Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in

Comments: 259 +-   Google Revs Android, FCC Approves First Phone on Tuesday August 19 2008, @01:30AM

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday August 19 2008, @01:30AM
from the dream-machine dept.
google
business
internet
cellphones
Cycon writes "Google has announced, 'We're releasing a beta SDK. You can read about the new Android 0.9 SDK beta at the Android Developers' Site, or if you want to get straight to the bits, you can visit the download page.' A new Development Roadmap has also been released to help developers understand the direction the software is taking (as this is still only a Beta release). In addition, the FCC has approved the HTC Dream, and it is believed Google and T-Mobile will launch the phone in the US on November 10, since a confidentiality request attached to the application asks the FCC to keep details secret until that date."
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived.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.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Compare the iPhone's walled garden approach to this:

    All applications are equal

    Android does not differentiate between the phone's basic and third-party applications -- even the dialer or home screen can be replaced.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2008, @01:46AM (#24655329)

      I'm going to get troll-rated into oblivion for this, but how is it different from few dozen window mangers for Linux - arguably one of the main reasons why the community is so fragmented and the interface standard still lagging behind proprietary systems?

      Choice is often overrated. A team of professional interface designers should make the choice for me instead of giving me tons of options to figure out.

      Android is a cute gimmick that's going to make an initial splash and then fade away into obscurity. And knowing Google's mantra of perpetual beta products, I'm going to guess that the project will be kept on life support forever, eventually ending up on cellphones in developing nations.

      • Choice is often overrated. A team of professional interface designers should make the choice for me instead of giving me tons of options to figure out.

        I couldn't agree with you more!

        The choice between MS, Apple & Linux is superfluous. Let's go with the most popular choice - that way developers can concentrate on one platform.

        The choice between Firefox & Safari on OSX is superfluous. Apple's team of professional interface designers should make the choice for us; all those OS X users using Firefox are just delusional.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          You are on to something with your comment. Others have taken your point to the extreme. Studies have been done. People prefer some choice over not having any. People are happier when they do not have to make too may choices, however.

          Some choice>No Choice
          Too few choices>Too many choices.
          • by jacquesm (154384) <j.ww@com> on Tuesday August 19 2008, @03:58AM (#24655905) Homepage

            There's one more factor, monocultures are very susceptible to diseases, for virus writers/bot herders to have to choose limits the impact of their deeds.

            As a rule they'll go for the lowest hanging fruit first, the more diversity there is the harder it will get for them to make a living.

          • by mk2mark (1144731) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @07:44AM (#24657099) Homepage
            There's choice, and there's having to circumvent a ban on native applications. While I agree that a user interface should be simple (the rule about being able to understand a program's functions after a few minutes of said interface springs to mind), I certainly don't think that should extend to denying people the ability to have a preference. Which is what we seem to be talking about.
        • Exactly... You have you "professionally" designed interface there by default, and which most people will use...

          But there is still choice for those people with different requirements, some people may choose to use the phone for things the original interface developers never thought of, others may be handicapped and need a special interface, leaving the choice available is a good thing even if most users will just stick to the default.

          As for so called "professional" interface designers, how many phones have you used with utterly horrendous interfaces? All of the windows mobile phones i've used had terrible interfaces that were more suited to a PDA than a phone...
          And then there's interfaces which are just great for some people and some tasks, but useless for others, like the iphone which is the best phone interface i've ever used for web browsing, but is pretty useless when you want to type a text message one handed.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            All of the windows mobile phones i've used had terrible interfaces that were more suited to a PDA than a phone...

            All the Windows Mobile PDAs I've used had terrible interfaces that were more suited to a desktop than a PDA.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          This about linux is truth, indeed. I was shocked myself some month ago.
          Point of most common choice being best is definitely wrong taken. You BEST developers, not quantity of them from all sides.

          I bought new laptop without OS preinstalled. Because of some timeline issues I booted up Ubuntu linux and in 15 minutes I had fully operational PC, including function keys, wireless (802.11n!) and LAN, OpenOffice and Firefox out of the box. I did not touch any settings when it booted up. 15 MINS!

          Then after few days I

          • by Bitsy Boffin (110334) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @07:57AM (#24657197) Homepage
            I think you are talking about the Network Applet (nm-applet ?). That is a Notification widget and as such is displayed in the Notification Bar along with similar icons like the Update notifications. You should be able to grab the handle of the notification bar (which will be to the left of the icon) and drag it as required (and lock it if necessary).
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      That strikes me as what we in the industry call 'a recipe for disaster'. So how long until we see the first security hole that lets the payload replace the dialler and home screen (and maybe the contacts app) with apps that steal all your shit?

      • So how long until we see the first security hole that lets the payload replace the dialler and home screen (and maybe the contacts app)

        You realize that there's been several security holes in the iPhone that give the attacker root access? I'm not sure why you believe Apple's closedness with regards to the appstore has improved security.

        • A gate vs. nothing (Score:5, Interesting)

          by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @02:41AM (#24655625)

          You realize that there's been several security holes in the iPhone that give the attacker root access?

          There will always be ways around security defenses. You can climb over a gate, yet people still install them. Why?

          It's because it's foolish to do nothing and invite the worst.

          Thankfully of course Android does do something in terms of app sandboxing. So the real question is have they struck the right balance by being more open to start with?

      • Anyone can grow a garden at home. Yet still may people seek to attend the carefully cultivated gardens of botanical centers around the globe, and gladly pay to do so...

        You totally missed the point. I wasn't saying that Android's an appstore killer because of homebrew development.

        The difference is that the ecosystem of paid, professional developers for Android will be able to do things like:

        * Add copy/paste functionality (if missing)
        * Develop an unrestricted skype / SIP phone application.
        * Develop apps that run in the background.
        * Allow applications to be installed without the vendor's approval.
        * etc, etc etc.

        • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @02:26AM (#24655551)

          You totally missed the point. I wasn't saying that Android's an appstore killer because of homebrew development.

          I didn't miss your point. I pointed out, there are many points.

          The difference is that the ecosystem of paid, professional developers for Android will be able to do things like:

          * Add copy/paste functionality (if missing)
          * Develop an unrestricted skype / SIP phone application.
          * Develop apps that run in the background.
          * Allow applications to be installed without the vendor's approval.
          * etc, etc etc.

          And all those are great - for some people. But are not needed - for some people.

          After all you're already splitting hairs with end users on many points in your bullet list - does an end user care new IM notifications come from an external server? No. Do they really care if they can't get incredibly sucky VOIP over 3G and find WiFi instead to use Skype, those 1% of users that actually will seek out other ways to talk using voice on a PHONE? No. Do end users care what a developer must do to get an application? No, they see the applications before them. And developers can run anything they like on a phone without any restriction whatsoever for just $99.

          There are some people that demand all those things, and many people who would consider they have them with an iPhone already, or at least the ones they care about.

          The whole copy paste thing is so tired. It was debunked the first day someone used an iPhone. Would it be handy sometimes? Sure. But the device is perfectly usable without it because many data channels where you would normally use cut&paste are wired to funnel data as you desire (like emailing a web page link).

          • The whole copy paste thing is so tired. It was debunked the first day someone used an iPhone... the device is perfectly usable without it

            Your own usage may not require copy & paste, but many other tasks are tedious and impractical, if not impossible without it.

            I have an iPod Touch and it's great for many things, but the lack of copy & paste is the #1 reason the iPhone is (still) not on my radar this time round.

            • I have an iPod Touch and it's great for many things, but the lack of copy & paste is the #1 reason the iPhone is (still) not on my radar this time round.

              Well, you could always post on 4chan from a laptop...

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2008, @02:20AM (#24655531)
        Except the iPhone is not like the carefully cultivated gardens of botanical centers. It is like Monsanto(TM) corn that has been genetically modified to be sterile, and comes with a license agreement.
        • by pammon (831694) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @02:23AM (#24655535)

          It's trivial to lock down. The carriers and handset makers are free to modify Android however they please, with no requirement that they release their changes, and no requirement that the open source version of Android even work on their phones.

                    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                      The iPhone's SDK is free to download - but you have to pay $99 if you want to actually distribute your application.

                      I'm not aware of any fees for Android distribution.

  • by jacquesm (154384) <j.ww@com> on Tuesday August 19 2008, @01:38AM (#24655299) Homepage

    Google is becoming more and more like a christmas tree, the main trunk of which seems to be interconnecting information about all the users they've got in their various services.

    Pretty soon they'll know your current location, what you've been searching for all your life, who you've been talking to and what you had for breakfast, as well as the contents of your email and your various documents.

    That much information in the hands of one party is asking for trouble, either because they'll have a breach sooner or later (hopefully later) or because they find new 'creative' uses for all that data about you.

    • Or you could choose not to use Google.

      The rest of us shouldn't have to suffer for your paranoia.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            hello again,

            I'm not stopping you from getting on with your life or using/enjoying googles free services, far from it, I wish you great enjoyment :)

            To label me a 'paranoid freak' for not being 100% gullible about what google is going to do with all that data, and noting that you do not speak for more people than yourself (even though plenty might agree with your, but then again, they might agree with me too) is not exactly friendly.

            I've worked for some a big corporation that was datamining the hell out of wh

            • by Dhalka226 (559740) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @04:25AM (#24656027)

              I think the OP's problem with you is your headline and what seems to be your conclusion: That these services should be "spun off" because too much information in one company's hands is asking for trouble. The only logical way that makes a difference is if these new, spun-off companies/divisions can't talk to one another or share that data. If that weren't the case, it would be the same situation we have now that you're objecting to.

              With that in mind, there's an argument to be made that Google couldn't offer the same level of service without the same level of information, due either to the fact that the information is the price they ask you to pay for their otherwise free services or because they actually need the information to make the service itself better. Thus while you claim you only speak for yourself, you're actually proposing a solution that would impact everybody. The OP's suggestion was, in my mind, the correct one: Rather than forcing your views on everybody in that manner, if you're uncomfortable with Google having so much information about you, you should just not give it to them by not using their services.

              Your concerns about privacy are valid, the decisions should just be made by each individual for himself.

    • Pretty soon they'll know your current location, what you've been searching for all your life, who you've been talking to and what you had for breakfast, as well as the contents of your email and your various documents.

      Good, maybe Google can help me find a girlfriend who isn't a crazy whore.

  • The new PC vs MAC (Score:4, Interesting)

    by religious freak (1005821) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @01:44AM (#24655325)
    Remember when MSFT was the one promoting openness, as compared to the evil Apple and IBM empires?

    I wouldn't be surprised to see a repeat, but with Google in the role of the open system, ala Android. It'll be interesting to watch the clean, sleak and confined iPhone go against the more likely open and flexible Android.

    If history is any indication, I think Google wins.
    • It'll be interesting to watch the clean, sleak and confined iPhone go against the more likely open and flexible Android.

      Depends. It will be a short race if we're watching the clean, sleek and confined iPhone go against the clean, sleek, open and flexible Android....

      Frankly tho', I'm surprised at the number of posters on this site who seem to believe we're going to be looking at a contest between Apple & Google for the smartphone king crown.

      Is it American chauvinism that makes so many here discount RIM & Nokia?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Is it American chauvinism that makes so many here discount RIM & Nokia?

        I suspect it's more a question of what hype you're buying into. Personally I don't find either platform particularly compelling (nor am I particularly impressed by RIM & Nokia). Call it a decades worth of weariness at more or less semi-proprietary offerings that never seem work quite right.

        I find the Openmoko far more interesting; I'm sure it'll be... difficult... in the beginning, but the potential for actually evolving into so

        • by jacquesm (154384) <j.ww@com> on Tuesday August 19 2008, @07:19AM (#24656915) Homepage

          Second that. I've had plenty of Nokia phones and I'm really quite tired of the sloppy workmanship (3rd headset in as many months, menu key just sort of dropped off the phone, and really all I do is have it in my pocket) as well as the lousy software.

          The first series nokias are why people are still buying them today, those things were indestructible and reliable. It takes a while to destroy a brand of that size, but they'll get there.

          THe openmoko is the most interesting thing happening in the telco space in 10 years, far more interesting than the iphone (to me at least).

      • by Chineseyes (691744) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @08:55AM (#24657831)
        Is it American chauvinism that makes so many here discount RIM & Nokia?

        How do people like this get modded insightful??

        I can't speak about RIM but I have owned a dozen Nokia phones over the past 10 or so years and they sucked or were decent but nothing great. About six months ago I purchased an HTC tytn and it is leaps and bounds better than anything Nokia ever put out. I think the iphone is ridiculously overrated but I used one and it was still better than anything Nokia has put out yet. This has nothing to do with "American chauvanism" and it has everything to do with Nokia having a very long track record of putting out half ass products.
    • by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @04:34AM (#24656089)

      Remember when MSFT was the one promoting openness, as compared to the evil Apple and IBM empires?

      No, I don't.

      I do remember how they screwed over their suppliers (QDOS), partners (IBM with OS 2, Sun with Java, PlaysForSure etc), and customers though(WinME, PlaysForSure). Also how they steamrollered the industry into the near monopoly monoculture we have today (Contracts forbidding BeOS or Linux on OEM machines, binary formats etc). Nice job rewriting history though.

      Worked out well for them till people got tired of being screwed over and paying for mediocre knock-offs of other people's ideas.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Google Earth.

          Glad you mentioned it.

          I can't comment on how open that app is, as I don't know enough about its inner workings. However, though I'm no IT professional, if I wanted to take a look at its code, I wouldn't know where to find it. I just know that if I want to measure anything that's not a series of segments I'm gonna have to buy the Pro version.

          Anyway, get this: GMaps for the iPhone is practically unusable in my first language, which is not English. It keeps reporting results that are tens of km away. At the sa

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @02:06AM (#24655457)
    All Android needs to succeed is to not be the a**holes Apple is about SDK's and 3rd party apps. Do that and the world will be full of Android users saying to iPhone users: "Can your much more expensive phone to this yet?"

    The made a big deal about the big buck$$$ iPhone displaying the I Am Rich jewel. I guess Apple didn't want competition for their own Apple I Buy Things When They're New And Expensive And Still Have Bugs logo on the phone.
  • by pammon (831694) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @02:18AM (#24655527)

    What makes people think that the mobile network operators, who have resisted this sort of openness in their handsets before, will embrace it now? Nothing in the Android license requires them to do so.

    Apple had to struggle to find a single carrier willing to allow the iPhone. Google showed up with six. You don't get six times as many carriers by promising them less control.

    • What makes people think that the mobile network operators, who have resisted this sort of openness in their handsets before, will embrace it now?

      T-Mobile, Cingular, AT&T, and others have allowed unrestricted, fully programmable handsets on their networks for many years.

      Apple's iPhone is a huge step backwards in terms of openness. Apple's misrepresentation of the facts is adding insult to injury.

      Apple had to struggle to find a single carrier willing to allow the iPhone.

      That's because the iPhone is locke

      • by pammon (831694) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @02:56AM (#24655673)

        If the iPhone were as open as Palm, Symbian, or Windows Mobile, every major carrier would be shipping it.

        I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the carriers rejected the iPhone because they thought its closed nature would make it unsuccessful in the market? Or maybe they were making a moral stand for consumer openness?

        A more likely explanation is that the iPhone took control from the carriers and gave it to Apple. Consumers, empirically, ended up somewhat better off.

        I mean, people have been unlocking the iPhone and using it on other carriers. The carriers didn't complain, Apple did.

        Carriers complained bitterly about unlocking. It took a class action lawsuit and a visit to the Supreme Court to end AT&T's policies against unlocking. If they've been quiet about iPhone unlocking, it's only because they've lost that battle.

        Apple has to make a good faith effort to prevent unlocking as part of their contract with AT&T. To Apple, an unlocked phone is another sale, and they have no reason to care if you do so.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2008, @03:30AM (#24655793)

          Are you saying that the carriers rejected the iPhone because they thought its closed nature would make it unsuccessful in the market? Or maybe they were making a moral stand for consumer openness?

          Carriers rejected the iPhone because Apple wanted a monthly revenue sharing agreement.

  • No Bluetooth? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underhill (119443) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @03:52AM (#24655891)

    Did I read that right? Android 1.0 and Android 1.0 devices won't have bluetooth? That seems like kind of a big miss.

  • by mrboyd (1211932) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @06:45AM (#24656723)
    I was roaming around electronic shops in Singapore a few months back and I've seen hundredth of Chinese iphone copies. Some of them even added nice features like FM radio and TV tuners on top of an already 3G phone. Some of them look really decent from a physical point of view but in all of them the operating system and interface seemed clumsy and literally rushed out of the door when compared to a UIQ, Windows Mobile or Iphone.

    It's not that difficult to put together a physical phone since most chipsets are fully integrated little marvel. Building an operating system and all the applications a user expects takes a while. Polishing them until they shine, ala apple, takes even longer.

    Now I am just wondering what will happen, if Google keep its promises, when those manufacturers will get access to the Android system for free. I saw at least 5 or 6 iclones that I would gladly use if the system was decent. It could very well be a revolution.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Since Google Android has a web site [google.com] and has had for at least a year ... I'd say no.

      Of course they're not actually working on a phone, just software for phones.
    • Consider the iPhone, which despite being so crippled, a developer can still create and compile some native application for it, and install it via iTunes store or jailbreak. Google has decided TO BAN ALL NATIVE APPLICATIONS for its Android phones, and only allow Java.

      Surely we will end up seeing "jailbroken" Android phones. If you are willing to consider a jailbroken iPhone as a legitimate target platform, you should know that people are already working on (and have met some success with) building and executing C [benno.id.au] and C++ [google.com] applications on the Android emulator.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19 2008, @04:34AM (#24656091)

      In addition, Android devices are only allowed to have low-resolution QVGA (240x320) resolution displays

      This is completely incorrect. The emulator has always supported QVGA and HVGA displays. The current UI is designed for a touchable HVGA display. There is nothing in the system that prevents scaling up to even higher resolution displays (which is a lot easier than scaling down to lower resolution displays).

      • by pammon (831694) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @05:34AM (#24656369)
        There are several things in the system that will make it difficult to scale up to higher resolution displays. One example is Android's use of integer pixel coordinates, instead of abstract floating point coordinates. By tying Android to pixels, Google ensures that application elements will appear smaller (and so less usable) on higher res displays.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Cryptography? Like.. Maths? Yeah.. unless you're writing optimised assembly it's going to make very little difference what language you write it in, particularly on a device like a phone.

      And that's not even going into the fact that most of these phones are likely to run Java bytecode natively anyway...

      Also, the Java based framework not supporting native applications is not the same thing as native applications being banned.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        It is rather doubtful that an Android phone will execute Java bytecode natively, given that Android doesn't use Java bytecode.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Android devices are only allowed to have low-resolution QVGA (240x320) resolution displays

      Do you have a source for this? Searching the Android API reveals a class for keeping track of display resolution [google.com], which kind of speaks against what you're saying.

    • by mmurphy000 (556983) on Tuesday August 19 2008, @07:02AM (#24656805)

      Your crypto logic can be implemented in C/C++ just fine, using JNI to bridge into an Android application. While it is true that full applications cannot be written solely in C/C++, that doesn't mean you cannot use C/C++ outright. Admittedly, that FAQ entry is poorly written, but a simple search [google.com] of the android-developers Google Group shows a fair bit of Android/JNI activity, including posts from Android core team members indicating that JNI is possible.

      Android devices are only allowed to have low-resolution QVGA (240x320) resolution displays

      I have no idea where you got that idea. Heck, the Android emulators by default launch as 480x320 and support skins [google.com] with 320x480 and 240x320 resolutions. It's even been hinted in some presentations that Android might run on devices without screens — not that I'm completely certain how that would work (voice recognition only?).

      In the future, you will get more efficient responses to your questions by posting them on an Android Google Group, rather than ranting about them on /.

eat Depends: cook | eat-out. But eat-out is non-free so that's out. And cook Recommends: clean-pans. -- Seen on #Debian