it's a good question. and one whose answer hopefully doesn't read anything like "joe smith's phone call, brought to you by the university of phoenix"
Hmmm ... but what if the phone and the services were free ... if you were willing to put up with the ads??? [not that this is Google's plan, but just suppose]
This all feels like a marketing campaign rather than a true standards definition to me. If they really want to create an open platform, where are the specifications for how one open device talks to another? How a device can work on any cellular network or use any communication network?
That's what will truly open up cellular phones, a standard definition for a device which can use any communication network to transmit data to and receive data from a similar device (ie. isn't tied to any particular manufacturer or cellular/data service provider).
Just like the IBM PC specification enabled many different manufacturers to create similarly structured computers using components from different manufacturers, yet all could utilize exactly the same software. Or how the TCP/IP and Ethernet specifications allowed people to create a multitude of devices which all communicate with each other.
I just don't understand how can you release an SDK before your open device specifications have been reviewed and agreed upon by others? It just doesn't make sense. Especially given that OpenMoko is already creating an open phone software development platform. Why not just use OpenMoko for the software development side of things (SDK, OS platform), and come up with a more standard hardware definition to go along with it?
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?
it's a good question. and one whose answer hopefully doesn't read anything like "joe smith's phone call, brought to you by the university of phoenix"
These are -- for better or worse, like them or hate them -- some of the heavy-hitters in the mobile phone business (yes, Apple included).
It is a bit odd to go public with something supposedly so big -- witness how the stock had run up in anticipation of this announcement -- without lining up some of these major players.
Actually, for an initial announcement the line-up is quite impressive.
OK, so maybe it seems that the two largest(?) players in the US market chose not to take part (for now). But the two other large players did. And this is not only about the US anyway. T-Mobile is big in Europe. Telefonica is big in Europe and South America (in total in size similar to Vodafone, actually). NTT DoCoMo is the leading operator in Japan. China Mobile is the world's largest mobile phone operator with >350 million customers... I think, seeing it with a global perspective, quite a few major players are there. Some others chose not to, but that does not make the announcement look bad at all.
I also don't see this as a threat to Apple since it is an open source initiative.
Apple will be able to borrow from Android in the same way it has from BSD, Linux, BeOS, Solaris, Mac OS 9, Newton and others.
I agree to some extent. I'm assuming that an "open" initiative means that there will be open specifications for how to build your hardware and software to allow interoperability. Apple will simply need to build the iPhone to those specs. So no, this is not a threat as long as it's truly open.
However Apple won't necessarily "borrow" from Android. The reason why they were able to borrow from BSD et al, was because those technologies had been in existence for a long time already. So Apple essentially got a lot of previous software development and ideas for free.
With Android, there is no previous history (unless the specs are based entirely on an existing phone), so it's not like Apple will be able to get free technology from it. What they will get is, if they make the iPhone compatible with Android, many more 3rd party applications and add-ons than they would otherwise get.
If developers/manufacturers can create a single application or add-on device which works with multiple phones due to open standards (as opposed to having to create multiple versions of the same software/device), then there will be a lot more of those types of applications and devices 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.
Could you imagine, the phones' startup screens say something to the effect of Google Android Beta for a few years. not that Google's Betas are a bad thing, I love my Gmail, I'm just tired of seeing "Beta" for over 2 years already...
For starters, no Apple, no ATT, no Verizon, no Nokia, no Vodaphone, in the "OHA" alliance.
First off, AT&T has the iPhone, so to accept something like this would be a hit in the face. Nokia phones stink, I had one, my friends have had one, and all are a piece of crap. And Verizon is blah. And, like some said, they have t-moble and sprint, which are heavy hitters too. According to this, they are #3 & #4 respectively, and this Android announcement/partnership might actually improve that.
And I don't know about you, but Samsung makes some of the best phones out there. At least in my opinion.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella
I hope Android/Google use Safari/WebKit as the basis of their mobile web browser.
This would be a big plus for Apple and web standards.
Not really probable. Safari is not available for Linux, but guess what is....Firefox!
Also....
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
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...
Where is your proof that's true? Also, I would hardly blame Sprint for any loss in customers, because so many people wanted the iPhone....hell, if the iPhone went to Sprint, you'd be saying the same abotu AT&T. In fact, I doubt AT&T would still be doing good if it wasn't for the iPhone, and more on that, I believe the greatest downfall of the iPhone is the slow internet speeds provided by AT&T EDGE. I used their "super fast" internet, and I had to wait forever just to load any web page. When my friend was using Sprint's internet on his old Samsung Blade, it took seconds to do anything. Now your experience with Sprint, or any carriers, internet differs on your phone -- but then again, I doubt the iPhone is the cause for slow internet speeds.
And Sprint's biggest problem is dropping free roaming. But I still have it, so yay for me.
Comments
This would be a big plus for Apple and web standards.
I also don't see this as a threat to Apple since it is an open source initiative.
Apple will be able to borrow from Android in the same way it has from BSD, Linux, BeOS, Solaris, Mac OS 9, Newton and others.
I think, seeing it with a global perspective, quite a few major players are there.
Point taken.
it's a good question. and one whose answer hopefully doesn't read anything like "joe smith's phone call, brought to you by the university of phoenix"
Hmmm ... but what if the phone and the services were free ... if you were willing to put up with the ads??? [not that this is Google's plan, but just suppose]
That's what will truly open up cellular phones, a standard definition for a device which can use any communication network to transmit data to and receive data from a similar device (ie. isn't tied to any particular manufacturer or cellular/data service provider).
Just like the IBM PC specification enabled many different manufacturers to create similarly structured computers using components from different manufacturers, yet all could utilize exactly the same software. Or how the TCP/IP and Ethernet specifications allowed people to create a multitude of devices which all communicate with each other.
I just don't understand how can you release an SDK before your open device specifications have been reviewed and agreed upon by others? It just doesn't make sense. Especially given that OpenMoko is already creating an open phone software development platform. Why not just use OpenMoko for the software development side of things (SDK, OS platform), and come up with a more standard hardware definition to go along with it?
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?
it's a good question. and one whose answer hopefully doesn't read anything like "joe smith's phone call, brought to you by the university of phoenix"
These are -- for better or worse, like them or hate them -- some of the heavy-hitters in the mobile phone business (yes, Apple included).
It is a bit odd to go public with something supposedly so big -- witness how the stock had run up in anticipation of this announcement -- without lining up some of these major players.
Actually, for an initial announcement the line-up is quite impressive.
OK, so maybe it seems that the two largest(?) players in the US market chose not to take part (for now). But the two other large players did. And this is not only about the US anyway. T-Mobile is big in Europe. Telefonica is big in Europe and South America (in total in size similar to Vodafone, actually). NTT DoCoMo is the leading operator in Japan. China Mobile is the world's largest mobile phone operator with >350 million customers... I think, seeing it with a global perspective, quite a few major players are there. Some others chose not to, but that does not make the announcement look bad at all.
I also don't see this as a threat to Apple since it is an open source initiative.
Apple will be able to borrow from Android in the same way it has from BSD, Linux, BeOS, Solaris, Mac OS 9, Newton and others.
I agree to some extent. I'm assuming that an "open" initiative means that there will be open specifications for how to build your hardware and software to allow interoperability. Apple will simply need to build the iPhone to those specs. So no, this is not a threat as long as it's truly open.
However Apple won't necessarily "borrow" from Android. The reason why they were able to borrow from BSD et al, was because those technologies had been in existence for a long time already. So Apple essentially got a lot of previous software development and ideas for free.
With Android, there is no previous history (unless the specs are based entirely on an existing phone), so it's not like Apple will be able to get free technology from it. What they will get is, if they make the iPhone compatible with Android, many more 3rd party applications and add-ons than they would otherwise get.
If developers/manufacturers can create a single application or add-on device which works with multiple phones due to open standards (as opposed to having to create multiple versions of the same software/device), then there will be a lot more of those types of applications and devices 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.
Could you imagine, the phones' startup screens say something to the effect of Google Android Beta for a few years. not that Google's Betas are a bad thing, I love my Gmail, I'm just tired of seeing "Beta" for over 2 years already...
Yawn.
For starters, no Apple, no ATT, no Verizon, no Nokia, no Vodaphone, in the "OHA" alliance.
First off, AT&T has the iPhone, so to accept something like this would be a hit in the face. Nokia phones stink, I had one, my friends have had one, and all are a piece of crap. And Verizon is blah. And, like some said, they have t-moble and sprint, which are heavy hitters too. According to this, they are #3 & #4 respectively, and this Android announcement/partnership might actually improve that.
(http://tk.com/wireless/top10.html)
And I don't know about you, but Samsung makes some of the best phones out there. At least in my opinion.
Edit:
I hope Android/Google use Safari/WebKit as the basis of their mobile web browser.
This would be a big plus for Apple and web standards.
Not really probable. Safari is not available for Linux, but guess what is....Firefox!
Also....
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...
Where is your proof that's true? Also, I would hardly blame Sprint for any loss in customers, because so many people wanted the iPhone....hell, if the iPhone went to Sprint, you'd be saying the same abotu AT&T. In fact, I doubt AT&T would still be doing good if it wasn't for the iPhone, and more on that, I believe the greatest downfall of the iPhone is the slow internet speeds provided by AT&T EDGE. I used their "super fast" internet, and I had to wait forever just to load any web page. When my friend was using Sprint's internet on his old Samsung Blade, it took seconds to do anything. Now your experience with Sprint, or any carriers, internet differs on your phone -- but then again, I doubt the iPhone is the cause for slow internet speeds.
And Sprint's biggest problem is dropping free roaming. But I still have it, so yay for me.