iPhone Killer? Googles Android Demo

[SteveOBHave]

It's not the most polished presentation but the interface looks like it could potentially poo all over the iPhone OS and it's 3G to boot. It will almost guaranteed have a much better impact on the European market because

a) there is no ridiculous marketing structure that relies on you signing your soul over to Apple and O2 and
b) it's all open source so 3rd party apps are not locked out - networks are not locked out and Google don't care who uses it.

Better yet Google have set aside 10mil USD to give to the open source developers for the best applications. Apple need to learn, they need to sit up and take notice of how to sell something and stop treating their customers and potential customers as money bags.

In my opinion this is going to hurt Apple quite badly. How soon before people get the iPhone hardware, wipe the OS and install something like Android?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/a-first-look-at-the-google-phone/index.html

 

[SteveOBHave]

ah see that's where you'd be really cunning (like a weasel) and make sure you had the flashing capability - I'm sure it's easy enough to find. Just search under N95 Firmware installation or N95 Firmware updater or similar.

 

[SteveOBHave]

I agree - of course there are going to be a great many pitfalls in attempting to make the software truely cross platform. Being open source tho there is going to be stacks of information out there for both developers and users. There is going to be no need for people to wait on the graces of hackers to free up it's use.

 

[SteveOBHave]

So far it looks like the SDK only supports Java. Whilst that gives it better 3rd party support than the iPhone, it's still not what I would technically call a smartphone OS.

Exsqueeze me? At what stage does Java become a sub standard OS when compared with what you might call a 'smartphone OS'? Jave is an incredibly powerful and potentially more versatile language than any of the symbian and smart phone OSs that exist today. My main reasoning for this statement is that Java is widely used on every single operating system that is available on the market today. It does not require a specific chipset like Symbian or Windows Mobile. It is the logical language to impliment on a smart phone device - what would you suggest as a better option?

Admittedly it's just a stepping stone to eventually getting Linux on a mobile but it's a better option than exists out there now.

I'm curious - what do you define as a Smartphone OS and how does it differ from the capabilities of Android or are you just making a sweeping statement based on assumption?

Google are obviously trying to commoditise the mobile market the way that Microsoft did to the PC market. They want to make the barriers to developing a new phone as low as possible to encourage the growth of cheap, generic far-eastern feature phones with a capable web browser.

Because encouraging the growth of generic far eastern phones will benefit Google massively won't it. Where did that come from? Another assumption based on what? From where I am sitting Google is attempting to make the use of mobiles and the interface that we use as customisable as possible - if anything I see it opening up our options as consumers to allow us to use the phone the way we want to as opposed to how Nokia or Samsung or Apple want us to. I don't see that as a bad thing. Nowhere has Google stated that 'generic far-eastern feature phones' are their preferred device.

I don't think it's really competing in the same territory as the iPhone. It's really going up against Nokia's S40, Moto's JUIX and similar platforms from Sony Ericsson, Samsung, et al.

How can you qualify that statement - S40, JUIX and all the other platform specific OSs are nothing like Android - for starters they are not cross platform and they have little of the potential that it has. In my eyes the iPhone OS is significantly more limited than any of the other mentioned apps - iPhone is a nice GUI with a slick platform specific interface, Apple treat it the same way as they treat OSX - you want it? Then you have to buy our hardware and follow our rules and line our pockets.

 

[SteveOBHave]

From what I've seen, Android is mostly coded in C/C++. However, the SDK only allows for 3rd party developers to create Java applications.

Java applications take up more memory and processing power than their natively (i.e. C/C++) equivalents. On other platforms, they also integrate less well with the phone's UI and only have access to a limited number of APIs. If you need high performance then your application needs to be natively coded. This is why there's no Java version of Tom Tom or Quake for mobile phones.

I never said it was substandard, I just stated that it wasn't the iPhone/smartphone contender that people hype it up to be.

Might be worth reading these references:
http://code.google.com/android/
http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/android_overview.html

Android is a Linux base OS - From what I can tell (and I may be wrong) developers have access to the entire phones Core functionality - as a developer they have 'NO' restrictions in what fuctionality they wish to call on or what aspect of the interface they wish to alter or replace.

My definition of a smartphone OS: An open OS capable of running natively coded 3rd party applications. That's something the Android SDK can't do at the moment.

If having a JVM qualifies a phone as a smartphone then that means that practically every phone with a colour screen is a smartphone by your definition.

I believe this is exactly what the Android OS is and is capable of doing.

Google want to wrestle control of the telecoms industry away from the operators and powerful manufacturers. It's no secret and there's strong rumours that Google will be bidding for the open 700Mhz spectrum in the US. Google would love to see mobile internet as open and competitive as fixed line internet. What they don't want is operators funnelling all of their customers towards their own portals and leaving Google out in the cold.

Android isn't about giving consumers what they want. It's about reducing the barriers and cost of manufacturing phones. Just like every other Linux initiative.

I don't know about you but I see this as a good thing. Sure it will have an effect on the major operators and manufacturers but having the option to create my phones interface and usability to my blueprint sounds like a pretty good option to me.

And who is the only manufacturer committed to making an Android-based device? It's the Tawainese ODM, HTC.

I think you've missed one of the core advantages of Android - it doesn't need to have a specific form of hardware to be used - it is not designed to be limited to just Google hardware the way Apple is. Their intention is to make this available to any hardware.

What do you mean by "cross platform"? Both S40 and JUIX have a JVM and will run cross-platform J2ME code (theoretically). I don't know about JUIX, but S40 also works on a number of hardware platforms.

Meaning that the entire OS, not just some JVM apps, will run on any platform. Of course there will be some hardware that is more capable than others in utilising the best of the Android interface but it's not going to be limited to such. The nature of Android is that the interface can be modified to integrate with the hardwares capabilities - so in my eyes truely cross platform.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Maybe that's their intention in the long run, but the SDK is aimed at Java apps. The documentation looks great though.

Phew - that just went over my head. What I got there was that the SDK supports a mixture of XML and Java. It's looking to be a tad more verstile than just allowing 3rd party apps. Given a bit of time (if I weren't in the middle of studying for my CCNA) I'd have a better read but it's looking fairly promising.

Natively coded applications won't port across different CPU instruction sets. That's why Windows Vista only supports x86/x64 and OS X only supports Power PC and x86.

Only applications running inside a virtual machine will run across platforms and virtual machines eat up resources.

Yeah I know this much - which is why this seems like a more logical manner to approach the future of mobile technology. I can however see us as the users having to 'vet' the various applications for the good and the bad of course the nature of the internet community is that there are more than enough people out there to do most of the early adopter foot work for us.

Between you and I this strikes me as some pretty promising stuff.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Hmm not sure about this. These are two different ways of doing things, rather than a wrong way and a right way. Apple's strategy has hardly let them down so far . Of course neither has Google's, but Apple tend to appeal to people that basically don't know any better / have more money than sense, so they can afford this aggressive strategy.

Actually it's the iPod that is keeping Apple afloat - their buy hardware to get the software approach has not really done them many favors.

How much brand penetration does Google have in the high street electronics market? Currently, not much compared to Apple. For this reason people that aren't idiots might buy a Google product because it's better, whereas others may choose Apple because they don't know any better and it's a brand they recognise from the massive success of the iPod.

Perhaps next time you walk down the high street and look at mobile phones and the like - see how many have the Google search page displayed on their screens. To be fair tho Google has a significantly higher profile than Apple could ever hope for - were a Google product of any worth to appear on the high street they wouldn't have to work on the brand recognition. Amazing for a company that has only been around for 10 years.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Apple v Google fan boy rants begin..................

I'm sorry, but at what stage was this ever going to reduce into an Apple v Google fanboy rant? So far we have had a very logical discussion regarding the merits of a new Mobile Phone OS and SDK. If anything it has been based around Google v every other mobile OS including but not exclusively the iPhone.

Why don't you sod off and troll somewhere else. Didn't your mother ever tell you that if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all? If you have nothing useful to contribute then just don't bother.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Whoa there MC Jumpypants! I think he was merely pointing out how this will surely create an Apple/Google divide, but in a sarcastic manner.

If that's the case then I apologise. I'm just fed up with threads on this forum reducing to a my side is better than your side argument.

 

[SteveOBHave]

So if Google released a car, you'd automatically assume it was great? It doesn't quite work like that . Apple are established in high street electronics whereas Google are not, simple as that. This is why Apple can afford such aggressive marketing campaigns.

I never suggested that anything that Google released was immediately going to be good - and I quote: "were a Google product of any worth to appear on the high street they wouldn't have to work on the brand recognition."

My point is that Google is a very recognised brand, so much so that they are a world recognised colloquialism - i.e. "Google it"

There is no way I'd suggest that just because it's Google it's going to be good - that's just inane. I personally hate the way that Google is rammed down your throat every time you go to install a partnered app like Adobe Reader. What I do appreciate tho is when they do something good like sponsoring the X-Prize or creating something like Android. I have no specific love for Google nor for all their practices but I will applaud them when I perceive them to be doing some good. Much as I will slate Apple when I think they are doing bad.

Hence the last sentence in my first post in this thread; why are you telling me that?

I'm sorry - re-read - I misunderstood what you were saying. I don't think that the iPod is a substandard device, in fact I don't think that many of Apples hardware has much negative going on with it other than the pricing.

I honestly don't think that the iPhone is a bad product. In my opinion it is a far more user centric product than has been produced in recent memory. They know about user interface, they know about wowing people, and I guarantee that the Android interface will have learnt a large number of lessons from it. My gripe is with the sales structure and my perception of Apple treating it's customers badly. It's hard to actually test the climate amongst the general users for us because we tend to keep a closer eye on the enthusiast market and we're the ones who are going to make observations and whinge first. The general Joe Bloggs probably isn't going to get roiled over the pricing structure, they're just not going to purchase the product - as I think has been evidenced with sales numbers of the iPhone in the UK.

 

[SteveOBHave]

You didnt say it was the be all but you implied it by saying Android could create iphone killers - when there are a host of phones out there already better than the iphone. The iphone is the right step phones need to go in!? Oh dear - I hope you meant the iphone OS.

I agree re the OS and I hope the iphone will force SE/Nokia/WM to improve their OS's and bug testing.

I don't think he did - I believe the gist was that the iPhone represented the current peak in mobile phone interface and desirability (yes not to everyone but as the media represents etc.).

Why 'Oh dear' with the iPhone as a piece of hardware - I personally think that it is very clever and quite desirable as a piece of hardware. I believe that it certainly represents a future to the phone industry.

The Android OS may very well produce some iPhone killers - his statement was not an indipendant qualifier on the state of mobile phones.

I agree with him - Android does look very nice as it exists in the Google implimentation - It has a very nice visual interface, what appears to be some very well thought out workflows and an ability to utilise some very powerful aspects of hardware - i.e. the 3d component demo'd.

I'm curious - what puts you off about it Chrisp7? Are there some specific attributes that you don't like? Do you see it as a poor interface? Do you dislike it simply because it's Google and you see it as another attempt to take over the world and steamroll all mobile phone users into using Google? I'm interested in your opinion.

 

[SteveOBHave]

Saying the iphone is the 'current peak in mobile phone interface and desirability (yes not to everyone but as the media represents etc.)' is rather a nonsensical comment! But yes the media is hyping up the iphone, however the media certainly doesnt make the iphone out to be the peak of mobiles - not one bit! (Apart from perhaps the States - where they dont have as advanced phones). And even the general concensus of the public in the UK dont believe it is the 'peak'!

I guess it depends on where you look - what would you say is the current 'peak in phone interface and desirability'? I can't honestly think of any other mobiles that garner as much interest as the iPhone. The N95 did ok for a short while but that has lost some of it's novelty as will the iPhone eventually. It's an observation and I quite happily accept that you and others may have a differing opinion but from my perception that it attracts more interest and is more innovative than many of the other phones out there. I honestly think that if it weren't for the ridiculous pricing structure that the iPhone is based on, they'd be selling in droves.

Not being argumentative, I am interested in your opinion, but what do you see as being the better mobiles out there? Which do you perceive to be the phones that the public consider to be the 'peak'?

Like I said the iphone's OS is good, and this is the good thing about the iphone - that and the screen. As far as hardware in general, its nothing groundbreaking (form factor has been done before) and its specs are beaten hands down by other phones on the market. I am not too sure what you meant by your comment on the iphone being a future path of the phone industry - if you are talking about form factor/touch screen this well be true, but please remember it certainly isnt the first.

I was meaning the form factor and interface, also the step toward the more intuitive UI. I certainly don't think that the limited capability of the phone is the be all. I'm sure you understand that I don't glorify the iPhone in any way but I do see it as a step in the right direction. There are always going to be refinements like a flash and 3G browsing, GPS etc.

On Android -chillout, dont jump to conclusions! I didnt say I dont like it. I just said I dont know whats so awesome about it, I dont get why people seem to like it so much on here - because to me it doesnt look anything too special. Like I said above, I was expecting more from google - more imagination, more innovation - the android in its current form isnt an OS winner. Tell me what is so good about it?

I like it much the same way as I like the iPhone interface, it looked like they had spent some real time working on an intuitive interface. Fair enough it doesn't leap out at you the same way the iPhone interface does and perhaps I am confusing the issue by looking at the OS as more than what it currently does and what it looks like. I'm looking at it from a perspective of what it can be which is whatever the user wants it to be.

Not to be offensive but I think it is a little narrow minded to define it is its current form. I think it is more important to see it for what it could be.

 

[SteveOBHave]

On Android, I have repeatedly said - 'in its current form'. Which is why I am not impressed at the moment - I cant see how you find in impressive thats all. Of course in the future it could be, I have said nothing otehrwise. I was hoping for some truely innovative different OS - which in its current form it isnt. hence my bemusement with people who think Android is awesome at the moment..

I understand your perspective. I agree it's nothing revolutionary at this stage as a stand alone interface but the concept of an open source OS supported by one of the largest corporation in the world is. The simple fact that the OS is open source and totally editable is in my opinion truely innovative. It's that aspect that produces my perception of Android being awesome.