Slashdot Mirror
Google Pulls Support For CDMA Devices
An anonymous reader writes "Google has just made some interesting changes to their developer pages. As of today, all of the documentation, source code, and firmware images pertaining to CDMA Android devices (including the Verizon Galaxy Nexus) have been removed. A statement from Google explains that the proprietary software required to make these devices fully functional got in the way of Android's open source nature, so CDMA devices are no longer supported as developer hardware. What does this mean for the Galaxy Nexus, which is only available as CDMA in the U.S.?"
Sounds to me like the carriers and Google butted heads on some code, and this is Google putting the pressure on the carriers to open up parts of their software, but that is purely speculation on my part. I'm just curious how this is going to play out with Sprint's rollout of the LTE Google Nexus.
It's used in the US, where they are 20 years behind the rest of the world in mobile phones.
Come on, America, at least move onto GSM. Now that it's all being ripped out and replaced with 3G there's a lot of GSM hardware on the second-hand market. It's not even expensive.
Make things easy on yourselves. Take that giant leap into the year 2000.
The Galaxy Nexus will continue to work just fine on CDMA. For future models, well, that's another story... Google forces the industry to either open up their firmware or move on to GSM. Good thing, IMO.
Come on, America, at least move onto GSM. ... Take that giant leap into the year 2000.
What are you talking about? GSM has been available in the U.S. since before 2000. It's not our fault some carriers hold onto CDMA. But really, you can't blame them when it worked perfectly well for their purposes. Me, I think a lot of it was to make it more difficult for people to use second-hand phones, since you can't just swap your service from one phone to another on your own like you can GSM.
The GSM standards as originally developed were deliberately chosen to work on bands (900 MHz , IIRC) that in the US were assigned to the military. That is, to be initially incompatible and unusable in the US, so as to split the world into "US" and "rest", and give non-US developers a head start. It worked ...
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
And only for some features. Consumer phones will of course still be fully supported, receive all updates etc.
AOSP builds from source have never had full telephony function for CDMA devices due to missing carrier binaries, so Google is moving to clarify this, and is no longer listing CDMA devices as fully supported for developers.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Except that East Asian deployments of CDMA2000 use SIM for network authentication - changing phones in Japan, Korea, or India is as simple as moving a little smartcard around. Just like in GSM. Don't hold me to it, but it might also apply to CDMA2000 networks in Eastern Europe.
Only in the Americas do CDMA2000 networks still use MEID for authentication, as far as I know.
I know that CDMA is an older standard, however, from what I remember it has always had better voice quality and tower transfers than GSM.
The one big advantage of GSM is the use of SIM cards, and that simultaneous voice and data were possible. CDMA also has better spectral efficiency than TDMA used by GSM. Check out Wikipedia's article on it and look at the efficiency of the latest CDMA vs GSM standard.
Don't act like the carriers stuck with CDMA to be dinosaurs. It actually was , at least for voice users, the better technology.
In Japan, they also have W-CDMA (UMTS), but at least the phones there typically use uSIM cards, which just happen to be similar to GSM SIM cards.
I can take any unlocked phone that supports UMTS, and put in any uSIM card from any other the 3 major carriers (softbank, au, & docomo) and it will work.
However in the USA, CMDA based carriers refused to allow any type of uSIM support for their networks, since they want users to be locked down to their networks. Even if you paid the extra $$$ for an unlocked iPhone 4S, you cannot get it work on both Sprint and Verizon the networks. The iPhone unlock is only for GSM not CDMA in the USA. The same is also true for Android phones as well.
I am very happy to see Google finally stand up against the horrible CMDA situation in the USA. As previous commenters have stated, it would be nice if either CMDA went away, or they followed the example of Japan, and are required to have uSIM cards.
The goal should be to have every unlocked smart-phone unlocked and able to work with every carrier, but simply inserting a SIM/uSIM card. Personally I think it is horrible that smart-phones are not required to be unlocked, since these phones are typically not subsidized with 2-3 year contacts that covers the full cost of the phone many times over.
Google is just handing over Verizon's & Sprint's customer bases over to Apple, Microsoft and others?
Good Thing you added a question mark because this doesn't mean Google is handing anything over to anyone. Google and Carriers are still more then welcome to use CDMA technology all they like and are free to do anything they want with the phones as long as all the licensing requirements of all the software they use are met. Google removing CDMA from the developer pages is not the same thing as Google saying that the android license and therefor anyone using the android software is now restricted from using CDMA and it can no longer be used because that is not what it means. It means Google is having issues complying with certain licenses by posting the CDMA specs online and therefor they have simply taken it out of the open space where anyone in the world is now able to access it but carriers like Verizon and Sprint and Manufacturers like Samsung, HTC, LG, etc, etc will have no problem obtaining the resources and permissions to develop and implement the CDMA functionality and I'm willing to bet that Google will not only make it easy to load this functionality in a modular way which will ease integration but I also bet that will be aiding with the design and development to these companies to make sure it's done. Don't misinterpret Google taking CDMA from the open developer pages as meaning anything even close to saying Google is not going to allow CDMA on Android phones anymore because one example I can think of already is Sprint, a CDMA provider, has the contract to deploy Galaxy Nexus phones as soon as the exclusivity rights for Verizon finish. People shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly based on a gross over simplification of what is actually being said without taken a moment to read it thoroughly and make an effort to understand the real implications of the actions. Hope this answers your question.
Google isn't "Dropping" CDMA support. CDMA Android phones aren't going anywhere any time soon - they're just not supporting them as DEVELOPER devices. Due to issues with Custom ROMs not working as best they could (due to the proprietary components required), Google is basically saying that the CDMA Nexus phones are no better than any other non-nexus device when it comes to "official" developer support. They'll still exist, they'll still be sold, updated, etc. but they won't be classed as "Developer devices". That's it.
This isn't anything new, it was the same case with the Nexus S 4G and even the Xoom.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
GSM has a fixed maximum cell size - 20km radius at first, later extended to 35km. CDMA doesn't have a maximum. GSM does because it uses time division multiplexing - several phones can transmit and receive on the same frequency, and they take turns. The further from the tower your phone is, the longer the signal takes to travel back and forth, and there comes a point where your transmissions spill into the next slot, reducing call quality for whoever's using it. If you get to that distance from the tower, it will just drop the call. The maximum cell size is a tradeoff between how much equipment the network needs to serve a given area and how much spectrum it would have to use.
In densely-populated places like most of Europe, the maximum cell size isn't really an issue - there aren't many places where you can leave one settlement and travel 20km without entering another. Australia and North America, on the other hand, are much more spread out, and the number of GSM cells that would be needed to provide acceptable coverage to rural areas would be too expensive for the likely revenue from them.
Just another wannabe fantasy novelist...
Actually, I work in a lab that programs, tests, and services phones on all four carriers. You are absolutely correct in your statement! Sprint and Verizon both were using CDMA for that reason. Verizon has now switched to LTE for quite a bit of it's network but Sprint is still using a combination of CDMA and WiMax. While AT&T and T-Mobile were using GSM but have now mostly switched to HSDPA(HSPA+) and LTE respectively.
What most people don't realize is that none of the technologies that are currently out can truly be called 4G! Unlike 3G, there is no specific standard for what is considered 4G service yet. The industry is saying that these specifications are in development, but right now 4G is more of a gimmick to get consumers to buy the latest and greatest thing! 2G service came out around 1995, 3G came out around 2005. Mobile infrastructures, in the USA at least, seem to be on a ten year cycle. With that said there most likely will not be a "4G standard" till around 2015. Sprint actually has the most right to call it's network 4G, not because of speed, but because it is the 4th generation of it's network.
According to Wikipedia (and its cited sources), the 4G spec was finalized in 2008, and would require the ability for sustained data rates of 100Mbps. Current networks don't meet that, but LTE-Advanced could, and is only a firmware upgrade removed from current LTE systems.
Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4G#Requirements and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMT_Advanced
Sig? What's that? Oh, 'signature'...and it's supposed to be witty? Right...