Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Businesses Google The Internet Communications

Predicting The Google Phone 205

Posted by Zonk
from the can-you-goog-me-now dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Inside The GPhone: What To Expect From Google's Android Alliance (an article at Information Week) argues that you can predict what the GPhone(s) will look like very easily, simply by listing the technologies of the Open Handset Alliance partners. According to this theory, the phone will have a user interface from Sweden's TAT, VCAST-like multimedia capabilities powered by PacketVideo Corp., and an iPhone-like capacitive touch-screen, from Synaptics. Hardware-wise, it'll probably be built around Texas Instruments' OMAP processors, which enable a single-chip world phone (GSM/EDGE/GPRS). "While the GPhone won't be revolutionary, it'll connect the pieces in pleasantly new ways," argues author Alex Wolfe. Should Apple be concerned?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Predicting The Google Phone

Comments Filter:
  • well (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moogied (1175879)
    It has a web browser that can play youtube..

    and its can be on sprint?

    Yes, Apple should become concerned.

    • by Andy Dodd (701)
      Any Windows Mobile device (They exist for all carriers) can already do this.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by moogied (1175879)
        yes but windows mobile is not exactly "User friendly". Its still marketed more towards CEO's and always gotta be in contact buiness type. They have not made a push to make it "cool" like google undoubtedbly will.
        • FWIW, people haven't exactly been blown away by the user-friendliness of Android's interface, either, at least as used inside the emulator - now maybe a lot of this is because it's awkward to simulate mobile phone controls on a PC screen, but I'm not entirely sure. The difference, of course, between Android and Windows Mobile is that the current incarnation of Android is as an early prototype, not a finished product; Google has been pretty clear about the fact that they are actively seeking input from the
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ozmanjusri (601766)
          windows mobile is not exactly "User friendly"

          Talk about understatement!

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

    • by TheMeuge (645043) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:04PM (#21353789)
      Given the number of flash-based ads and overlays on this site, it's safe to assume that if Google can come up with a mobile platform that is capable of handling the page with TFA, they're geniuses.
    • Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kc2keo (694222)
      They should run Multics on it! I made a funny...
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by NeuralSpike (968001)
      The biggest advantage the iPhone has is its ability to be used at any wifi hotspot for free internet access. The gPhone cannot match this capability since it can only be used at g-spots, which are supposed to be difficult to find.
  • by tgatliff (311583) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:10PM (#21352969)
    No. Apple should not be concerned because they are great are doing hardware... :-)
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:12PM (#21352993)
      No. Apple should not be concerned because they are great are doing hardware... :-) Great are Apple doing! With you agreed I am! Hardware Apple excelling is! :-)
    • by snoyberg (787126)

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bkr1_2k (237627)
        I, on the other hand, didn't want an iPhone and do want a gPhone.

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

        I'm not saying there's something wrong with supporting a company you like, just wondering whether there's some justification for your statement other than liking said company
        • by snoyberg (787126) <snoyberg@users . ... c e f o r ge.net> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:50PM (#21353575) Homepage

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

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

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

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

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

          • by bkr1_2k (237627)
            Excellent response. It just seemed odd to me that it sounded like you had no other reason. I suppose I could have rightly suspected the open-initiative thing if I had bothered to consider it carefully.

            I have to agree with that, and I'm interested to see what happens, despite the fact that I'm not very likely to buy one of these phones any time soon.
        • The final products are way too far off to know, but the software demo [youtube.com] did look promising and barring any hardware SNAFU's I don't see too much they can go wrong with (that can't be fixed from within the community).
      • by edmicman (830206)

        No. Apple should not be concerned because they are great are doing hardware... :-)
        I think Apple should be slightly worried. However, I think the same who will buy no mp3 player by an iPod will stick with the iPhone for the same reason: the bling factor.
        Ugh...my head hurts!
    • *sigh* This will eventually result in a new stupid meme. Apple will come out with a product, and Slashdotters will ask, "But does it run gPhone?"
  • 5 years behind apple (Score:4, Interesting)

    by backslashdot (95548) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:17PM (#21353057)
    According to some patents, Apple may be working on cooler stuff like pressure sensitive screens etc.

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

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

    -Johan

    PS> Maybe google should have made this platform good for non mobvile phone stuff too like for in cars or whatever
    • by jrumney (197329)
      Most iPhone applications will look just as much like on future VGA or WVGA models, since the current hardware encourages developers to develop for HVGA. At least with Android, developers are aware that they are designing for a variety of hardware, and those with half a brain will avoid sizing things in pixels where possible.
    • by 0xdeadbeef (28836)
      If only it weren't so hard to write applications that scale intelligently with screen size... or use the switch that tells the emulator to run in the same dimensions as the iPhone and a gazillion other devices. Maybe when the iPhone SDK is released we can steal their secrets of basic algebra.

      Why did an Android thread turn into a ridiculous predictions from Apple zealots thread?
  • by nilbog (732352) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:19PM (#21353079) Homepage Journal
    The processor used in the first Google phones will more likely be the Qualcomm 7200. This is the new chip going into the latest HTC phones (such as the AT&T Tilt/Kaiser/Tytn II/whatever). It is a dual CPU that integrates the Imageon hardware for 2d and 3d graphics acceleration. I believe this is HTC's current choice for their first "gPhone."

    Although Qualcomm hasn't released a proper SDK for the processor yet, so hardware acceleration is not fully implemented.
    • by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7&cornell,edu> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:47PM (#21353521) Homepage
      I was about to make the same comment, for different reasons - I get the impression that it's nearly impossible to implement a UMTS phone without using a Qualcomm MSM, at least while remaining cost competitive with an MSM-based solution. TI's OMAP series are still EDGE-only.

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

      • by jrumney (197329)
        And of course, there's the third reason that the Qualcomm MSM7K family is being maintained at git.android.com.
        • by jrumney (197329)
          Sorry, that should read: And of course, there's the third reason that the Linux port for the Qualcomm MSM7K family is being maintained at git.android.com.
      • by sr180 (700526)
        Hence why you will find the processor slows to a crawl while responding to touch screen input.
      • by nilbog (732352)
        Right. Not dual core. Dual CPU.
  • Yay! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:20PM (#21353111)
    Another cell phone! Woot! The market was so sparse!

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

  • Ummm.. CDMA? (Score:3, Informative)

    by LWATCDR (28044) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:22PM (#21353137) Homepage Journal
    "Texas Instruments' OMAP processors, which enable a single-chip world phone (GSM/EDGE/GPRS)"
    Funny how that is a "world" phone. GSM is only a standard for Europe. In North American you have both GSM and CDMA, Korea is mostly CDMA and I think Japan is also uses a lot of CDMA.
    Also Sprint is one of the carriers that is involved in this and they only do CDMA.
    • Re:Ummm.. CDMA? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by crunzh (1082841) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:39PM (#21353411) Homepage
      GSM is the most used standard in the world. There are no significant country that only runs CDMA and only one that dont support GSM (Japan), even korea have gsm networks. So a world phone needs to support GSM.
    • Re:Ummm.. CDMA? (Score:5, Informative)

      by king-manic (409855) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:54PM (#21353627)

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

      I think your point about GSM only being for Europe is very much wrong. GSM covers a great deal more countries then CDMA. It's a world phone because you can take a GSM phone to nearly any country with cell service and buy a sim card and get connected. With a CDMA phone coverage is sparse or non existent in anywhere but the 4 countries I listed.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

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

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

    • by bkr1_2k (237627)
      Yes GSM isn't necessarily as heavily adopted everywhere as it is in Europe, but it is most definitely more widespread than anything else. Despite what Japan and Korea do, the rest of Asia uses GSM fairly consistently. At least China (#1 GSM market worldwide), Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Indonesia, and Thailand. India also has a growing GSM market.

      CDMA may well be a technology that is chosen as it is growing more rapidly than GSM due to 3G application apparently, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
    • by Andy Dodd (701)
      "World" means "At least one carrier in every area supports it", not "works with every carrier in existence".

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

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

      That said - If you read TI's pages carefully, they market themselves as a manufacturer of "3G"
      • by jrumney (197329)

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

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

        Docomo and Softbank use PDC for their 2G services, not GSM. They don't have dual 2G/3G phones, it is one or the other, so many 3G phones sold over there now come with GSM for roaming with. Korea and Japan were the only two countries lis

    • by cyngus (753668)
      "Funny how that is a "world" phone. GSM is only a standard for Europe."

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

      GSM on the other hand is used in the US (AT&T and T-Mobile), North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and Asia (except maybe Korea). So yes, GSM *does* make it a world phone. Good luck using that CDMA in Nigeria!
    • by Zach978 (98911)
      They reference the TI chip, but I'm pretty sure that the phone they use in the demo is the all in one chip in the Qualcomm MSM7K series [helloandroid.com].
  • What about the Neo? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thefekete (1080115) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:23PM (#21353161)
    Has any one tried running android on a Neo1973?
  • by radimvice (762083) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:23PM (#21353169) Homepage

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

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

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

    -Will [ohadev.com]

    • by 2nd Post! (213333) <gundbearNO@SPAMpacbell.net> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:32PM (#21353301) Homepage
      Isn't that like arguing, in 2001, that the iPod was a single device while the PlaysForSure platform was hundreds of MP3 players made by dozens of companies spanning both the high end and low end... that ultimate got killed by the iPod Classic at the high end, the iPod nano in the middle, and iPod shuffle on the low end?

      You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by taskiss (94652)
        No, it's like arguing that 2 birds in the bush are better than a bird in the hand.
      • by e2d2 (115622)
        You don't think Apple will repeat history in 2007 with the iPhone what they did in 2001 with the iPod?

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

        Google is not going after Apple's iPhone, they are trying to change wireless all together. They see wireless as the greatest way to deli
        • by 2nd Post! (213333)
          You compare four months of iPhone availability against six years of iPod availability and think the iPhone is a failure?

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

          I'm not decrying Google's Android at all. I have high hopes for it (especially since
          • by e2d2 (115622)
            The parent said "in 2007" so I'm sticking with it. Overall I have no idea how the next gen+ will be received. I'm not sayings it's a piece of shit, I don't own one. But it's not the next iPod so far. The iPod sold HUGE during the first release holiday season and then just went up. We'll see after this holiday season if it's the same. I have doubts.
      • by nametaken (610866)

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

        People insist that their mobile phones do virtually every task known to modern computing. With Apple being openly hostile to tinkerers, hobbyists, developers and deathly allergic to competition... they're doomed in the business phone market. They've been like this for decades, and as such I sincerely doubt they'll change things up just so they can fight every dug-in mobile phone and
        • by 2nd Post! (213333)
          What makes you think the Google SDK and iPhone SDK are incompatible?

          Regardless, your point is irrelevant. Apple has an incredibly successful and profitable niche without directly addressing the business environment, yet.
          • by suggsjc (726146)

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

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

            import com.google.andoid.*

            Besides, Apple does NOT want a truly open platform. They want to control the hardware (and software) that goes into/on the iPhone (or any of their products for that matter). I would actually be more shocked if 3rd party software doesn't have to be signed and sold *ONLY* through iTunes than if they actually allow people to put "whatever" they want on their

      • by LWATCDR (28044)
        Not really.
        There are a lot of Smartphones on the market that offer more features than the iPhone today.
        When the SDK comes out that may change.
        The iPhone is only available from AT&T and lacks high speed.
        Android may be a big winner. It may not. The iPhone my fad because other cheaper phones replace it.
        I am looking at getting a new phone soon and so is my wife. It isn't going to an iPhone.
        I was looking at the new Palm but it lacks voice dialing and GPS.
        I was looking at the MotoQ but it lacks GPS.
        I really w
        • by 2nd Post! (213333)
          And yet doesn't that sound exactly like the iPod in 2001?
          1) Lot of MP3 players with more features (bigger battery, more storage, FM radio, flash, support for Windows, drag and drop support, WMA support, etc). Yet here we are.
          2) The iPod was only available for Macs and used Firewire instead of USB. Somehow Apple managed to add support for Windows, port iTunes to Windows, AND support for USB2.
          3) Cheaper MP3 players could not displace the iPod; somehow I don't think cheaper phones will displace the iPhone; we
          • by LWATCDR (28044)
            Only if they move off of AT&T.
            Or are not and AT&T exclusive. Sort of like when the iPod stopped being only for the Mac.
    • by aztektum (170569)
      The only *REAL* problem with the iPhone is AT&T.

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

      For the innovative interface and the included function of the device, this has to be one of Apple's LEAST "over priced" products. People keep saying "It's just a phone." It's a wifi enabled multifunction device, and yes a proper SDK is still vaporware, but it's coming. Try b
  • Hey, I'm great at prediction. Just listen to what I say, [mcgrew.info] and the exact opposite [slashdot.org] will happen.

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

    -mcgrew
  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:31PM (#21353295)
    Ad-free printer-friendly version [informationweek.com]
  • by ishmalius (153450) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:32PM (#21353303)
    If you download the Android SDK, and run the emulator, you will see what the phone will almost certainly look like.
  • sleek userinterface? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mixenmaxen (857917)
    Am I the only one to think that the "sleek user interface" looks like Winamp pimped up by a Paris Hilton loving teenager? Not exactly a sleek user interface.

    I think that Apple has nothing to worry about in this regard.
  • Opera Mini? (Score:3, Informative)

    by feranick (858651) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:36PM (#21353355)
    TFA goes a long way suggesting the GPhone will sport Opera Mini as its default browser. Although it will be possible to run any piece of software (according to Sergei Brin), in its current form, the Android platform already has a quite capable browser, based on WebKit. I can't see what Opera Mini can do that it's not possible within the built in browser. I was testing it yesterday on the Android emulator and the browser is both fast and accurate in rendering. I am sure Opera will make a Gphone version, but I bet Mozilla will too. In other words, it won't matter what browser will be ported, because the user will have a great deal of choice.

    This is no iPhone (which is Safari only...).
  • good luck (Score:5, Interesting)

    by burris (122191) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:37PM (#21353369)
    I remember when ACE was announced. For you youngin's, the Advanced Computing Environment was an alliance of Compaq, Microsoft, MIPS Computer Systems, Digital Equipment Corporation, and the Santa Cruz Operation to build the next generation of computers in 1991. Basically, they wanted to wrestle control of the industry away from Intel. Steve Jobs was famously quoted as saying industry alliances always fail because there are just too many competing interests. He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.

    Can anyone name some successful computer industry alliances composed of competing members? This alliance has tons of members who compete directly with each other: handset manufacturers, software companies, chip manufacturers. The idea that these companies are going to align all of their interests, come together and produce anything is pretty far fetched IMHO.
    • by rmcd (53236) *
      I think that calling this an alliance is just PR. Maybe I'm missing something, but they don't all have to produce the same thing. They don't have to use exactly the same application software, they don't have to use the same form factor, they don't have to agree on which features to ship or enable.

      This seems more to me like the industry following Compaq and standardizing on the IBM BIOS in the early 1980s. With that decision out of the way, you could produce computers in a variety of form factors with whatev
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by imstanny (722685)

      He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.
      OPEC
    • Ethernet.

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

      The rest is history.

      • by cpeterso (19082)

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


        Yes: Ethernet was invented by Xerox, not an industry alliance.
    • Steve Jobs was famously quoted as saying industry alliances always fail because there are just too many competing interests. He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.

      OPEC. RIAA. MPAA.

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

      Oh, computer industry alliances.

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by imstanny (722685)

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

      IMHO, you should read the report. The companies listed are not competing with each other. Unless of course Syanptics is producing processing chips and Texas Instruments is generating revenue by making touch pads.

      1. VESA [vesa.org]
      2. The Open Group [theopengroup.org]
      3. IEEE [ieee.org]
      4. GSM [wikipedia.org]
      5. The Unicode Consortium [unicode.org]
      6. Bluetooth SIG [bluetooth.org]
      7. CAN [can-cia.org]
      8. EIA [eia.org] (responsible for, among other things, JEDEC [jedec.org], who are responsible for DDR and related standards)
    • by jcausey (253286)
      ANSI [ansi.org]
      IEEE [ieee.org]
      Wifi Alliance [wi-fi.org]
    • by DdJ (10790)

      He challenged people to name some successful industry alliances.
      OPEC?
    • The PowerPC (Score:3, Informative)

      by bgspence (155914)
      PowerPC is a RISC microprocessor architecture created by the 1991 Apple-IBM-Motorola alliance, known as AIM.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC [wikipedia.org]
  • The question is whether gPhone can establish a profound ecosystem of its own. It might do so & still not materially affect Apple, since Apple is offering an integraded personal digital ecosystem that gPhone is not aiming for in Android.

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

    With the volume of handsets worldwide, there is plenty of room for 2-3 GREAT players.
  • Let's ignore the touch screen, which I'm not sure is the greatest idea for a cel phone anyhow. Beyond that I'm comparing the features promised by both Apple and Google to a Nokia N82 [reghardware.co.uk] soon available in Europe and I see:

    It boasts a five-megapixel camera with a xenon flash and Carl Zeiss optics, and sports a 2.4in display that rotates from portrait to landscape view at the flick of a wrist, thanks to a built in accelerometer. The device includes Assisted GPS technology ... and compensates for weak satellite

  • uhhh (Score:3, Informative)

    by dfj225 (587560) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @03:54PM (#21353633) Homepage Journal
    Well, you could do all that or go to the Android site (code.google.com/android) and download the SDK as well as watch the developer videos that are posted. Having done this, you can see the UI as it stands now. Which, by the way, is very different (and much more pleasant, IMHO) than what is shown in the images linked from TFA.

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

    Why so much pure speculation when there is much more accurate data available from the published SDK?
    • by jrumney (197329)
      ARM926EJ-S is not a chip, it's a core which is licensed by a number of chip manufacturers. But the Qualcomm MSM7k family, which Google just released a Linux kernel port for (big hint there) is ARM11 based, so I think the ARM926EJ-S is probably just the most recent ARM core that QEMU can emulate.
  • by asphaltjesus (978804) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:06PM (#21353805)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb2N0QzX1NI [youtube.com]

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

    If someone says, "Just wait. It'll be great!" I dunno, there appears to be a bunch of gui-stuff already done and that's the hardest and least sexy part of the work that hardly anyone is willing to re-do.
  • And we all know how that turned out for Apple (vs. Intel/Microsoft).

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

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

    Apple will con
    • by 2nd Post! (213333)
      Hmm, Apple making billions a year, switching to Intel, and growing at 30% a year is somehow bad?

      The difference and problem with your analogy is that Google doesn't get a cent off Android unless it is through ads, software sales, or some other licensing agreement. Also wrong with your analogy is that all of the PC manufacturers are suffering from razor thin margins while Apple has nice healthy ones. So Google can't be Microsoft and the handset manufacturers don't want to be Dell, Compaq, or IBM, they want to
  • by SharpFang (651121) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:33PM (#21354187) Homepage Journal
    The phone itself, if ever created as such (and not just a dozen platform-compliant phones from different manufacturers) won't be revolutionary by and in itself.

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

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

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:35PM (#21354211) Homepage
    We need today's technology unhindered! Every time you turn around, the phone companies reduce or remove functionality built into the phones so they can make more money somehow... preventing people from sending attachments, preventing people from creating and transferring their own ring tones to their phones from their PCs and on and on and on.

    We don't need anything that's not already available. We just need something unbroken.
  • As others have pointed out, Apple produces an integrated stack of a product. Hardware and software that are designed to work together. That's true for the Mac and it's true for the iPhone.

    Google and their associates are looking to create a software stack that will run on a variety of hardware platforms. Exactly whose business model does that emulate? I think Apple has less to worry about than Microsoft does. This new platform is designed to fit exactly into the same niche that's currently occupied by Wi
  • Sales of the iPhone are are currently around 1.35 million units. To put that in perspective, in 2007 about 1.13 BILLION handsets will be sold [gartner.com] worldwide. So Apple's market share could be generously estimated at about 0.2%--they just aren't a real player in the phone market.

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

A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you.

Working...