Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Announces "Open Phone" Coalition, No gPhone [Updated]

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Nov 05, 2007 08:28 AM
from the well-isn't-that-special dept.
Communications Businesses Google Handhelds The Internet Hardware
Ponca City, We Love You writes "USA Today has an advance story on Google's plans to announce a new operating system, geared specifically for cellphones with partners that include Sprint, Motorola, Samsung and Japanese wireless giant NTT DoCoMo. Although details won't be released until later today the new G-system will be based on Linux overlaid with Java and Google hopes to have a branded device ready for worldwide shipment by spring. Mobile Web browsing is notoriously slow and Google plans to change that by providing easy access to the Internet at PC-type speeds. Google plans to basically give away the software developer tools, used by programmers to write new applications. "If you're a developer, you'll be able to develop (applications) for the new Google Phone very quickly," said Morgan Gillis of the LiMo Foundation. AT&T and Verizon Wireless are noticeably absent from the coalition not wanting to support a device that favors Google over other providers. Sprint, the No. 3 carrier, supports the coalition, but it hasn't formally agreed to make the Google Phone available to its 54 million subscribers." Update 1727 GMT by SM: It's official, Google is releasing the mobile "Android" OS in place of the Google branded mobile phone that many expected.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Google to Announce "Open Phone" Coalition by pickens (49171)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google Announces "Open Phone" Coalition, No gPhone [Updated] 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Google phone, long awaited (Score:5, Funny)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday November 05 2007, @08:34AM (#21240363)
    The new operating system will be called GNU/Goo/Do/Mo/SpriSamSun/Linux.

    I, for one, welcome our new alliterative overlords.

  • What version of Java? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by $1uck (710826) on Monday November 05 2007, @08:36AM (#21240393)
    So what version of Java? Micro Edition? or full blown Java?

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by musikit (716987)
      IMHO JavaME is a joke. it doesnt have anything useful that anyone would want. the spec most likely has changed since i last looked at it but when i was heavily into small device platforms i found a couple things wrong with it

      1. it didnt use AWT. instead they create yet another windowing toolkit specifically for micro devices. i dont understand why it was essentially a copy of awt.
      2. it didnt allow use of floats/doubles.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        1. it didnt use AWT. instead they create yet another windowing toolkit specifically for micro devices. i dont understand why it was essentially a copy of awt.

        AWT was intended to wrap existing widgets. This doesn't make sense in a mobile device where there is likely to be little or no existing widget set. Swing would work, but it has higher overheads. The needs of a mobile UI are quite different to those of a desktop one, so a direct port would not make sense.

        2. it didnt allow use of floats/doubles.

        Most mobile CPUs don't support floating point arithmetic. Removing floats from the language makes it obvious to developers that, if they want floating point functionality they are going to need to emul

    • AFAIK, Sun is working on deprecating JavaME, and since Java's OSS now, it opens up the possibility of Google porting Java to the platform.

  • It's offical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neokushan (932374) on Monday November 05 2007, @08:37AM (#21240395)
    Open Platform? Available to all? No hidden charges? It's official, Google is the polar opposite to Apple.
    • Okay I'm not an iPhone fanboi, but what hidden charges are you talking about? And how is the iPhone not 'available to all' (in the same way that a Porsche is available to all if you want to actually spend your money on one)?

      • Re:It's offical (Score:5, Insightful)

        by timster (32400) on Monday November 05 2007, @09:29AM (#21240885)
        Well, I am an Apple Fanboi (according to those with the time to track such things) so I'm obviously biased, but I'll answer your questions anyway.

        Hidden charges: the iPhone is sold at retail for $400, giving the impression that you pay $400 and own one, but that isn't exactly the case. The device will not function (even as an iPod or whatever) until activated with AT&T. The AT&T plans available aren't exactly out of line for unlimited data plans but they aren't discount plans either. All these limitations are because Apple also receives a subsidy from AT&T, which is a sort of hidden charge.

        As for "available to all", there are a few possible answers. As of now the phone isn't available outside the US and (without hacking) won't work with, say, Canadian carriers. Or if you speak in terms of development, right now nobody outside Apple can develop applications (without hacking).

        The iPhone is still rather great, at least for those of us who happen to live in a place where AT&T coverage is really far better than any of the competing coverage. But I think everyone is glad to see Google put on some pressure in this space. Apple makes some good software but can get stuck in a bit of a cathedral mindset that can make their platforms a bit stale.
        • That charge isn't hidden - I don't have one but even I know that you can only get it on a contract, it's quite normal to do that here in the UK at least..

          I also would have marked myself as an Apple fanboy until they got better known for their iPods than their computers! I'm still an Apple computer fanboy, but the iPod and the iPhone so far still seem like overpriced underspecced gadgets to me. The iPod is getting there though, have been slightly tempted by the Touch - a solid state player capable of hold
        • It is available to them, they just choose not to buy it. Very different.. that's like saying a tractor isn't available to those who would prefer to use gasoline rather than diesel (got to love the car analogies :) and dont bother pointing out a tractor that can run on normal petrol/gasoline, though hopefully there isn't one because it's preferable to have decent torque in a tractor..)

  • Really.... how? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Monday November 05 2007, @08:39AM (#21240423)

    Mobile Web browsing is notoriously slow and Google plans to change that by providing easy access to the Internet at PC-type speeds.
    There is so much wrong with this sentence that it makes me want to gouge my eyes out. I wasn't aware that PC-type is suddenly a benchmark for speed... and how exactly is changing the OS going to make cellphone browsing that noticeably faster?
    Also...

    One caveat: You'll have to use Google for navigation
    Do no Evil, eh?

    • I wasn't aware that PC-type is suddenly a benchmark for speed...

      Well, in my experience with Rogers Cable in Canada, which is a major ISP and telecommunications company, surfing at the same advertised speed using a cell phone and computer was never the same. The PC was significantly faster. Donno why though.

      I'd speculate that there is a "technical problem" [or trade off] with the way cell phones get their Internet access. But that's speculation so I could be way wrong here.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DarkTempes (822722)
        And I wouldn't be surprised if google was fine with that.

        Most people would still use google in a new unlocked-browser, and google probably isn't too worried about a small niche of tech savvy people using an application (unless they screw up the initial browser the majority of users are going to use the original one aka MSIE vs netscape and friends)

  • I'm really interested to see how Linux can be overlaid with Java and Google.

    Or maybe someone needs to brush up on their punctuation.

  • Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yuioup (452151) on Monday November 05 2007, @08:43AM (#21240459)
    Let me guess... they're going to offer it for free/at a reduced price in exchange for giving up all your privacy.

    Y

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BuR4N (512430)
      Wonder if they plan to (with the assistance of the carrier) to serve up local ads based on where you are positioned when you make a search or accessing any other Google service.

      In metro areas where the phone network is fine grained, the positioning is quite accurate.
      • Yeah, like:

        Ej, CaptainZapp; in 20 meters to the right there is a sporting goods shop specialized on baseball bats. We have a FREE baseball bat for you. Come inside

        That would probably teach them about spamming my cell phone.

    • Re:Privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101@gmai l . com> on Monday November 05 2007, @09:54AM (#21241107) Homepage Journal

      Let me guess... they're going to offer it for free/at a reduced price in exchange for giving up all your privacy.

      Privacy is just another asset I can use to barter. Why is it intrinsically "evil" for someone to choose to sell it? And yes, I understand that not everyone understands exactly what they're selling, but that's a consumer problem.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by moosesocks (264553)
        I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Google's privacy policy is probably a hell of a lot better than anything AT&T or Verizon have.

        (AT&T taps your line for the NSA without a warrant, and Verizon will sell your personal information to marketers)

        Google makes it plainly obvious that they're recording and storing what you do (and actually presents that data to you in a useful manner). A traditional ISP definitely has the capability to do the same exact thing behind your back. If the bit

  • How open is open? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KenRH (265139) on Monday November 05 2007, @08:46AM (#21240485)
    The article states it will be linux-kernel + java, and of course it will be google servises as default for everyting. That is all fine.
    But my question is; what if I want to use other services, will that be possible/difficult?

    • Re:How open is open? (Score:4, Informative)

      by pavon (30274) on Monday November 05 2007, @01:02PM (#21243699)
      Here is the actual Open Handset Alliance [openhandsetalliance.com] Website describing Android. Third party developers will have access to all the hardware capabilities and software libraries that the Google software has access to. So developers can do anything that the phone is technically capable of. I imagine it will be fairly easy for end users to load new software onto the phone.
  • Isn't openMoko and others (something QT) developing an open platform mobile OS already? Why not just take what they've done and fork it or help out. What's the point in yet another open mobile platform when there are already people that have half finished implementations.

    Oh I get it. This open platform would be closed from the public to tinker with and actually only be available to the mobile phone providers? Is that the idea?

    • Re:We already have fifty! Finish one! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LingNoi (1066278) on Monday November 05 2007, @08:57AM (#21240565)
      Wait I read this wrong. It's not an "Open Phone" at all.

      This phone is going to be like the Motorola A1200 Linux phone I already have.

      The new G-system will be based on Linux, a 15-year-old computer operating system that is available free over the Internet. Google's version will be overlaid with Java, a popular computer language.
      It's just a DRM'd Linux Kernel with their proprietary java OS running on top. This phone is no different apart from now they'll give you more information on how to write programs for it. Big wow...

      Gillis says Google plans to basically give away the software developer "tools," used by programmers to write new applications. "If you're a developer, you'll be able to develop (applications) for the new Google Phone very quickly."
      I can develop applications for my Motorola phone too. What the hell is new here?

      • Re:We already have fifty! Finish one! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kebes (861706) on Monday November 05 2007, @09:25AM (#21240827) Journal
        The article seems rather confused on the subject of open-ness. They say:

        The finished product, expected within months, will unabashedly favor Google applications and services. "What's being developed is unlikely to be easily transportable to Yahoo (YHOO) and other (service) providers," says Morgan Gillis, executive director of the LiMo Foundation
        But then they state:

        Consumers are potentially the biggest beneficiaries. Currently, many cellphone carriers limit the services and applications that their customers can use.
        Ummmm.... it sounds like this new partnership is offering something that will, again, limit the services and applications that customers can use. Yes, it's another player in the market, and that kind of competition is a good thing... but having a phone providing Google-only services certainly doesn't qualify as "open" in my book.

        I understand that they intend to make it easy for third party developers to make apps for this thing, but the above quote suggests that some components (in particular the Google apps) will be integrated at a level that third party apps won't be able to modify.

        Again, I'm excited about the possibility of a new phone challenging the status quo in the cellphone market, but this effort hardly seems to be the drive towards openness that OpenMoko [openmoko.com] (and the now discontinued Greenphone [trolltech.com]) is driving towards.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by sciurus0 (894908)
          Keep in mind that the quote about favoring Google applications and services is from the LiMo foundation [linux.com], which is trying to produce their own Linux-based cellphone platform. The Open Handset Alliance [openhandsetalliance.com] claims the exact opposite: "Android does not differentiate between the phone's core applications and third-party applications. They can all be built to have equal access to a phone's capabilities providing users with a broad spectrum of applications and services. With devices built on the Android Platform, us

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by abes (82351)
      It isn't necessarily clear from a consumer's perspective why this is advantageous (I suspect we'll have to wait to see an actual product first).

      However, there are some big benefits to both Google and the phone companies. For google, they get one step closer to world domination. They get a relationship with the phone companies, and the get to build a solid foundation for mobile devices (which will eventually cover more than just cell phones).

      From the article, it sounds like they are planning on creating inte
  • The article is not clear, is the OS of the phone truely open source, or have they just opened up specifications for utilizing the OS?
  • Code, content, physical layer. Those are the three layers that Larry Lessig uses to describe the Internet. His concern, as expressed in The Future of Ideas, is that our common global culture could be locked down if we don't work hard to keep the Internet open. So Free Software, Creative Commons, and now this Google initiative are going to start to move us away from our dependence on Microsoft, ATT, and Warner Brothers / Disney. Google isn't perfect, but I say this is a step in the right direction. Don't underestimate the importance of having devices with open code at the fringes of the Internet. Microsoft wants to force you to have non-Free software to access the Internet. This effort by Google is one step away from that kind of lock-down. You go, Googlers!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ms1234 (211056)
      Quoting Redmond: Developers, developers, developers.

      The easier they make it to develop the more popular it's going to be to make 'cool' apps.
  • What does this potentially mean for joe users like myself as far as interoperability with linux programs? Does this mean a platform that will be friendlier with syncing? Does it mean a competitive alternative to the WM phone OS? I ask because I really don't know. Any insights on this one?

  • My plan (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mikiN (75494)
    For all who are getting a little weary of all those great "Open Phone" initiatives being touted here and there without seeing much practical (affordable, stable, educational, worthwile) upshot coming of them, here's my plan.

    1. Get a small (and I mean 'small', because it'll basically be the footprint of your phone-to-be), well-documented ARM development board, a small keyboard and a display.
    2. Get one of them dirt-cheap GSM bugs (an online store recently mentioned on /. sells them for about $50 a pop)
    3. Find

  • WIFI (Score:3, Funny)

    by halfmanhalfpint (1184605) on Monday November 05 2007, @09:55AM (#21241117)
    So when Google gets into WIFI hotspots will they call them G-spots?

  • Sprint = WiMax (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darth Cider (320236) on Monday November 05 2007, @10:16AM (#21241369)
    Sprint has invested heavily in 2.5 GHz spectrum, with 85% coverage of U.S. households. Predicted speeds [dailywireless.org] are 2-4 Mbp/s down and 1 Mbps up. Sprint's partnership with Google was announced in July [washingtonpost.com]. Quote: " '[T]his is not a cellular model,' said Atish Gude, Sprint's senior vice president for mobile broadband operations." At about the same time, Sprint announced a partnership with Clearwire, the other big WiMax spectrum-holder.

    This could really put competitive pressure on telcos, especially if applications development leads to truly useful products. (Instead of silly little widgets.) Who wants a phone that can do less but costs more?

  • Why will this fail? Partners! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mveloso (325617) on Monday November 05 2007, @11:45AM (#21242537)
    I'm surprised that google is going the partner route. One thing that means is that the initiative is almost guaranteed to fail.

    Why?

    Because partners have their own agenda as to why they're partnering with Google.

    Most carriers have long, and somewhat decent working relationships with their platform vendors. Apple comes out, and whacks all those relationships with a stick by producing a device that's arguably far superior to any US phone.

    What are the other carriers to do? The phone OS's functionality is basically specified by the carrier, who picks and chooses various features depending on the phone's price point, how the phone will fit into the carrier's current phone mix, and the competition (not necessarily in that order). Google comes out with something that's "open" , and while it may be interesting, from a carrier point of view, that interest doesn't necessarily mean that it's going anywhere. Given how big Google is, the carriers may be on board just to sink the gPhone ship (welcome to corporate america).

    Only time will tell. Will the gPhone be substantially better than Symbian etc?
    • But that's different. Apple isn't Evil(tm) and Steve Jobs is a Demigod(tm). The iPhone is an innovative product that will revolutionize the world! Thanks to Jobs' powerful vision, we will all live in one happy Apple Utopia(tm)!

      Am I getting the MacFanboySlashdotGroupThink(tm) thing right, guys?
      • What was I thinking saying such blasphemy! *Bites tongue and bows head* Will the Steve ever forgive me?

      • Re:AT&T? (Score:5, Funny)

        by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday November 05 2007, @09:07AM (#21240659)
        Why is it that, every time I see a true Apple fanboy post here, I always get an image of James Earl Jones in "Conan the Barbarian," beckoning one of his followers to come to him by walking off a cliff?
      • Which reminds me, a good application for this new phone would be a pop up laser that kills iphones dead to death.
        You may be thinking , "why not just kill the owner and stomp on the iPhone?",
        well, we want to see the owner break down in tears of course !

        (this is all because I can't afford one, and am stuck with a stupid Sidekick, actually)

    • Re:AT&T? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KSobby (833882) on Monday November 05 2007, @08:49AM (#21240511)
      All AT&T said was that they didn't want to favor Google over other providers. We have to assume that they meant Apple. And why would they? They have a sweet deal with Apple. How is this in anyway hypocritical or evil? AT&T favors Apple, so they don't join.

      People just look for any reason to be mad at someone.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by wolff000 (447340)
        The only deal they have with Apple is for a single device. I don't see any good reason for AT&T not to join in. This is disappointing since they are my provider. If this platform turns out well I may be changing providers when it comes time to renew my contract. AT&T by the way has snubbed Google on most if not all of their devices. The phones they have come with pre-installed messenger apps and email notification and Google apps are not supported. The best you get is a download for gtalk but

    • Re:AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by digitig (1056110) on Monday November 05 2007, @09:05AM (#21240647)

      AT&T... [is] noticeably absent from the coalition not wanting to support a device that favors Google over other providers.
      WHAT?! They support devices that favor Apple over other providers. Does anyone else see this hypocracy?
      Not as hypocrisy, no. If they said that all coalitions should be provider-neutral it would be hypocrisy. If they just say that this coalition conflicts with their existing deals then it's not hypocrisy at all.

    • Ha - They must be pissed that gOS just got released... ;P

      They'd better bring out chairs... Ballmer style...
      Gosh, I just wet my chair. You are sooooo funny!

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.