Login:
Password:

Google's Phone Platform: It's Not an OS, So What Is It?

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

November 5, 2007, 3:11 PM

A few hours after Google's dramatic announcement which some sources had still been anticipating as a mobile phone bearing the Google brand, we actually know less about Android than we did -- or thought we did -- at 11:00 this morning when it was announced. During a midday press conference featuring key Google executives including CEO Eric Schmidt, reporters called into question most of the principal facts surrounding the new Open Handset Alliance - most importantly, the ingredients of the Android platform.

"One of the key differences in what we're developing is the reality of it," responded Google's Director of Mobile Platforms, Andy Rubin, to a question Om Malik asked about how handset manufacturers who joined the Alliance will be expected to distinguish their Android-based products from one another. "Within one week's time, this software will be in the hands of developers, and developers will be able to create applications, and those applications will be able to be included in handsets that are available in the second half of 2008."

But "software" meaning what, specifically? Four of the key concerns reporters seized upon this afternoon were:

  1. What is the Linux distribution included with Android, and will there actually be a preferred or even included Linux, as this morning's statements indicated?
  2. What is the nature of the Web browser technology included with Android, and is Google using someone else's browser or is it developing one of its own?
  3. Just how "open" is the shared nature of the license to users? Specifically, will cell phone users have access to the source code of the third-party apps they choose to use? Can they choose or modify their own apps, and distribute the modifications?
  4. Where are the ads? You know, the part where Google typically rakes in all the cash.

All these are questions posed in one form or another, in many cases multiple times, either without a clear answer being given or with seemingly contradictory answers given at different points. What Schmidt, Rubin, and their Google colleagues did make clear today - if nothing else - was that there may or may not ever be a Gphone. They often went out of their way to point out the Gphone rumors that have characterized the past few weeks, by way of saying there's no such thing and that the company is not ready to say there will never be such a thing.

"The good news is, we're not pre-announcing anything," responded Rubin at one point to a question from the Financial Times. "What we are focusing on is the fact that this platform is the perfect platform; if you were to build a Gphone, you would build it out of this platform. What's nice about it that, since the platform is so open and so extensible and it has so many of the capabilities that you need to build a phone, or any kind of mobile device, we think there will be many, many different types of mobile devices, very different from things that we've seen today, because of the innovation."

"When you free something into the open, it's really up to the industry to do something with it. There aren't any restrictions, so the industry can decide what to do, and how to enable it in their product."

Andy Rubin, Director of Mobile Platforms, Google

But just what are those capabilities? In response to a direct question regarding the identity of the Linux distribution selected for the platform's core, Google's Andy Rubin not only deflected the response until a further announcement next Monday, but described it in the meantime using terms that opened speculation about whether a Linux is being distributed with Android at all.

"Within one week, we're going to make further announcements about the technical specifications of the platform," Rubin said, "when it becomes available as an SDK."

When a BBC reporter asked hardware manufacturers on the call who had joined the Alliance to say whether they intend to pull back on their support of existing mobile operating systems, their responses suggested that don't perceive Android as an OS per se, but instead as a platform that centers around Linux but leaves the brand option open.

Motorola CEO Ed Zander made that point fairly clear: "As you know, we've been probably the most vocal in developing on open platforms with our Linux efforts, and this really is an accelerator to what we're doing. So we think this is fairly complementary to our core strategy about open source and open platforms...We do have some commitments to some of our carrier partners and other vendors about different product sets, and we'll continue with those lines; but at the core of what we're doing, we've been working a lot on this kind of strategy for some time."

"Our whole strategy around partnership has been to work with people, literally share in the profits, share in the revenue, under whatever terms make sense, [because then] everybody's in alignment. The fact that Android allows it does not require it. I think it's highly likely we would do it."

Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google

Motorola actually has its own Linux platform, called MOTOMAGX and announced just last August. It's based around Java applications, and Java certainly doesn't appear to be a player on the Android field right now. But Zander's comments seemed to indicate that his company has already made commitments to a Linux, and feels Android complements those commitments rather than substitutes for them - which suggests that the answer to the question of what Linux is Android using, remains "open."

Qualcomm CEO Dr. Paul Jacobs played right into Zander's comments, and against the theme of the day. "It's really time to focus on growing the pie instead of focusing on how we cut that pie up," Jacobs said, "and therefore there really is the potential for many different operating systems and operating environments to be supported on handsets."

Next: It all depends on your definition of "open."

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (22 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By methuselah

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 1:55 PM

"The good news is, we're not pre-announcing anything...Within one week, we're going to make further announcements...when it becomes available...."

I'm not pre-announcing anything, which is why I'm holding a press conference about something which is not available yet.

But I am going to announce something in the near future about software that will become available in the future.

Um, tell me again, what's the difference between pre-announcing, and announcing something before it exists in any shipping form?

Score: 0

By Aires

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 5:04 AM

If it smells like bullsh!t - it is bullsh!t.

Score: 0

By robmanic44

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 9:33 PM

It's official. The monkeys are running the zoo.

Score: 0

By KRome

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 5:26 PM

wait so what is this?

Score: 0

By Briantist

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 8:42 AM

Is this announcement of vapour-OS simple an iPhone spoiler as Google develop a proper mobile phone proposition?

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 12:46 AM

You can't spoil something with something else that isn't even concrete/cool/or remotely interesting.

What betanews is saying is that the press has no idea wtf google is doing, and it sounds like google doesn't either.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 8:05 AM

How can you spend two full pages on f*cking pure speculation? After 1/2 of the first page I realized this article is gonna be a total waste of time and FORCED MYSELF TO STOP READING.

Score: 0

By nate

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 9:59 AM

Umm, this isn't speculation. It's coverage of the conference call and Google's real explanation of what it is building, which at this point is pretty vague.

Score: 0

By phenomnaruto

posted Nov 5, 2007 - 5:30 PM

Hmm ..Google, Apple, and Linux Alliance to destroy Microsoft by taking over every aspect of Information Technology ... i must give it to them .. they are really impressive.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Nov 5, 2007 - 4:30 PM

Android? C'mon you can do better than that.

Score: 0

By kitsch

edited Nov 6, 2007 - 6:08 PM

Android, for those lazy people not bothered enough to look it up, was the name of the company whose mobile OS technology Google purchased back in 2005 from the guys who produced the Danger Sidekick. Thus, not Google's name - it came ready-made.

See:
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Nov 7, 2007 - 8:54 AM

"Danger Sidekick", now that's a better name.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 5, 2007 - 6:45 PM

You don't think they're nodding to the SF bunch, by associating it with AI, eh?

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Nov 5, 2007 - 10:02 PM

I'm assuming you mean Al Gore, but I think in that case it should be called The PT Barnum AKA "The Sucker Phone".

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Nov 5, 2007 - 10:12 PM

lmao..

Sorry, capital "i"'s don't transfer well...

AI : Artificial Intelligence.

Gore's is just polished stupidity.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 11:08 AM

He does look like an Android though.

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

edited Nov 6, 2007 - 11:41 AM

When we make androids, I think we'll have better designers than that...at least, I hope to God we do.

Score: 0

By timatl

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 9:46 AM

if Gore's is just polished stupidity then what is Bush?????????

Score: 0

By Mystiqq

posted Nov 6, 2007 - 10:06 AM

Definition of...

Score: 0

By THZGryphon

posted Nov 5, 2007 - 5:12 PM

Why?

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Nov 5, 2007 - 5:17 PM

Because it's an unimaginative, dumb name that's why.
Even Gryphon would be better actually.

Score: 0

By dgootman

posted Nov 5, 2007 - 5:33 PM

Gryphon sounds like something Mozilla would come up with.

Score: 0