If there's one thing we've learned in the last 25 years, it's that integrated hardware and software designed make for the superior product and experience.
This sounds like the Windows model for phones -- lots of different hardware vendors making products for a widespread software platform.
However, the key to the phone market breaking wide is -- and will continue to be -- ease of use and consistency. The things that the non-tech oriented consumers will require.
I've not yet seen any of these hardware manufacturers really excel in either of these two realms, and this model does not really seem conducive to that changing... Until we see what they come up with, the jury is out on this.
I have a hard time believing heavy-hitters in the phone market would ever support this open platform (until the end, at least). Doing so now would spell the destruction of the empire they've built. What -- a world where useful and powerful phone services are free-of-charge? How dare we fathom such a thing?!
What in this announcement gave you the idea that useful and powerful phone services will be free of charge to YOU? Your provider will still charge as much as they ever have. Good luck having them pass the software development savings on to you.
This is primarily a business partnership announcement, from Google to providers. Customers will be affected by this somewhere in the margins. Hence no demo, no product to show, no cool YouTube video to ooh and aaah over.
If there's one thing we've learned in the last 25 years, it's that integrated hardware and software designed make for the superior product and experience.
This sounds like the Windows model for phones -- lots of different hardware vendors making products for a widespread software platform.
However, the key to the phone market breaking wide is -- and will continue to be -- ease of use and consistency. The things that the non-tech oriented consumers will require.
I've not yet seen any of these hardware manufacturers really excel in either of these two realms, and this model does not really seem conducive to that changing... Until we see what they come up with, the jury is out on this.
Excellent points! Took the words right out of my mouth..... (although, I could not have said it remotely as well as you did).
i think its more about using this "software" to free phones from retrictions placed by the at&t, verizon monopoly, tmoble and sprint (growing marginal players) are using this to develop market share. "customers can use this the way they want...join us with our new 2 year contract and we will share this experience"
there has got to be a way to free customers from the crushing control of the moble giants, but there are many that want to fight this MS being one, at&t verizon.
it's a control WWF wrestling fest. if you can't build market share with new cool factor use a different approach. i'm sure palm simbian, and MS will have a counter punch
hope me and you as customers don't get run over. the cell phone is the new desktop wars.
No, I'm just saying that even a complete retard would be able to see why this is so huge for the future of mobile.
Then call me retarded because there is no way to predict what effect this will have in the long term. It sounds good but that doesn't mean it will really fly.
If there's one thing we've learned in the last 25 years, it's that integrated hardware and software designed make for the superior product and experience.
This sounds like the Windows model for phones -- lots of different hardware vendors making products for a widespread software platform.
I disagree.
The internet (TCP/IP) and the web (HTTP, HTML) show us that an open and free platform can result in enormous adoption, functionality and innovation.
This is different from the Microsoft model, which is a proprietary OS with a variety of hardware partners / licensees.
You're right, of course, that this might lead to UI monstrosities and devices with lousy functionality. Just like the web, where there are ugly, difficult to navigate websites.
I'm a big Apple fan. But the "walled garden" approach can be stagnant and insular. A lot of Apple's recent success comes from embracing open standards and partnering widely. The iPhone, in its current state, does seem arbitrarily locked down: not only in its AWOL API, but also in excluding IM, voice over IP, etc. I bet that a lot of this "closed-ness" is due to a need to keep AT&T and the other carrier partners happy. I hope that this Android announcement shifts the market enough that Apple either embraces it or imitates it by significantly opening up access to its platform.
T-Mobile and Sprint Nextel are in the Alliance, that's perfectly acceptable to me.
Right now, Sprint would jump into just about any body's "Alliance" if they though they could band-aid the profit hemorrhaging.
Hundreds of thousands of lost customers in the last 6 months doesn't exactly spell confidence in Sprint. They've screwed about every pooch in the kennel and are running out of executives to blame. Seriously, they're one of the worst cases of making bold future-tech promises that lead to nowhere...
They may be "open and free platforms", but the reason that they've resulted in "enormous adoption, functionality and innovation" is because they are the de facto standard.
Linux is an example of the former. OHA looks to be more along the lines of a Linux than a TCP/IP.
TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML were not always the de facto standard.
Right now, Sprint would jump into just about any body's "Alliance" if they though they could band-aid the profit hemorrhaging.
Hundreds of thousands of lost customers in the last 6 months doesn't exactly spell confidence in Sprint. They've screwed about every pooch in the kennel and are running out of executives to blame. Seriously, they're one of the worst cases of making bold future-tech promises that lead to nowhere...
Wow, that is a harsh assessment. Not necessarily off base, but harsh!
In any case, I am on the "too early to tell, wait and see" bandwagon.
I like the free and open platform idea in theory--if it works well.
I do think melgross:
Quote:
If there's one thing it's not good for, it's Apple, and the iPhone.
is being a little pessimistic. I cannot see how it would help the iPhone instantly, but it could
*Spurr more innovation from Apple if it pans out
*Force Apple to find a way to open things up for 3rd party inovation/customization without compromizing "security."
*Shift the balance of power allowing Apple to worry less about appeasing at&t
*It could become the shizzle, forcing all compeditors--including the iPhone--out of the market leading Apple to license their propriatary MultiTouch screen tech as one of the snap-on parts thereby allowing Apple to reap profits from the whole market--not just one segment...
Of course, it could also fizzle out and have no impact on the industry, but I think it is too early to say it would be catagorically bad for the iPhone
This sounds dumb. There is no iphone competition, are you kidding? There is no product. The idea will maybe turn into something maybe someday. Until then, keep yawning.
I'm guessing that if Apple had any second thoughts about opening up the iPhone to 3rd party apps, they're gone for good now.
Could be a good thing for software developers and the iPhone because now there could be some legitimate competition. Apple may have to support developers who develop apps for the iPhone. Otherwise they may just go to the Google phone platform.
Maybe I'm superthick here but what's in this for Google?
Do they give the operating system away to the manufacturers free or force them to install a suite of Google advertising apps?
This does seem like starting completely from scratch. What are the advantages to this approach that you don't get now with Symbian? ie, is Symbian slow? Old? Creeky? More closed? More expensive?
TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML were not always the de facto standard.
Once upon a time it was Compuserve.
Nobody said "always". Please don't mis-quote.
I don't recall Compuserve ever being an "open and free platform": My recollection -- as a one-time user -- is that it was only available to subscribers.
The reason for enormous adoption of TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML is that they were not just free and open (as you said) but also the fact that they became the de facto standard (as I was trying point out).
The internet (TCP/IP) and the web (HTTP, HTML) show us that an open and free platform can result in enormous adoption, functionality and innovation.
They may be "open and free platforms", but the reason that they've resulted in "enormous adoption, functionality and innovation" is because they are the de facto standard.
Linux is an example of the former. OHA looks to be more along the lines of a Linux than a TCP/IP.
Comments
This sounds like the Windows model for phones -- lots of different hardware vendors making products for a widespread software platform.
However, the key to the phone market breaking wide is -- and will continue to be -- ease of use and consistency. The things that the non-tech oriented consumers will require.
I've not yet seen any of these hardware manufacturers really excel in either of these two realms, and this model does not really seem conducive to that changing... Until we see what they come up with, the jury is out on this.
It would also be cool to see an example of the project in action.. What's up with that?
It would also be cool to see an example of the project in action.. What's up with that?
What's up with that is exactly what's most shrug-inducing about this.
My guess is that there isn't much to show since this will be mostly a behind-the-scenes technology/service thing.
I have a hard time believing heavy-hitters in the phone market would ever support this open platform (until the end, at least). Doing so now would spell the destruction of the empire they've built. What -- a world where useful and powerful phone services are free-of-charge? How dare we fathom such a thing?!
What in this announcement gave you the idea that useful and powerful phone services will be free of charge to YOU? Your provider will still charge as much as they ever have. Good luck having them pass the software development savings on to you.
This is primarily a business partnership announcement, from Google to providers. Customers will be affected by this somewhere in the margins. Hence no demo, no product to show, no cool YouTube video to ooh and aaah over.
If there's one thing we've learned in the last 25 years, it's that integrated hardware and software designed make for the superior product and experience.
This sounds like the Windows model for phones -- lots of different hardware vendors making products for a widespread software platform.
However, the key to the phone market breaking wide is -- and will continue to be -- ease of use and consistency. The things that the non-tech oriented consumers will require.
I've not yet seen any of these hardware manufacturers really excel in either of these two realms, and this model does not really seem conducive to that changing... Until we see what they come up with, the jury is out on this.
Excellent points! Took the words right out of my mouth..... (although, I could not have said it remotely as well as you did).
there has got to be a way to free customers from the crushing control of the moble giants, but there are many that want to fight this MS being one, at&t verizon.
it's a control WWF wrestling fest. if you can't build market share with new cool factor use a different approach. i'm sure palm simbian, and MS will have a counter punch
hope me and you as customers don't get run over. the cell phone is the new desktop wars.
here we go......
No, I'm just saying that even a complete retard would be able to see why this is so huge for the future of mobile.
Then call me retarded because there is no way to predict what effect this will have in the long term. It sounds good but that doesn't mean it will really fly.
That's what they are trying to do. What a joke.
Sorry Google. Not happening.
If there's one thing we've learned in the last 25 years, it's that integrated hardware and software designed make for the superior product and experience.
This sounds like the Windows model for phones -- lots of different hardware vendors making products for a widespread software platform.
I disagree.
The internet (TCP/IP) and the web (HTTP, HTML) show us that an open and free platform can result in enormous adoption, functionality and innovation.
This is different from the Microsoft model, which is a proprietary OS with a variety of hardware partners / licensees.
You're right, of course, that this might lead to UI monstrosities and devices with lousy functionality. Just like the web, where there are ugly, difficult to navigate websites.
I'm a big Apple fan. But the "walled garden" approach can be stagnant and insular. A lot of Apple's recent success comes from embracing open standards and partnering widely. The iPhone, in its current state, does seem arbitrarily locked down: not only in its AWOL API, but also in excluding IM, voice over IP, etc. I bet that a lot of this "closed-ness" is due to a need to keep AT&T and the other carrier partners happy. I hope that this Android announcement shifts the market enough that Apple either embraces it or imitates it by significantly opening up access to its platform.
T-Mobile and Sprint Nextel are in the Alliance, that's perfectly acceptable to me.
Right now, Sprint would jump into just about any body's "Alliance" if they though they could band-aid the profit hemorrhaging.
Hundreds of thousands of lost customers in the last 6 months doesn't exactly spell confidence in Sprint. They've screwed about every pooch in the kennel and are running out of executives to blame. Seriously, they're one of the worst cases of making bold future-tech promises that lead to nowhere...
They may be "open and free platforms", but the reason that they've resulted in "enormous adoption, functionality and innovation" is because they are the de facto standard.
Linux is an example of the former. OHA looks to be more along the lines of a Linux than a TCP/IP.
TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML were not always the de facto standard.
Once upon a time it was Compuserve.
Right now, Sprint would jump into just about any body's "Alliance" if they though they could band-aid the profit hemorrhaging.
Hundreds of thousands of lost customers in the last 6 months doesn't exactly spell confidence in Sprint. They've screwed about every pooch in the kennel and are running out of executives to blame. Seriously, they're one of the worst cases of making bold future-tech promises that lead to nowhere...
In any case, I am on the "too early to tell, wait and see" bandwagon.
I like the free and open platform idea in theory--if it works well.
I do think melgross:
If there's one thing it's not good for, it's Apple, and the iPhone.
is being a little pessimistic. I cannot see how it would help the iPhone instantly, but it could
*Spurr more innovation from Apple if it pans out
*Force Apple to find a way to open things up for 3rd party inovation/customization without compromizing "security."
*Shift the balance of power allowing Apple to worry less about appeasing at&t
*It could become the shizzle, forcing all compeditors--including the iPhone--out of the market leading Apple to license their propriatary MultiTouch screen tech as one of the snap-on parts thereby allowing Apple to reap profits from the whole market--not just one segment...
Of course, it could also fizzle out and have no impact on the industry, but I think it is too early to say it would be catagorically bad for the iPhone
Could be a good thing for software developers and the iPhone because now there could be some legitimate competition. Apple may have to support developers who develop apps for the iPhone. Otherwise they may just go to the Google phone platform.
Do they give the operating system away to the manufacturers free or force them to install a suite of Google advertising apps?
This does seem like starting completely from scratch. What are the advantages to this approach that you don't get now with Symbian? ie, is Symbian slow? Old? Creeky? More closed? More expensive?
TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML were not always the de facto standard.
Once upon a time it was Compuserve.
Nobody said "always". Please don't mis-quote.
I don't recall Compuserve ever being an "open and free platform": My recollection -- as a one-time user -- is that it was only available to subscribers.
The reason for enormous adoption of TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML is that they were not just free and open (as you said) but also the fact that they became the de facto standard (as I was trying point out).
I disagree.
The internet (TCP/IP) and the web (HTTP, HTML) show us that an open and free platform can result in enormous adoption, functionality and innovation.
They may be "open and free platforms", but the reason that they've resulted in "enormous adoption, functionality and innovation" is because they are the de facto standard.
Linux is an example of the former. OHA looks to be more along the lines of a Linux than a TCP/IP.