Predicting The Google Phone 205
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?"
well (Score:2, Insightful)
and its can be on sprint?
Yes, Apple should become concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about understatement!
That's like saying Cray's XT4 is not exactly pocketable...
Article Website (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think I can answer that one... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think I can answer that one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:I think I can answer that one... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Not that I disagree with you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Give me a day or two, and I'll try it out.
5 years behind apple (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why did an Android thread turn into a ridiculous predictions from Apple zealots thread?
No, actually that's wrong (Score:3, Informative)
Although Qualcomm hasn't released a proper SDK for the processor yet, so hardware acceleration is not fully implemented.
Re:No, actually that's wrong (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe they can release an MP3 player next! Boo-yeah! Or a WW2 FPS game!
Ummm.. CDMA? (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re:Ummm.. CDMA? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Neo? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So do they just get on the cattle car ?
Apple's iPhone is much less significant. (Score:4, Informative)
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]
Re:Apple's iPhone is much less significant. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now as far as the user experience goes, if it's anything like the one on my iPod it's probably very user-friendly. That's gonna be the hard part for anyone trying to compete directly against such a premium brand.
I don't think Google has any intention of competing in that area, instead trying to focus on the p
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, your point is irrelevant. Apple has an incredibly successful and profitable niche without directly addressing the business environment, yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just guessing all of the statements that start with
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Or are not and AT&T exclusive. Sort of like when the iPod stopped being only for the Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
The AT&T bundle works to both parties advantage, for now. Don't think the landscape won't change in six months; Apple is probably working on a 3G phone as we speak.
Re: (Score:2)
And you misunderstand Google; they aren't promoting server services... they are promoting another platform from which they can collect data, package it to advertisers, and sell ads.
That, and everything Google accomplishes with Android, Apple can port to the iPhone! Thank you Apache license.
Re: (Score:2)
$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
Predicting? (Score:2)
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
Ad-free printer-friendly version (Score:3, Informative)
It will most probably look like the emulator (Score:4, Insightful)
sleek userinterface? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that Apple has nothing to worry about in this regard.
Opera Mini? (Score:3, Informative)
This is no iPhone (which is Safari only...).
good luck (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Is it really an alliance? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes: Ethernet was invented by Xerox, not an industry alliance.
Re: (Score:2)
OPEC. RIAA. MPAA.
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)
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.
Successful computer industry alliances (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
IEEE [ieee.org]
Wifi Alliance [wi-fi.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The PowerPC (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC [wikipedia.org]
iPhone is Part of the Apple Ecosystem (Score:2)
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.
Playing catch-up (Score:2)
uhhh (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Why Predict? Here's a Demo (Score:3, Informative)
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.
gPhone : iPhone :: PC : Macintosh (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Not the hardware - the IDEA (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
We don't need new technology! (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't need anything that's not already available. We just need something unbroken.
Not Apple. Microsoft. (Score:2)
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
Apple is only a player in the media's mind (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, my latest slashdot journal [slashdot.org] is just for you - not just a rant, but a curmudgeon rant! What more could you ask for?
-mcgrew
Re:I didn't think it was possible... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple makes hardware that works
Google makes software that works
You misinterpret the iPhone's initial market if you think it is suitable for business (it isn't), for instant messaging (it doesn't have that feature), or social networking (unless you want to use the built in Safari web browser).
All the iPhone does (for now) is:
Phone
Internet
Media
A light smattering of accessory applications
And I only paid $300 for mine. $600 was so four months ago. The 8GB iPhone is only $399.
And at the
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why the GP said (bold emphasis mine): "I mean seriously you can't use the iPhone for business, you can't use it to omgkfcbbq Instantmessage your friends. You can't use it for social networking."
Other than that, I agree with you completely. Google will make an OS that wi
Re: (Score:2)
What will be interesting, once the iphone SDK comes up, what you'll actually be able to do. I'm suspecting that every application that goes on the iPhone will have to be signed by apple, etc... Thus, getting mame on your iphone without voiding your warrenty will be out of the question.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, the point of releasing the SDK is specifically so people can create software they want, within Apple's current framework. Obviously they're not going to provide tools that allow you to break current functionality limits or cause contract concerns with AT&T, but why would adding mame or IM be any kind of issue?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple makes fashion accessories.
Google makes software that works.
I'll be sure to inform the users of OSX, iWork, iLife, Aperture, Final Cut, and Logic that Apple's software does not work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple makes fashion accessories.
I'm probably responding to a troll, but, Apple makes hardware/software/service solution that are usable for the average person. The iPod created the mainstream market for portable digital music players because it was the first one where the entire user experience was easy enough for the average person (who until then was using a portable CD player). Until Apple stepped in it was too hard for most people to buy music online, rip CDs, and load that onto the player.
The iPhone is the same thing all over agai
Re: (Score:2)
More than that: it's a smoother experience even for many people who *are* capable of navigating other smartphones. I haven't bought in yet for a few reasons (don't want to drop the $ on it yet, still thinking of trying something with real 3g instead), but the basic ex
Re: (Score:2)
But you have got to be fooling yourself if you think that the average n00b had any reason to other than fashion ditch their 8gb iPod in favor of a 20 40 80 whatever.
The earbuds look the same on both. For the most part, that is all anyone sees. I only know two people who bought video ipods, both because they wanted to use them for watching video (one while commuting, one at a night job).
...but I somehow doubt Joe sixpack is ready to pay $12,000 on iTunes, or even rip 12,000 of his own songs, or even use his pod as a usb drive to transfer files.
Last time I saw numbers, something like 1.5% of music on iPods came from the iTunes Music Store. The rest was from CDs and from downloads (P2P, other music services). I know a lot of people with more than 8 Gb on their iPod.
The features, the convenience, the interface did NOT sell iPods.
So why did iPods become popular and a fashion item in
Re: (Score:2)
Apple makes fashion accessories.
Google makes software that works.
LOL [google.com]
Hmm, that actually seems like relatively few results for "$PRODUCT problems". Especially if you compare to the results for "iphone problems" [google.com] or "ipod problems" [google.com].
(For a cheap laugh, compare to "vista problems" [google.com])
Re: (Score:2)
"mail.app problems" [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I've only been using Gmail and my university address for a while, and using a web app to check email just seems silly to me compared to a nice IMAP.
On topic, though, Yahoo mai
Re: (Score:2)
try this instead foolio [google.com]
Not the end but the means that's important (Score:2)
Someone here pointed out that Apple is a Prada to Google's Samsonite. As far as people see it that way (and there are lots, I know), Apple has nothing to worry about. B
Re:I'd buy one because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I am not a mobile developer, but I'd like to be able to do things like add music, ringtones and wallpapers with just a USB cable (without feeling like I am "hacking" it) or like Open Moko is doing [openmoko.org], let me change the "theme" of the UI easily.