone hacks and whatnot, but who knows.

Specifics?

[ZxCv]

.... or the Visual Studio tools for UI design are on-par with IB, ....

I'm curious to know what you think makes IB so superior to the Visual Studio (particularly 2008, but even 2005) interface designer. I use both on an almost daily basis, and, to me at least, the main differences to me come down to how the code and interface interact. IOW, they are both equally powerful and capable as UI design tools. Personally, I've had more frustrating moments using IB than I have using the VS designer, but I'm sure thats a matter of personal preference. So I was just trying to figure out if your penchant for IB is just a matter of personal preference, or if IB has some secret powers I've been missing all this time.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[Vectronic]

Yeah, I don't believe so either, not unless the there was already a specific deal between the Phone's manufacturer, and whoever is running the Network (or the FCC, or someone in power) which I believe is illegal, unless the network was established as being restricted as such from the start.

To the phones, and the network it would be the same as switching from Windows to Linux, it all gets crunched down to packets, which may contain information about the OS, but is generally (if not always) disregarded by the network and only pertinent to the end-receiver (if at all).

It's easily possible for any phone company/creator, or someone in control of the network to ignore messages from one phone to another, but, someone will find out very quickly, and there isn't any way of coming out of that with a profit.

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[node 3]

Right. Because there's no way an open source product is going to have an awkward or otherwise clunky interface. This must be editorial bias, no other explanation is possible.

I played with this phone for a little bit

[Coward Anonymous]

I know someone (who shall remain nameless) who got a pre-production HTC handset like this from their (nameless) employer.
To prove I've played with it: the friend's phone had a mode where unlocking it required connecting a grid of dots in a particular order. This may exist on other phones but I'd never seen it before. Cute gimmick.
Unless HTC and Google sort out the HW and UI it's a non-starter as an iphone competitor.
This may change in production but the touchscreen is simply horrible. It's unresponsive and inaccurate. This is plainly visible in this video of the device. Apart from that, the device is big and fat. I did not get a chance to test call quality or battery life.
The UI itself is not as simple as the iPhone's. It's yet another spin on the usual icons in windows maze that invariably leave you lost.
Apple's "secret" sauce is execution. Their phone is pretty, their HW works with the software (the touchscreen anyway, not the 3G issues... :) and they've made it dead simple to download $999.99 useless apps. It all works together well.
Shipping Android on subpar HW, such as the example I saw, will doom it to being yet another of the "other" phones.

Hope?

[LKM]

It's more than just hope, unfortunately. Apple needs competition, but from what I've seen so far, Android doesn't (yet) seem to be that competition. The UI seems disjointed, inconsistent and slow-ish, and the third-party applications I've seen so far use whatever ugly UI style the developers devised, ignoring what the main OS is doing. Worse, they are obviously made to run inside the emulator, with small buttons that can never work on a touch screen phone.

Part of the issue is probably that Android targets different types of handsets with different screens and input mechanisms, while the iPhone's OS is made for the iPhone's form factor. Part of it is probably that Android isn't finished yet. Part of it is that there's no interface guidelines, but perhaps Google will change its mind on this and produce some. So there's still hope.

But as of now, the people who are hoping are the ones who want Android to succeed, not the ones who want it to fail.

So what doesn't the iPhone do for you?

[LKM]

Apple's applications that come with the iPhone can run in the background and access the contents of the user's iPod

How about we focus more on functional software that helps us do useful things, rather than software that fucks around with our systems for the sake of it? (...) That's the only thing I really care about any platform, what are it's capabilities, what can it do, what DOES it do for me?

But the GP's two restrictions restrict the iPhone's capabilities.

Here's a few things useful the iPhone can't do for you, but could if it allowed background processes and access to the iTunes library:

1. A last.fm client which can scrobble (the official client is actually worse than the jailbroken client, thanks to Apple's restrictions)
2. A chat client which doesn't require you to give your name and password to a third party if you want to remain logged in
3. A LoJack for the iPhone (also useful if you tend to forget stuff at friends' places)
4. A social network-type application which automatically alerts you when you're near a friend
5. A music player which keeps playing your music even when you go use Safari or some other application

And a ton more. These are a few of the things the iPhone doesn't do for you as a result of Apple's restrictions. And none of them are "software that fucks around with our systems for the sake of it."

For the record, I own an iPhone.

Re:So what doesn't the iPhone do for you?

[ToasterMonkey]

Sounds like the these all center around the background execution thing. I think I understand most people's grief with this thing.
Now, I don't want to imply that they picked the best approach to this, but I can kind of understand where they Apple is coming from too. This thing is still a phone first, and blowing it open like a desktop PC could lead to the same sorts of problems we went through with earlier resource constrained desktop PC's.

Compare the iPhone to the Windows 95 desktop era. I could be wrong about the iPhone's relative resources, but in that time, RAM cost so much and virtual memory was new, so PCs regularly shipped with too little RAM to run more than a few apps. Do you remember what facilities windows 95 had for managing applications and system resources? HAH! Some applications didn't even show up in Window's pathetic process manager, and most users had absolutely no idea that the system was under specced for their needs. Running two big apps at the same time could drag a system to it's knees. Problem is you and I might know what "big" apps are, but my folks for example didn't have any clue what kind of resource footprint something like AOL had. Or streets and trips, or MS Works for Ch****'s sake.
The PC experience was craptastic, I'm sure you remember, and lack of physical memory probably lead to fairly damned good deal of "BSOD"'s from that time. Even disks were small... swap would be set to a minimum size, and set to grow, except the disk space would be used up, swap couldn't grow past 1/2 * RAM *BOOM*... Was the target audience of Win 95 REALLY expected to understand swap, or even how BASIC PC resources worked? Let me remind you, this is the same time Microsoft Bob was developed.

So.. hopefully Apple figures out a way to solve the problems you listed without treating iPhones like PC's :\

Yah, I know this all comes across as the stereotypical "It's a feature, not a problem" point of view, but you know what, a lot of things the public perceives as problems really are just inconvenient features. Take Windows not allowing you to overwrite files in use, and requiring reboots after updates for example. Every _commercial_ OS vendor understands how dangerous applying updates to a running system can be. Sun *recommends* applying in single user mode and rebooting right after. Microsoft and Apple nearly force the reboot on you. Both have fancy methods of making the updates effective at next boot (Microsoft does this, I'm reasonably certain Apple does also). Linux... trots out with "you don't have to reboot after applying updates".
OK, Linux, how did you solve the underlying problem? "What problem? We just reboot. Restart processes that you updated, duh!" /facepalm.

I see this all over, but especially in the Linux community, where one entity doesn't really take responsibility for the masses, "it's YOUR problem, not mine".
So yes, mandatory reboots suck. BUT, it's done because the company representing those products is being responsible. People bitch and moan, attack those explaining how these are *features*, but in the end, the companies made the right choices. UNIX admins are expected to be intelligent enough to understand the update process, and the needs for single user/rebooting, so Sun treats them like big boys with some caution. The average desktop PC user SHOULDN'T be treated this way, so Apple and Microsoft's approaches are more or less correct. The Linux approach of burying your head in the sand, and letting your users figure it out.. that's irresponsible if you ask me.

Like building a car with no rev limiter, calling the lack of one a feature no less, then marketing it to the 16 to 65 year old market. Ka-BOOM! This is almost exactly what Linux is :\

----
Swipe at Linux, Apple & MS apologist, and a car analogy, Slahdot bingo!

Re:No, wait! It's...

[cuby]

or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AdFA6WWJ7E ...

I hope...

[linhares]

...it comes with skype. Can someone please tell me why Skype isn't available for the iPhone? Because of background processes? I want skype on my bloody phone. Fvck Apple and the telecoms. Does that resonate with anyone?

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[bluesk1d]

"This must be editorial bias, no other explanation is possible." Considering the editor is forming an opinion on a topic in which no one except can really know the truth about, yes.

Re:A video of the phone has been posted recently o

[node 3]

Mildly humorous, but not helpful. Editorial bias doesn't simply mean infusion of the subjective experiences of the creator of a work, it means something more significant. It's more about whether the facts or views are notably altered in a way counter to what is a reasonable of factually consistent conclusion.

Otherwise, nothing ever written by anyone, not even a pure math equation or a technical diagram, is void of editorial bias, rendering such a term useless.

When someone uses a phone and calls it awkward and clunky, and they are able to demonstrate what they are talking about, it's not editorial bias. It's subjective, certainly, but not sufficiently tainted as to trigger cries of editorial bias. What would be editorial bias for such a thing is for someone to latch onto any little thing they can do reach their pre-chosen conclusion. I.e., if they want to the phone to be clunky, but it's really not, then talk about how the box it comes in is plain, or how the power brick is nothing special. On the other hand, if they want to make a plain or clunky phone elegant, they might mention how it comes with a cleaning cloth, or has a utilitarianism design or something. Both cases make, in and of themselves, for very weak arguments.

*That's* editorial bias.

It's a trade-off

[LKM]

I agree that backgorund processes are a trade-off. You get more flexibility for more performance issues and possibly a more complex user interface, if you want to allow for some way of quitting applications.

I do think, however, that background processes allow for so many interesting features they are worth the issues they cause.

Here's two ideas to get around some of these issues:

1. To tell the user what apps are running, show them with a blue halo in the iPhone's menu. When holding down on an icon for a few seconds, show a "quit" badge on running applications, in addition to the currently visible "delete" badge. That makes it immediately obvious which apps are running, and how to quit them
2. Not all of the apps I mentioned absolutely need to run in the background at all times, some could run regularly with a cron-like system. In addition to pure background apps, allow apps to install launchd-jobs. When an app tries to do this, show an alert screen to the user similar to the one shown when getting the GPS position. Have a Preference panel which shows active launchd jobs and how many resources they require on average

I don't know whether these are good ideas. Perhaps these solutions are shit. and they would have to be usability-tested. But I do think that there are reasonable ways of implementing features which allow for such applications.

Both have fancy methods of making the updates effective at next boot (Microsoft does this, I'm reasonably certain Apple does also).

Yeah, Mac OS X downloads the updates while the Mac is running, but only applies them after a reboot. Windows applies them while shutting down, I believe.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[ohtani]

Damn you beat me to it.

Re:t-mobile? why?

[randyest]

Besides, the original iPhone came out a little over a year ago, and I don't recall it using only the edge network being that big of a deal.

It was a huge deal for many people. Apple/AT&T has sold many times more 3G iphones than the original. Millions of people were waiting for 3G support. Lack of it was the #1 complaint about the original iphone, by far.

3G isn't about "watching TV" -- it's about ~2Mbps internet versus ~200kbps (YMMV, that's the difference I get 3G versus edge in the Boston area). 2Mbps makes streaming audio and video (from my home PC) and browsing the web, google maps, etc. actually usable. Night and day.

Re:T-mobile? This is why!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also glad that T-Mobile picked up the first Android phone for a few reasons.
(Disclaimer, I'm a former (happy) T-Mobile employee)
Also keep in mind, I've had service with Verizon, Cingular, and of course T-Mobile.

Pro's of T-Mobile
1) They offer the choice of 1 year contracts (phone costs $50 more vs a 2 year contract)
2) They have a sane Voicemail system (caller hears your greeting *only*) and their system automatically drops off old messages (never had an issue with a full inbox).
3) They don't have a history of crippling features on phone (LOOKING AT YOU VERIZON!!@%@!)
4) They are generous with the pack-ins on their phones. For example I got essentially the same Motorola phone w/ T-Mobile, Verizon, and Cingular
a) The T-Mobile phone came packaged with a handsfree earpiece, phone holster, charger, a crapload (65-70) of ringtones.
b) The Cingular phone came with the charger and about 40 ringtones
c) The Verizon phone came with the charger, 25 ringtones, and was crippled to hell and back (to prevent the user from uploading their own ringtones, transfer pictures to their pc via usb, etc).
5) Typically the cheapest plans (Most minutes/dollar)
6) Lowest political donations of the major providers (ATT was by far the highest). Wish I could find the link but sadly a quick google search didn't yield the page which listed the donations by phone co.

Cons:
1) No rollover minutes (but those plans typically come at a cost of less minutes included).
2) Coverage (YMMV - check the map)

Sadly, there were more pros for T-Mobile which no longer are applicable:
1) Used to have 24/7 customer service (not anyomore)
2) Used to include 50 free incoming text messages per month with all plans (sadly removed)

So to summarize, if you are within T-Mobile's coverage area they indeed are a worth a close examination due to their pro-consumer stances.

If anybody else has some good pros/cons for T-Mobile please *do* reply. I'm switching providers in a few months and the more info the better.

Asimov's Zeroth Law of Robotics

[Tumbleweed]

Zeroth Law added
Asimov once added a "Zeroth Law"--so named to continue the pattern of lower-numbered laws superseding in importance the higher-numbered laws--stating that a robot must not merely act in the interests of individual humans, but of all humanity.

It sounds like Asimov didn't learn the lesson that Dr. Forbin learned with Colossus. Never let a *machine* decide what's right for humanity. You might not like the conclusion it comes to. Sure, it worked for Klaatu's folks, but it seems like a pretty big risk to take, especially when you're talking about something humans have built.

Re:Asimov's Zeroth Law of Robotics

[sm62704]

Actually it was humanity that didn't learn. In the Asimov universe, the seroth law caused the Earth to become a radioactive, uninhabitable wasteland, and finally for the galaxy to become a single organism somewhat like Star Trek's Borg, only happy.

That was a bit of irony, since he had a similar scenario in a short story called "green patches" where all the life on one planet was a single organism; it was pretty much a horror story with humanity being saved from this monster on the very last page.

Re:No, wait! It's...

[hopetimber]

Watch it... that's my dad