Google's Open Source Mobile Platform 199
As expected, today Google took the wraps off of the gPhone (as the media have for months been referring to the rumored project). Google is "leading a broad industry alliance to transform mobile phones into powerful mobile computers," and will be licensing its software to all comers on an open source basis under the Apache license. (The Wall Street Journal's Ben Worthen demonstrates a miserable grasp of what "open source" means.) Google's US partners include Nextel and Sprint, but not AT&T nor Verizon. Phones will be available in the second half of 2008 — not the spring as earlier reports had speculated. News.com's analysis warns that Google won't take over the mobile market overnight, though they quote Forrester in the opinion that Google may be one of the three biggest mobile players after several years of shakeout.
hmm (Score:2)
[OT] Re:hmm (Score:2)
Um... I don't think you understand copyright [wikipedia.org]. It has to do with rights, not with writing. Unless you are trying to make a clever pun...
-b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Another mobile platform announcement (Score:3, Funny)
coming to a town near you soon!!
sign up now [slashdot.org]
open phones rock (Score:5, Funny)
it's just incompetence (Score:2, Insightful)
You simply bought a bad phone. If you want an extensible or modifiable phone, you can already get a Palm, Nokia, or Windows Mobile GSM phone; those are quite extensible. The advantage of Android over those existing systems is that it's probably easier to program because it gives you a full set of desktop
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I haven't seen a re
DUPE (Score:3, Informative)
Come ON! I guess Slashdot's speed at getting the original post on the front page threw you guys off. Usually these things come at least a day after everyone else.
(Not that I don't prefer Slashdot. I flame because I care.)
Ben Worthen's Opinion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the IPO money is gone.
I for one... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good. With that out of the way, I have to say I'm really looking forward to seing what Google can do in terms of getting functionality that has typically been the domain of "smartphones" that typically go for more than $200 w/ contract into the domain of phones that range from free to $50 (again w/ contract). With the minimum requirements set at an ARM9 @ 200MHz, this platform should allow open development on a huge new range of phones. I've already seen people earlier today making dire predictions about how Google is not going to be able to compete with the iPhone or how they prefer phones based on Symbian...and I think these people are completely missing Google's whole plan. I'm sure that initially phones based on Android will fall closer to the smartphone price range, but I can't help but think that eventually Google has to be aiming at the free-to-$50 phones. The "just a basic phone" market is an area in desperate need of a unifyied platform. Between lack of openness and the lack of a properly standardized Java implementation development for a wide range of low end phones is pretty much intractible. If Google can get Android onto low-cost phones *and* ensure "write once, run anywhere" between them I think they will have all the developer support they need. And since they already have the ears of the carriers (T-Mobile, Sprint, etc) they've already ensured they have a way to get this on shipping phones.
Why do I think low end phones are so important to these companies in the open handset alliance, when they don't have the profit margins of smartphones or "feature-phones"? Simple: Emerging markets. For billions of people around the world it is too expensive or impractical to own and maintain an Internet connected PC. It may be because of upfront cost or it may be a lack of Internet infrastructure in their area. For those people a phone will be their first (and maybe only) connection to the Internet. Right now the browsing experience on basic phones ranges from useless to unbearably slow and there is an impressive *lack* of easily accessible third party applications. If someone could change that it would add incredible value to that class of phones. So what's in it for Google? Making sure that their page is the first one a couple billion people see the first time they get on the Internet is probably worth it.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)
open but for who? (Score:3, Informative)
As far as I see it, Google mobile platform is the same thing inside an OS package. The platform will be "open" to carriers and makers who are participants of the Google alliance. However, nowhere in the Google materials have i seen a commitment to make the phone open to the outside developers. Nor does it make any sense for them to open it.
Depending on how it is rolled out, we may see some sources, but likely we'll never have a chance to apply a patch to the OS actually in the device, or build an application outside of whatever sandbox they put in the OS. There will likely be APIs and widgets tied to the google servers and services, but hardly much freedom beyond that.
Obviously that is very good for google, if they pull it off. It is less obviously good for the carriers or the makers, but the carriers will eventually agree to this in exchange for revenue-sharing, and because they have nowhere to go, and the makers will be arm-twisted by the carriers. The end result may be that only the "google internet" will be available on the mobile phones that use android. Sorta like an enhanced WAP, imode or EZ web.
I see no problem with this if one is very-very happy about storing their data on a google server and accessing it via the google phone OS. But I wouldn't call it free in any of the senses of that word we're accustomed to on
But I guess we'll see what it really is when they release the SDK.
Re:open but for who? (Score:4, Interesting)
incidentally, how come something which is GPL2-based (if it really is off the linux kernel) can be released as Apache2. as far as i remember, the two licenses aren't really compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
but this is all theoretical -- i guess we'll see what happens in a few months anyway.
Won't take over the market overnight? (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, who would want an open standard phone where you can install your own software and not be charged a buck for a text message or a ringtone? Who the fuck would want that?
Re:Won't take over the market overnight? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Google is really successful it'll be because they are able to lower the price of smartphones from several hundred dollars to where the cheap toy phones (that don't let you install software/ringtones/etc) currently are. While I do not know how much of the cost of smartphones is for the OS, I highly doubt that a free OS will make smartphones that much cheaper. Maybe they'll subsidize some of the cost through AdSense or something, though I personally would hate to have a phone that forced me to look at ads.
More competition is a good thing though, at the very least it'll hopefully drive prices down a bit.
Smartphone OS licensing costs (Score:2)
(from http://www.symbian.com/news/pr/2006/pr20063401.html [symbian.com])
Re: (Score:2)
So you'll be buying an N800 then? By your argument it should have taken over the market by now.
No need to go that far though.. the symbian SDK is a free download, the dev certificate is free and I've never met anyone that's paid for a ringtone.. even the cheap payg phones can be persuaded to use free ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Sprint AND Nextel? (Score:2)
OpenMoko? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What does this mean for OpenMoko?
As it stands I will still buy from them as soon as they put out a working phone with wifi. If google had a desktop linux distribution (say a google branded ubuntu) I doubt I would be using it. OTH new applications deployed on the google platform can only be good for other linux based phones.
I don't think it is going to hurt them, I just wish they would release something which works.
Phones using the google OS need not be more open than any other linux based phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Chris
Re: (Score:2)
Minor Correction (Score:3, Informative)
Sprint and Nextel is one company. Sprint acquired Nextel.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds vaguely familiar (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying none have worked, but I am asking honestly - how many technology projects with even half as many partners have actually succeeded in producing a stable platform? It seems to me that the truly successful open source projects have always been independent of any corporate interests - Linux succeeded in making a standard Unix-like platform where years of Dec / Sun / IBM / HP alliances failed and the business interests that have been successful with Linux have done so by learning to support efforts where there was already community leadership instead of trying to dictate a direction to the platform. Netscape did okay, I guess, but that wasn't a big business alliance and hasn't exactly been an exemplar of efficient platform production.
I'm just not seeing that this is a big deal, except that everybody thought that something much more exciting was actually going to happen.
Second half of 2008 great for vapor phones (Score:4, Interesting)
Nokia is promising touchscreens and multimedia and Google is promising open source and the Web. Like we already have in our iPods. And they're going to get that to us real soon now. Like in another year from now.
It shows how miserable Palm has become that Google didn't even buy them. Not even for the name.
Re:Second half of 2008 great for vapor phones (Score:5, Informative)
Shall we continue? 3G? iPhone, uhh, no. N95, UMTS, HSDPA. GPS? iPhone, no, N95, yes. MMS? PTT? Ability to use your music as ringtone without paying money to the empire? Java? iPhone, no no no no no. N95, yes yes yes yes yes.
A few other neat features of my N95. Tethering? Oh so cool. Especially when your phone can act as a wireless access point. OpenGL hardware acceleration? Yes, you read me right.
But no mind, you just go on being a raving, frothing at the mouth Apple fanboy, oblivious to the RDF.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But no mind, you just go on being a raving, frothing at the mouth Nokia fanboy, oblivious to what most people in the world actually want. (Note the proper use of 'oblivious.') We'll compare sales numbers in a y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Our" ipods? Not everyone is silly enough to spent 350 dollars on a music player. Hell, you're even comparing apples and oranges. An ipod that can do wifi is useless where there isnt any wifi. Hell, it doesnt even run any apps not approved by apple.
Somebody fire that guy (Score:2, Interesting)
How did this guy get a job as writer for the "Business Technology" of "The Wall Street Journal" ? It's fairly obvious he doesn't know anything about technology. Open? I do not really expect the gPhone to be open to consumers like a linux PC is open to it's user. A bit more customizable then Windows Mobile, likely, but not anywhere near OpenMoko. The point it seems he is trying to make is that the phone is open in the way t
The problem is the interface (Score:3, Insightful)
I Not that I think Windows Mobile is the best thing since sliced bread, performance/power wise it's way lacking compared to Symbian, but nevertheless, it is a really nice platform.
You can't just drop a PC style interface onto a mobile, as Qtopia and Windows mobile try to do. It doesn't work. It sucks. There isn't the screen space to waste the way they do, there isn't a keyboard there isn't a mouse.
Symbian and the iPhone are successful because they don't try to fit an inappropriate interface to the devices.
Obligatory OpenMoko disclaimer; sure OpenMoko may be the shit, but the device simple doesn't fit my hardware needs. It's so horribly two years ago.
It's something which has the potential to revolutionise particularly business applications and processes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"WTF? No MMS, No 3G, Crappy battery life, Crappy camera. Nokia have lost it."
Yeah I can see that..
Open Source to Who? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think a lot of Google/Linux fanboys right now are probably foaming at the mouth with visions of linux running on a phone that they have root access to, installing apps whenever they want, downloading music for free, and giving the middle finger to the carriers.
I don't think that's what Google is doing here. I think Google is creating an "open source" operating system, open to the carriers to do what
Re: (Score:2)
Basically, I fear that people will go "oooh open source" and be all set to get their free phone and think they can start hacking away at the OS and doing whatever they want with it. Like you said, in all likeliness the phone will be locked down at such a cheap price so that Google/carrier can make their money off it. Users will likely not be able to install whatever they want, install popup blocker software, replace the kernal with
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that solutions on Android will be any more open than on Windows or Symbian.
There's no way you could modify the code, recompile the kernel and OS, and install a new version. No sane network give approval for devices which allow this.
Secondly, there's the virus problem. This implies some kind of sandbox and certificate (as on Symbian) or some as yet unknown way (as Jobs vaguely announced for the iPhone). This means you can't recompile user-space applications (e.g. remove Google's adverts from t
That platform won't be open (Score:5, Informative)
First, look at the guys forming the "alliance": Broadcom, NVIDIA, Wind River, who are all acting towards closing linux (Wind River was even a vocal opponent to linux some times ago). Furthermore, look at why they choose Android's licence [openhandsetalliance.com]:
Why did you pick the Apache v2 open source license? Apache is a commercial-friendly open-source license. The Apache license allows manufacturers and mobile operators to innovate using the platform without the requirement to contribute those innovations back to the open-source community. Because these innovations and differentiated features can be kept proprietary, manufacturers and mobile operators are protected from the "viral infection" problem often associated with other licenses.
There. You can dream all you want about an open platform, like your traditional Fedora or Ubuntu desktop, but that won't be it. Go for Openmoko [openmoko.org] instead.
Thank you Google for the... iPhone SDK?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Now let's see what comes out of Android. It can't be any worse than most current phone OSs anyways.
The man's an idiot (Score:2)
Speculation or research? (Score:3, Informative)
OK, OK, I know we're only supposed to speculate here without actually knowing anything. But if you want to know about it, it's here [slashdot.org]. It does use a Linux kernel (how then can it be 'Apache Licence'?). Above the kernel it is running a custom virtual machine, which doesn't seem to be a JVM. 'Android', as well as being the name of the project, is the name of a company bought by Google last year which specialised in PDA operating systems; The SDK will be ready for download on 12th November [openhandsetalliance.com].
Before they were Android, the people behind the product were Danger, and produced a phone/PDA called HipTop [wikipedia.org], which was largely Java based.
Phone hardware vs phone software (Score:3, Insightful)
To this end I believe that the Google telephony platform will, in its early stages at least, be a GNU/Linux OS running on an ARM processor or similar with a closed interface to the telephony systems, and with Google Gears and a Java for Mobile Telephony, which may or not be the current Mobile Java, as the developer interfaces. There would still be no direct access to the phone module, and only the only open network access would be over wi-fi unless Google manages to obtain its own pieces of the spectrum across the world or can form deals with phone providers... hmm, does that sound familiar?
Right now in the UK for example, I can only see one provider even considering allowing the sort of access that Google would want, and that's the one that has no long distance infrastructure of its own and has just introduced a Skype phone that works over its network, partially to reduce its interconnect costs.
Then again, as most European 3G licences will be about halfway through their life when the OS becomes available, and with the licence holders finally coming to terms with the fact that uptake is being delivered by access to data rather than blocky film clips, the promise of a share of Google's revenues might be enough to encourage the phone providers to open up - a little at least.
This is all empirical but it's what the current state of telephony looks like from the view of an interested spectator. Feel free to correct me.
No Verizon? (Score:2)
AT&T and Verizon both suck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's convenient. I don't like Verizon.
Re:pictures (Score:5, Informative)
They use GSM which is a big plus if you want to buy your own phone. I haven't yet needed to because, while all of their phones that I've owned were locked and had T-Mobile logos and "premium services" everywhere, none of them were in any way crippled like Verizon is infamous for doing. I even added a custom ringtone to one of my phones using only a standard USB cable and the manufacturer's ringtone transfer software. Their coverage is pretty good, the only time I've had trouble with it was when I was traveling through West Virginia which is a hard area to cover with cell phone service anyways. Their biggest problem is that they don't yet have any 3G service available anywhere (they're waiting for the spectrum they bought for it to become available for their use) and their customer service is nothing to write home about, but that's pretty much par for the course in this industry.
Re: (Score:2)
More information? I'd be curious to read this - last I'd heard they'd deployed to at least a dozen big cities (yeah, yeah, I know they're wayyyyy behind the eight ball, but still)...?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you're thinking of AT&T? They managed to secure some UMTS spectrum in the preexisting PCS bands and are slowly rolling it out.
T-Mobile was not - they're waiting for the 1700 MHz band to free up to roll out UMTS.
Unfortunately, very little hardware supports/will support UMTS1700.
mp3 ringtones (Score:2)
I even added a custom ringtone to one of my phones using only a standard USB cable and the manufacturer's ringtone transfer software.
On my T-Mobile RAZR I'm able to just plug it in and access the microSD card as a removable drive, so I could just drop an mp3 into the Music folder in Windows Explorer (or in Metacity or Konqueror or Finder if I wanted to), then from the phone itself, copy it to internal memory, and use it as a ringtone. No need to shorten it to 30 seconds or use any special software.
Re: (Score:2)
#include libgphone
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
consumers will be the winners because it's a serious competitor to at&t and their outrageous charges, it opens up the possiblity of an adsense supported phone, and because
Re: (Score:2)
This platform and devices based on it still require you to have service from a wireless service provider. See the press releases, this is a *completely seperate* effort from Google's 700 MHz spectrum efforts. (Although that effort can only be good for their platform.)
T-Mobile isn't even remotely an option in many areas of the U.S. (including where I live - I would pay through the nose in roaming charges).
Similarly, Sprint isn't an option in a lot of areas too.
Tha
Re:Phone or Platform? (Score:4, Insightful)
And Sprint being part of this 'group' means nothing w.r.t. how open the shipping product will be.
The US wireless carriers will fight tooth and nail to NOT be treated as what they are: wireless service providers.
On the other hand, if anything this could make customer demand for 'openness' more difficult, because this fractures the market for developers a bit more. Now, to develop a ubiquitous app, you need to support another platform. One that with the source available, developers can't necessarily count on a given set of API's even being available on a 'googleos' phone...
I think it'll still take quite a while before the US wireless carriers permit much advancement. Even Apple had to deliberately cripple iTunes support on the iPhone so you can't use it over your "unlimited data plan" EDGE connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That number is only supposed to be used by people with a dataplan.
Re:Phone or Platform? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phone or Platform? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Phone or Platform? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The license, and the license fee. Plus, I'll bet, the development environment.
Re: (Score:2)
> What sets this platform apart form the rest?
The license, and the license fee. Plus, I'll bet, the development environment.
Keep in mind that this Google-led alliance will be releasing an SDK next week [google.com], well before any actual phones launch. This is in sharp contrast with Apple, who launched a phone months ago, and still won't be releasing an SDK for months.
That, and the fact that the Google setup will probably allow just about anyone to develop for the gPlatform, whereas Apple will likely limit it to people who can get expensive signing certificates.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Software Development Skills / Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Viruses need to self replicate.
Social Enginnering 'OMG Download this cool app d00dz' doesnt count.
There arent any easy ways to get a phone to send a virus to another phone.
The easiest way is Bluetooth or Wifi and then its still a pain in the ass to make it spread.
With Bluetooth you first need to somehow get another phone to connect to you, without user intervention which is impossible (without flaws in the stack).
Then you need to send data to the other phone in a way which makes it execute the code. Also basically impossible.
Whats the chance of Google's code having fundamental bugs like that? Nil.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because it doesn't fit with some particular definition you prefer to use? You do realize that the first computer viruses involved users sticking a floppy disk with a "cool app" in a drive and running the program which happened to be infected by the virus. In fact the traditional virus would attach itself to other programs and had zero to do with the infection vector.
The Morris Worm on the other hand had a
Re: (Score:2)
That fits the definition.
Social Engineering attacks cannot be stopped. People are extremely stupid and will do what a popup tells them to do.
IMHO if someone willingly installs malware on their computer, its their own fault.
Viruses which spread themselves are much more scary however especially the good ones.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We know that there are certain security issues that google does not worry about [news.com].
We know that google will put feature about security [theregister.co.uk].
We also know that google is avoiding those with experience [slashdot.org] and instead hiring and training those who will tow the party line.
None of this seems particularly hopeful or optimistic. If a device is discoverable, it is easy enough hook up to and transfer a payload. In public areas I usually see at least a couple discoverable cel
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you think this platform is any more susceptible than any others (apart from Microsoft ones, of course). There are plenty of Linux phones already (mostly Motorola ones and in China, IINM).
Of course, you should think twice about purchasing any phone (or anything else, for that matter) for that reason, but I don't think this one will be any different to others.
Re:first psot!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:first psot!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the WSJ author is an idiot on this.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can write apps for Windows Mobile. In fact, with the exception of OpenMoko, until Android was announced it was actually the most open of the phone platforms. Motorola's Linux implementations are horribly locked down (I wonder if they will figure out a way to do the same for Android?), and I've heard Symbian is really anal about application signing. Windows Mobile will warn you the first time you try to run an unsigned app, but will
Re:first psot!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this how tech articles get written? The writer spews a load of bollocks and then backs out of his own assertions later by saying he merely thought they "could" happen?
Still moronic. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Google's operating system is open, meaning anyone can write software for it."
Yeah, that's not at all implying that it's about an open platform (vs iPhones locked down one), and not about an open source platform.
But more importantly, he's assuming that cell phone viruses are somehow new with this phone, and that they will somehow
Re:Still moronic. (Score:4, Insightful)
Things might change if this platform becomes ubiquitous. I'm not saying it's likely, mind you, and anyway the same arguments could be applied to the iPhone SDK (once the bad guys yoink themselves a copy of those dev tools).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
for writing sloppily.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Betamax (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
English, caffeinemessiah, can you read it? (Score:3, Insightful)
If anyone was interested in Ben Worthen's moronic grasp of open-source, its pasted below. E-mail your tirades to biztech@wsj.com, of which Ben Worthen is the lead writer, and ask him about how he got his job in the first place.
He isn't talking about open source. He's talking about it being an open platform like Windows or BSD instead of locked down like game consoles are and the iPhone tried to be. Is the difference really that incomprehensible?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Creativity (Score:5, Informative)
gPhone (Score:5, Funny)
From the horses mouth (Score:2)
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)