Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Cellphones

Google Revs Android, FCC Approves First Phone 259

Posted by kdawson
from the dream-machine dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Revs Android, FCC Approves First Phone

Comments Filter:
  • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:33AM (#24655275) Homepage Journal

    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 @02:46AM (#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)

          by madsenj37 (612413)
          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 @04:58AM (#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 dalutong (260603)

              Yes, but poly-choice-ural cultures are very susceptible to unhappiness. As the Paradox of Choice illustrates very well, if we have too many choices then we are usually dissatisfied with whichever we settle for. (That is, unless the "best" choice is clear.)

          • by mk2mark (1144731) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @08:44AM (#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.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          Yeah I mean one point one could make here is that webapps are really the killer app for cellphones. As real browsers ( read: Opera/Konqueror/Firefox ) take hold on phones, I think this will become more and more the norm.

          That's particularly the case when you consider a phone is nearly always at least minimally online.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Mr_Silver (213637)

          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.

          I know what you're getting at, but there is another side to this.

          I own a Topfield freeview PVR. It's a great device because it supports the development of TAP's - applications which can either compliment or replace functionality on the box.

          For me, this means I have timers (which are a poor-man's season pass/serie

      • Well, it seems like you would be a perfect candidate for an iPhone? Everything will be done for you, including charges to your credit card for the apps you are forced to buy, I am sure.

        But I think there is more to it than just choice and perpetual beta products.

        Apple decided on AT&T, and although TMobile is the first to adopt android, they aren't exclusive as I understand it. So it could be AT&T versus every other carrier unified behind Android, which would be a huge boost to the user base and devel

      • The Open Handset Alliance, a group of more than 30 technology and mobile companies, is developing Android: the first complete, open, and free mobile platform. Member list [openhandsetalliance.com]

        Given the list of players (US major carriers, everyone except AT&T, in handset vendors, LG, Motorola, and Samsung, your choices may well come down to Apple/AT&T or something running an Android UI from everyone else for anything above the most basic mobile phones.

        The difference between Linux WMs and the Android UI is that it's v
    • Compare the iPhone's walled garden approach to this...:

      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...

      It's excellent that we all of have a choice of both ways, as neither way is singularly the best for most nor would suit all users. But do not forget the choice you would not make, is a fine and valid choice for someone else.

      • 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 @03:26AM (#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.

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Ihmhi (1206036)

              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 tyrione (134248)

            Explain how you're going to develop an unrestricted Skype application running on Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile's backbones where they dictate which does or does not get to run?

            If you think copy/paste won't be in the iPhone then you are truly delusional.

            When the CPU become multi-core then you'll see background processes on OS X handhelds.

            Vendor install will always go through the iTunes Store--they get sanity tested on the phones at Apple to make sure there aren't any backdoors or more for Trojan horses and mu

        • by pammon (831694)

          Android apps are written in Java. The features you describe would require changes to the system software. The system software is mostly open source, but changing it would require users to reinstall the OS, and that's not likely to happen, especially if the OS is forked for different vendors.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @03:20AM (#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.
        • Except the iPhone is not like the carefully cultivated gardens of botanical centers.

          Says you - beauty is in the eye of the holder (to paraphrase a bit). The corollary is that what you don't have, you cannot appreciate...

          • by iapetus (24050)

            Beauty may be the in the eye of the (be)holder, but licensing constraints aren't.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sentry21 (8183)

      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?

      • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @03:14AM (#24655503) Homepage Journal

        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 @03:41AM (#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?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by HxBro (98275)

        There are plenty of phones out there that you can already replace everything on it, from cooked roms, to new dialers, new interfaces, you can even install android on some of them!

        For once I like my windows mobile powered phone ;)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sloppy (14984)

        What the hell is the world coming to, that the inability to install software is somehow seen as a virtue and the ability is a 'recipe for disaster'?!

        If users don't want to run malware, then they should stop running malware. Yes, some people will go on running malware because that's their culture. Well, fine. But why the fuck should those people hold everyone else back?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pammon (831694)

      This is a statement about the Android software, not about the phones that run it. In other words, the real question is: replaced by whom?

      Nothing in the Android license requires phone manufacturers or network operators to allow users to replace software. Google didn't get all those mobile operators on board by promising them a lack of control.

      • by QuantumG (50515) *

        Going to be pretty hard to lock down an open source product.

        • by pammon (831694) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @03:23AM (#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.

          • by QuantumG (50515) *

            Excuse me, but who are you? Have you done any breaking of DRM? Ever? I have, and I'm telling you that products based on open source stuff are a LOT easier to crack than proprietary stuff. I'm baffled that you'd even argue with me about this.

            • by pammon (831694)

              If replacing the home screen or dialer requires you to install an application to crack the digital protection on the OS, how is that better than the iPhone?

              • by QuantumG (50515) *

                You mean other than not having to pay for access to an SDK and such?

                • You mean other than not having to pay for access to an SDK and such?

                  The iPhone SDk is free to download. The Jailbreak headers are even freer in a way as you don't need to register for the (again free) ADC account used to access the official SDK.

                  So as the other poster questioned - what's the difference between an iPhone and an Android device if you have to hack both to do what you want? The iPhone wins for most development at that point since you have a nice compact UNIX system and can use C to develop whi

                  • The iPhone SDk is free to download.

                    But it costs roughly $1,000 to run: $600 for a Mac mini, $200 to add RAM, a KVM switch, and other things to make your Mac mini usable, $100 to unlock your iPod Touch or iPhone, and $100 for shipping and taxes.

                    the (again free) ADC account used to access the official SDK

                    I tried to register for an ADC account using my personal Apple ID. I got stopped when the form refused to submit because "company" was blank. Was it trying to imply that I have to start a company and apply on its behalf in order to get an ADC account?

                    The iPhone wins for most development at that point since you have a nice compact UNIX system and can use C to develop which hackers generally are more used to than Java.

                    Android wins because you can run the JDK on your exi

        • by tyrione (134248)
          Not hard at all, especially when you can use part of the platform and fork another part where you lock it down.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tyrione (134248)

        This is a statement about the Android software, not about the phones that run it. In other words, the real question is: replaced by whom?

        Nothing in the Android license requires phone manufacturers or network operators to allow users to replace software. Google didn't get all those mobile operators on board by promising them a lack of control.

        This is a statement about the Android software, not about the phones that run it. In other words, the real question is: replaced by whom?

        Nothing in the Android license requires phone manufacturers or network operators to allow users to replace software. Google didn't get all those mobile operators on board by promising them a lack of control.

        Exactly right. Apple didn't like handing control of their platform over to Verizon and Verizon wasn't interested in anything but controlling the platform so Apple courted them all and AT&T seizing on the platform's upside took the risk and has seen profits ever since. This also motivated more Fortune 1000 companies to do business with AT&T for showing they were willing to work with Apple.

    • by hitmark (640295)

      ill believe it when i see it. right now i worry about how much bending google i doing for the operators...

  • In denial? (Score:2, Funny)

    by zdude255 (1013257)
    I wonder if Google will still deny they are working on a phone.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by strider44 (650833)
      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.
  • by jacquesm (154384) <j&ww,com> on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:38AM (#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.

    • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @03:04AM (#24655437) Homepage Journal

      Or you could choose not to use Google.

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

      • by jacquesm (154384)

        You speak for yourself, not for the 'rest of us', just like I do.

    • Pretty soon they'll know your current location, what you've been searching for all your life,

      If they know all that, and know where to find it (what I've been searching for all my life) for me, they will then become the biggest success ever.

    • 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 @02:44AM (#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.
    • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @02:53AM (#24655373) Homepage Journal

      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?

      • by kklein (900361)

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

        No... I imagine it has something to do with the fact that I haven't heard either of those company names since I-don't-know-when.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Znork (31774)

        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 @08:19AM (#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 @09:55AM (#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 @05:34AM (#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.

  • Remember that Apple requested requested a lengthened period from the FCC for the iPhone, but they launched about 3 weeks before that date. A November date for Android doesn't preclude an earlier launch.
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @03:06AM (#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.
    • 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?"

      I'd be careful with those taunts considering the iPhone is actually shipping, as are many applications on the phone itself. In response to any such question as you pose above, the answer will pretty much always be yes - either through jailbreak, or because a legal app exists, or because l

  • by pammon (831694) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @03:18AM (#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 @03:56AM (#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 @04:30AM (#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.

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

        That's because the iPhone is locked down and controlled by Apple. If the iPhone were as open as Palm, Symbian, or Windows Mobile, every major carrier would be shipping it.

        ...and locking it down with their own controls. It's not a question of who wants the end-user to be freest, it's a question of who gets to lock down the phones so they can charge the end user for every little thing they want to do, like ringtones, applications, and text messages. Locked down and controlled by Apple, or Locked down and controlled by AT&T/Verizon/TMobile/Sprint/whoever, or hack your way to freedom. Those are the options we have right now.

        I don't know that it'll be any different when An

    • 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.

      Apple had to struggle because they were asking some 200+$ per handset sold from the carrier, into their pockets. Sorry don't remember the exact figure, but it was here on slashdot a few months ago, so it must be true :-)

      So a carrier had to estimate the iphone would mostly attract new customers (rather than customers who would use their services anyways) or it would not be profitable (relative to having the same costumer with another phone).

  • 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.

    http://code.google.com/android/kb/general.html [google.com]
    Q: Can I write code for Android using C/C++?
    A: Android only supports applications written using the Java programming language at this time.

    As a crypto developer, this means that my applications,

    • 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 @05:34AM (#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 @06:34AM (#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, Informative)

          by SpinyNorman (33776)

          To have a GUI scale in that way (appear same but higher resolution on higher resolution display) you really need more than abstract coordinates (not float vs integer - abstract resolution independent vs pixel based). You also need a stroke (vs pixel) based graphics library like Apple's Quartz (display PDF).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fabs64 (657132)
      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)

        by pammon (831694)
        It is rather doubtful that an Android phone will execute Java bytecode natively, given that Android doesn't use Java bytecode.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

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

      What the hell are you talking about resolutions?
      Surely android is not designed for only a few resolutions.
      In fact it is designed in such an awesome way, that you only need one binary package for every phone and resolution.
      Get your facts straight, before posting bullshit, thanks.

      Also, cpu intensive tasks dont belong on a phone.
      Maybe you are wondering why Alias Maya wasnt ported to a phone yet. But i won't tell you

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Walles (99143)

      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 @08:02AM (#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 /.

  • No Bluetooth? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mr. Underhill (119443) on Tuesday August 19, 2008 @04:52AM (#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 @07:45AM (#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.

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...