Slashdot Mirror


Second Google Android Phone Revealed

KrispyDroid writes "The world's second Google Android phone has been unveiled — by an Australian-based electronics company called Kogan. It will ship worldwide on Jan 29. It looks like a surprisingly nice form factor, not unlike a Blackberry Bold. The phones will be sold without a contract at low prices — $A299 ($US192)."

20 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Re:HTC Touch Dream by VagaStorm · · Score: 4, Informative

    The HTC dream is currently only sold as TMobile G1 in the us, where as this one is sold world wide, at a decent price to :)

  2. When will it become *our* phones? by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For all the hype that Android was to be an open platform, there's no sign yet of a phone that is completely hackable by the end user. The docs are out there, such as The Busy Coder's Guide to Android Development , so we could see a utopia of community-driven apps, but it seems like Google is uninterested in the end user's extendibility of the platform, which was supposedly it's raison d'etre.

    1. Re:When will it become *our* phones? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you want something completely open, you can run Trolltech's Qtopia on the latest Openmoko hardware.

    2. Re:When will it become *our* phones? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have an openmoko freerunner running android, so IMHO that's the second android phone, though it's not on sale with android preinstalled yet, and not everything is working.

      New image today - check out the Openmoko community discussion forum/mail list.

    3. Re:When will it become *our* phones? by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it seems like Google is uninterested in the end user's extendibility of the platform, which was supposedly it's raison d'etre.

      One would hope this isn't the selling point of the phone, but rather that it is a flexible phone that meets the users' needs. The fact that it's hackable and "community-driven" is a means, not an end.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    4. Re:When will it become *our* phones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fucking nerds.

      Why are you on Slashdot?

    5. Re:When will it become *our* phones? by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If Google was uninterested in the end-user's extensibility of Android, they wouldn't have made the SDK publicly available at no charge.

      I suspect the reason the G1 won't allow installation of non-signed firmware is due to carrier (T-Mobile) requirements, not because Google doesn't want you to be able to hack it.

    6. Re:When will it become *our* phones? by unixfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What about supporting open media formats like OGG and FLAC?!! The owner talks bout being a long time OSS supporter, but ignores these vital formats! Weak!

  3. Re:HTC Touch Dream by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The T-Mobile G1 is not just US only, it's also on sale under the same name here in the United Kingdom.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  4. Re:OMG by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damned /. ripping out my
    </retarded Google fanboy>
    line.

  5. Warning - design is not final yet by ribuck · · Score: 5, Informative
    From Kogan's website:

    The design of the Kogan Agora and Kogan Agora Pro, when dispatched, will be materially similar to the images set out on this website. Despite this, Kogan Technologies reserves the right to make non-material modifications to the design of the phones in its sole discretion.

    Also, I won't be surprised if the shipping date slips.

  6. Why is it not OPEN open ? by rixster_uk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Follow the money - manufacturer makes the phone, sells it for x to the network. If and only if network sees a potential to earn at least x/2 from services (internet / sms /mms etc etc ) will it then allow you to buy the phone for x/2...
    If the OS was fully open, then there would be no incentive for the network to buy the phone and subsidize the price - i.e. if you want a truly open phone - you'll get it but at a price.
    Shameless plug: I've got both the iphone sdk and the android sdk - I find the google sdk 20x easier to get stuff done and the marketplace puts your apps up *instantly* (upgrades and all). However, the marketplace is suffering from kids abusing the comment capability but when that's nailed (and of course the ability to actually charge for apps) I think we will see very high quality apps coming out for the google phone. Or at least I hope so - I'm writing a game in progress which I hope to earn a bit of cash. (Even more shameless plug : http://www.barcodebeasties.com/ )

  7. I just want an android device, not a smartphone by caseih · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't really need or want an iPhone or an Android phone. What I want is a nice, compact, multi-touch platform like the iPod Touch that runs android. Android has the potential to power a real iPod killer that's a nice platform for all kinds of apps.

    Initially I was very excited about the iPod Touch and bought one. But Apple's desire to completely and utterly control what I do with my own device has really turned me off of it. If I could have a similar device that was open to installation of apps and development without deferring to the whims of Google or any other manufacturer, I'd gladly shell out another $300 for an android device sans phone. Seems like manufactures aren't even bothering to compete with Apple in general (maybe android isn't good enough to compete with the iPhone and iPod touch), but rather are aiming for the already existing market of mediocre products such as blackberry, palm, and windows smartphones. Kind of sad, really. In this market things like video and audio playback seem almost like afterthoughts, which poorly designed apps to do this and little to no support for integrating with PC-based software, such as would be similar to iTunes. Sure you can dump songs on a little chip, but how well does the playback system work? is it fully integrated like it is on the iPhone and obviously the iPod Touch? How well can it integrate with Amarok or Songbird? Seems like there are a lot of opportunities here. Of course maybe they feel the mp3 player market is so saturated that it doesn't matter. After all business users care mainly about their e-mail. I get the impression I will never be in the target market for any of these companies.

    1. Re:I just want an android device, not a smartphone by caseih · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm afraid you've dramatically missed the point. I'm not interested in selling my soul to Apple for this privilege. Initially I only made the purchase (and arguably it was foolish) because I knew I could jailbreak the device and do what I wanted with it. However, Apple chose to go to war against those who would use the device in ways Apple didn't want (oh the irony of living in a free country) and they have decided it's illegal for me to use my iPod to sync against Amarok if I ever upgrade to 2.x (which they practically force on me every time I plug it into a computer with iTunes on it).

      I want a platform that I'm free to do anything I want with, since I own it. I want to be able to write new software, access the shell, sync against amarok, etc. I don't want to pay apple $100 for the privilege of accessing a device I already own and should have access too. That's just silly and a bit ludicrous if you think about it. Cue the bad car analogies... Sure we'll sell you a car. But if you want access to the trunk you have to pay us for a trunk license and then we reserve the right to take away the key at any time if we see fit.

      As for being compensated for my work, Apple's policies don't even allow GPL'd software at all, so I couldn't even offer my work to others to begin with.

      In hindsight, the iPod was a stupid buy. It doesn't work well with just about anything. I can't easily attach peripherals to it, except what Apple sanctions. However at the time it was the best device (when jailbroken) on the planet. I'm hoping that a device with Android will reach that point soon.

    2. Re:I just want an android device, not a smartphone by EvilNTUser · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The N810 already runs Linux with a Nokia UI. There's no reason to install Android.

      In addition, Nokia has been shipping phones that let you install anything you want for years, and their phone OS will become open source as of next year. They even provide native Python interpreters.

      The main reason Nokia is so unpopular in the US is that they refused to cripple their phones as much as the carriers wanted. Unfortunately even nerds in America are apparently too dependent on force fed advertising.

      --
      My Sig: SEGV
  8. Different hardware spec to the G1 by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first thing that strikes me about this phone is that the spec is noticeably different from the other shipping Android phone, the screen is 320x240 not 480x320, and the camera is 2 megapixel not 3.2.

    It will be very interesting to see how well the software on the AppStore^H^H^H^H Android MarketTM works on different hardware, and how many developers will be willing and/or able to patch their software to work on it.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  9. Re:HTC Touch Dream by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The phone you speak of is sold in the US under contract or at ridiculous retail prices without contract. This phone is unique as it's one of the few phones with excellent functionality that can be purchased at a reasonable cost without a contract.

    Most consumers actually like getting their phones at very low subsidized cost through their wireless carrier but I'm a firm believer this has an astoundingly negative impact on competition. The wireless carriers dictate to the device manufacturers which features are allowed.

    Separating phone functionality from the control of the carriers will TREMENDOUSLY improve competition and have a very beneficial impact on end users. I'm a little surprised the FTC hasn't stepped in already on behalf of consumers. Wireless plans in the US have gone up dramatically in cost over the last 15 years. The phone companies like to quote cost:minute rates because it makes them look cheaper. The fact is, the cost of text messaging has gone UP and data transfer rates are still prohibitive for most end users to really use the full capacity of their phones.

    --
    You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
  10. Re:Dollars? by duplicate-nickname · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you think Australian Personal Computer Magazine is a US site, then there isn't much we can do to help you.

    --

    ÕÕ

  11. Re:HTC Touch Dream by bberens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see the problem a little differently. Right now EVERY SINGLE rate plan is priced so that the carrier can subsidize the price of the phone. If I go to a carrier they will give me a free phone or at the very least dramatically reduce the price of the phone if I sign a contract for 2 years. In my imaginary example let's say I get a contract + phone for $50/mo for 2 years. Now if I go to that same carrier and say I ALREADY have a phone I would like to use, what is the cost of service? They will respond: Well, we have this $50/mo plan for you. In the current market I'm paying for the 'subsidized' phone whether I get the phone or not, which is ridiculous. The only way to NOT have to do this is to get a pay as you go plan, which is annoying because I don't want to have to keep buying cards/minutes. I just want to pay $40/mo for the same plan I could get for $50/mo + phone. Until the phone is no longer subsidized by the rate plans, I don't think we'll every be free of this ridiculous system.

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  12. Re:I hope to God you're right. by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative
    How do you sell a device like this with no contract subsidy for $900?

    There's an interesting backstory to that low price (AU$299/$399, btw).

    Kogan is an Australian online retailer. They started when Kogan got pissed off with always being ripped off on local pricing and decided to go direct to Chinese manufacturers.

    Eighteen months ago young tech-head Ruslan Kogan wanted an LCD television but didn't want to pay full price for it.

    He did some research and sent a few emails to factories in China, and now the 24-year-old not only has a new 117cm high-definition TV in his lounge room, he is planning to go global with his own brand of consumer electronics.

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/biztech/entrepreneur-cuts-tv-middle-men/2007/03/26/1174761375485.html

    That story is a little over a year old; now there's a lot more products in his store and he's taking on the big electronic retailers over here. http://www.kogan.com.au/profile/

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."