A group of companies, led by Google, today announced the formation of the Open Handset Alliance (OHA) and the development of Android, a Linux based software platform for mobile devices. Other companies involved include T-Mobile, Qualcomm, HTC, Samsung and Motorola and the first phones based on Android are scheduled to be available in the second half of 2008. Read on for more.
Read on in the full article.
Great thoughts, Rafe. My concerns are still there though i.e. seeing Google tying deals with carriers and setting up ad-financed models. Carriers might have to bend themselves over with GSM based revenues losing against WiFi, the rest of the story would be obvious then. Google=1984
Let's not forget: It never was the superior technology that won the game!
I'm sure we will see ad financed stuff in the future (most services will be paid for that way). However that is totally independent of the OS.
At the end of the day I think its far more likely Google will have a software / service suite (funded by advertising) on all the major mobile software platforms. I'm sure others will do much the same. There wont be one dominant platform but S60 looks set to be the biggest ones for the forseeable future (if only due to Nokia's dominant market share).
Hope I got it...So what you are saying is that Google's approach will not be sustainable in terms of it's uniqueness PLUS it is not to be expected that the whole market logics will be turned on it's head by them. Good news for a change. Thx for your response!
Yes that's right. Google doesn't need to do an OS. I imagine they want one because it will give them more control. I also suspect they would, in the end, settle for open platforms in general.
My point was there is not enough behind Android (the platform) to make it a significant part of the market in the future (I may be wrong of course). Android has the potential to be disruptive and change the mobile industry, but without a significant share of actual devices it will not happen. Android's key challenge will be around persuading manufacturers to use it and then persuading operators to accept it as a platform.
This does not mean Google's mobile activities will 'fail'. Google could (and will) implement its vision on other open platforms (in a way its already started doing this, in a very limited way, with the native S60 Google Maps application). However (as an aside) I guess they want to promote the web as a platform more than anything else since it is what they know best.
Google is right in one sense - too many phones run on closed platform (the PR incorrectly suggest Google is doing the first open platform - see MobHappy for more on this, also techtype). The Android announcement will probably do all open platforms (whether Symbain, Microsoft, Access etc) a favour since it will focus attention on the idea of openness on phones (remember Europe is ahead of the US in this area) much like the iPhone focused attention on the potential for touch as a user interaction method.
Don't know where to start, I like your comments but I think that is too evident that you are biased (ok, I can see by myself that the site is called allaboutsymbian). Perhaps, I would have appreciated a more balance review of the google platform...
Oh dear. This is a disappointingly defensive article. I expected more balanced reportage from a quality outlet like AAS. Look, I like Symbian with the best of them, but there's no point in getting your knickers in a twist at potential threats coming along to threaten Symbian's 74% global market share. a.) It was inevitable at some point, and b.) It is most definitely a good thing for Symbian as it will boot them up the backside and mean better and cheaper handsets, or worst case scenario (market pressure from a free and better competitor causes Symbian to ultimately dwindle and collapse) - we get an even better platform with the qualities that made Symbian great. I'm not saying that WILL happen, but if it does, people's loyalties should lie with the Symbian ideology (a good, powerful, open OS with lots of software), not Symbian itself. Lets not get all dogmatic about a particular platform. Then you'll be just like those awful Windows Mobile fanboys 😉
Has anyone registered "allaboutandroid.com" yet? 😉 (Mad rush for domain registration services ensues....)
I can't see the defenciveness myself. A number of these coalitions have sprung up before offering just this and producing naff all or having non-GPL elements so the system isn't truely open. Note how Motorola previously gave up on Linux to return to Symbian based devices. Competition is good mind, and I've no doubt it could change things, but can't see it making that many in-roads much like Windows Smartphone seems to have failed to. Also advertising mobile phones, either they've gone mad or think that people really will swallow anything to get a cheaper mobile.
Has anyone noticed that Moto have their eggs in just about all the baskets - UIQ, Android, Windows Mobile, the old Linux.
Are they hedging their bets or just wanting to make a complete hash of all the platforms like they've done so far? MPX220 or Z8 anyone?
Sorry you're disappointed in the article - at the end of the day it is my opinion. I was trying to provide some perspective on the announcement which is already receiving a lot of positive press mainly because of the association with Google. I feel the points raised are valid, but, being self-criitcial, perhaps I could have looked more at the positive aspects (mainly revolving around the power of the Google brand and associated R&D and financial strength). I'd also like to underline the point that I rather think OS will become irrelevant (or rather commoditised), it will be the run times and services on top of them where the innovation happens.
In all fairness I probably should have waited until we know more (the technical announcements and SDKs will answer a lot of questions).
There are most definitely threats to Symbian but I would not (yet) count Android as one of them. There is no way Symbian will retain its current market share over the next few years. Personally I think Windows Mobile, Mobile Linux (manufacturers own versions + see blow) and possibly LiMo (assuming they can ship something) are the prime candidates in terms of open OSs. Moreover I think the proprietary OSs will be around long that has previously been supposed. The two biggest potential threats are the commoditisation of the OS mentioned above and current licensees looking elsewhere. If this were to happen it would be more a case of S60 or UIQ running on a different OS (e.g. Linux kernel) rather than them switching to Android.
And absolutely the important thing is openess in general. Open platforms (from whoever) are the future. There is a commercial reality to be considered though. Its not a simple debate (i.e. which costs less, which is technically better, which has the best position etc. etc.)
Anyway hopefully this explains some of my thinking.
st3ph3n wrote:Has anyone noticed that Moto have their eggs in just about all the baskets - UIQ, Android, Windows Mobile, the old Linux.Are they hedging their bets or just wanting to make a complete hash of all the platforms like they've done so far? MPX220 or Z8 anyone?
I think it would be fair to say that Motorola strategy is not terribly cohesive at this moment in time.
Motorola are committed to continuing development of their own Linux platform MOTOMAGX (in around 50% of their handsets by 2009 IIRC), but that doesn't stop them looking elsewhere. They've also recently acquired 50% of UIQ and it's not entirely clear how much they intend to use UIQ (they've said multimedia handsets, especially in Europe, but also in the US - that leaves room for wide interpretation). In reality Motorola will probably try a number of different things for the next few years and see what works well.
Interestingly the Apache 2 license associated with Android means (maybe I think, not an expert of the terms) Motorola could potentially use parts of it in MOTOMAGX.
EDIT (separate to point above, but related to OHA topic): This article on The Register is worth a read. The point about the niche for two box solutions is particularly interesting (e.g. think web tablet companions and the like).
Ciao,
I have a stupid question, why the Open Handset Alliance� is trademarked?
Isn't this platform open source license?
Alessandro
Just to add, if you see the web as the application platform of the future, the OS of the future is irrelevant.
If people start accessing web-based apps instead of native apps, it won't matter whether they're using Symbian, Windows Mobile, Linux or even a desktop PC.
People will be able to use the same apps on many different devices and switch between them at will, without paying any attention to what OS the browser runs on. The data is stored online, and the apps run online, with the device and its browser acting merely as a way to access those apps and render the data they send.
It could be that these "OS wars" will become totally irrelevant over the next 10 to 20 years. I know that's been predicted before during the 1990s when there was talk of Java replacing Windows, but things like Google Maps etc really do have a mass market following nowadays in a way that early Java web apps never did. Modern web apps can be genuinely useful, and not just novelties.
You will always need an OS to run on-board hardware stuff like Bluetooth, camera, telephony etc, and indeed to run the browser itself, but these features may all reach a "good enough" point where people don't need them to get any better. In that case, people would turn to web-based apps to extend the usefulness of their phone and discover new features.
I saw the thing about 2 box solutions, and couldn't help thinking, "why the hell would you want 2 boxes?" Each to their own and all that.
As pointed out in the comments section on El Reg, while the OS may be free, the various licences for software technology people expect on their phone isn't, so there will still be costs involved, so probably won't make things much cheaper.
Also Linux IMHO will just be a willy waving exercise for the geeks, where they recompile their kernel for fun at the weekend and it's open source so they can stick two fingers up at "the man" by using it. Real world and people still won't care what OS their phone runs just like now. To me for Linux to matter in the mobile market they need to revolutionise it in a way that I'll get my phone from a hardware supplier then select what OS I want it to run, be it Symbian, Linux, or Windoze Mobile, then allow me later to download and install an alternative, i.e. I buy it with Symbian, then can potentially download a Linux distro for it and install that. Problem is you are then overcomplicating the mobile phone, something that average Joe believes happened far too long ago anyway.
Krisse, don't even get me started on this "web based apps" malarkey, it's wrong on so many levels.
Krisse, don't even get me started on this "web based apps" malarkey, it's wrong on so many levels.
It's mostly wrong NOW, with unreliable, expensive and slow connections, and the rather low resolution displays and awkward input methods of current devices.
But think how far we've come over the last 10 years, and how far we will go in the next 20.
10 years ago many phones couldn't even do text messages, and those that could often had a display that only showed ten characters at a time. It must have seemed absurd that people would spend billions on SMS services.
In fact you don't even have to wait to see how far web-based apps might go...
Look at email, that started out as an entirely client-based app but nowadays more and more people use it entirely through web-based apps. It wouldn't be at all surprising if a majority of people used email through web-based apps.
Look at those web-based games supposedly written for the iPhone which actually worked on S60 phones too, because they use a similar browser. That's a near-perfect example of web-based apps making the OS irrelevant, and it'll become a perfect example when higher resolution S60 touchscreen devices appear next year.
In fact, you might want to read the article I wrote about this, which goes over the advantages and disadvantages:
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/Will_smartphones_need_anything_more_than_a_browser.php
I saw the thing about 2 box solutions, and couldn't help thinking, "why the hell would you want 2 boxes?" Each to their own and all that.
I can tell you exactly why someone would want two boxes:
It might not be to your taste, but surely you can see why some people might prefer this arrangement?
"it would be more a case of S60 or UIQ running on a different OS (e.g. Linux kernel)"
I don't know how that would work out, if it would even be worthwhile trying to port the whole Active Objects/ Scheduler architecture.
As a developer, with the new iPhone SDK and the Google mobile OS coming out I am going to spend most of the first half of 2008 training and learning I think.
Loads of work in porting apps though, Good times!
Unregistered wrote:"it would be more a case of S60 or UIQ running on a different OS (e.g. Linux kernel)"I don't know how that would work out, if it would even be worthwhile trying to port the whole Active Objects/ Scheduler architecture.
As a developer, with the new iPhone SDK and the Google mobile OS coming out I am going to spend most of the first half of 2008 training and learning I think.
Loads of work in porting apps though, Good times!
Yes I agree, I'm not sure how easy this would be to do. Anything like this, if it were to happen, would be some time in the future. For the next few years S60 on Symbian looks set to be sitting pretty.
Agreed with the responses after mine above;
yes - the OS is increasingly unimportant in one way, i.e. it is and will be far less of a buying consideration for Joe Punter (and for Joe Corporate Punter too if the enterprise can interface with web apps on phones to the same extent as they do with Windows Mobile currently).
*However*, the OS issue will come into play where it impacts or enables functionality or cost or size/weight. E.g., if there's a phone with an OS coming from a vendor who writes bloated, buggy, resource hogging, expensive software (We'll call them "Microsoft" for the purposes of this example) that causes my phone to be larger, hotter, suck battery life, not work very well, and cost more, then even if it can on the face of it run all the standard web-apps-on-phones, I would still prefer another phone with that lighter, smaller, cheaper, stable, more efficient OS (we'll call them "Symbian" or "Android" for this example) that can also run standard web-apps-on-phones.
yes-Android could be a complete pile of poo, we don't know yet. However, with the source, the community can disect it and make it better, and secondly, given it's Google writing it, and all those other folks behind it, I'd say odds are very much in favour of it actually being really rather good. I'm not going to slag it off *just* because it's becoming fashionable to be cynical about big, rich, increasingly powerful companies called Google. Microsoft for example get and deserve a good kicking from some quarters (though technically ignorant business executives only see the surface of their success) because all their software is utter s**t and as a company they are close to being morally bankrupt, not because they are rich, powerful and successful.
Anyway, all will become clear on Android soon. More competition is great, and I actually think increased fragmentation at one level spurs on the industry to create standards, usually. The best thing about the J2ME fragmentation disaster is to show the industry how bad it can get, and if there's an ounce of collective sense, prevent it from happening again.
No one can sensibly argue though that Symbian are not in a great position, and deservedly so, they've earnt it.
Given Motorola's past history with on/off UIQ relations, a cynic might venture that they've bought a share in UIQ to do precisely nothing with it. An untended platform would not attract developers, which would hurt Sony Ericsson and UIQ ie. kill the platform. This would leave a clearer playing field for MOTOMAGIX.
krisse wrote:It's mostly wrong NOW, with unreliable, expensive and slow connections, and the rather low resolution displays and awkward input methods of current devices.
krisse wrote:
In fact you don't even have to wait to see how far web-based apps might go...Look at email, that started out as an entirely client-based app but nowadays more and more people use it entirely through web-based apps. It wouldn't be at all surprising if a majority of people used email through web-based apps.
And these people need their heads looking at, tried web-based e-mail, it was crap, went back to doing it properly. Again I don't have to look at adverts or pay to read my mail.
krisse wrote:
Look at those web-based games supposedly written for the iPhone which actually worked on S60 phones too, because they use a similar browser. That's a near-perfect example of web-based apps making the OS irrelevant, and it'll become a perfect example when higher resolution S60 touchscreen devices appear next year.In fact, you might want to read the article I wrote about this, which goes over the advantages and disadvantages:
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/Will_smartphones_need_anything_more_than_a_browser.php
Big whoop, oooh ooh ooh, J2ME games written for dumb phones also worked on smart phones, much like erm, flash games for PCs will work in a web browser. It just makes something possible, it doesn't make it good, and then look at the hardware and more importantly the hit on the battery to get a decent performance from this crap. You'll end up with phones with the battery life of a windoze based PDA that is if you use these systems on a phone, unlikely as data input is so unwieldy if you have anything short of a qwerty keyboard, and then again I'd want my own office software where I can store my own IP on my own data storage.
krisse wrote:
I can tell you exactly why someone would want two boxes:It might not be to your taste, but surely you can see why some people might prefer this arrangement?
I did look at getting an N810 and a separate mobile over the E90, but gave in in the end as the reason I got the 9210 in the first place was to move away from having to have a Psion Series 5 in one pocket and a 6210 in another. And I tend to wear a trenchcoat, you'd need plenty of pocket space to live semi-converged, or a bag in which case get a laptop.
ajck wrote:*However*, the OS issue will come into play where it impacts or enables functionality or cost or size/weight.
Yeah I think its important to remember there can be a lot of hidden value in the OS and I don't think this is always very widely acknowledged. (e.g. Symbian ability to support single chip solutions has given it a big leg up in allowing it to power cheaper phones).
yes-Android could be a complete pile of poo, we don't know yet. However, with the source, the community can disect it and make it better, and secondly, given it's Google writing it, and all those other folks behind it, I'd say odds are very much in favour of it actually being really rather good.
Google success outside its home turf of search and advertising connected to that is debatable. Especially when it comes to monetisation. But yes there's a reasonable chance they'll produce something good. I think it might take a while to catch up with competitors. Plus technical merit wont be enough.
I'm not going to slag it off *just* because it's becoming fashionable to be cynical about big, rich, increasingly powerful companies called Google.
At the same time just because its got Google in it (see above)... While some have said Android / OHA would have been dismissed as slideware if Google weren't involved the better question is what does Google really bring to the table?
I guess part of my scepticism is that there is so much potential but the politics and commercial reality of the mobile world means it will never be fulfilled.
Anyway, all will become clear on Android soon. More competition is great.
Absolutely. Way too many unanswered questions about how things will work. I'm definitely less sceptical that I was initially, but I still think there's a lot of ifs and buts (certainly short term). Longer term does get interesting, but then that has if and buts too.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to provide only a better web browser for existing mobile phones and their OSs? Why in the world would anyone want yet another OS? Aren't we finally out of the OS race? What about the cloud?
IMHO, far better approach is providing a rich JavaScript API in a browser for access and management of mobile device (and not just mobile device, but for PCs as well).
Than, a web application could be *the* mobile/PC environment. Aren't we all for a OS-less computers, with standard browser only running on the device.
OSs, installing software, and maintaining it seem so retro to me, and Google had significantly helped that to become past. This new move seems like a move backwards.