T-Mobile To Launch Android Tablet 101
nandemoari writes "T-Mobile is planning to use Google's open source operating system 'Android' on devices that blur the line between cellphone and home PC. In addition, Samsung says they will also produce Android phones, but need to work out the kinks first. Both announcements come shortly after HP revealed that it is investigating the idea of using Android to power some of its low-cost netbook computers in place of Windows."
Why Not Existing Phones? Am I Missing Something? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, I've got Linux running on my Nintendo DS [wikipedia.org] from a community effort and it seems to support much of the DS' devices like the touch screen. You're telling me Google or Samsung or interested parties couldn't do the same for an existing phone? Am I missing something regarding hardware requirements? I mean, I know it uses Java libraries for the applications but a lot of existing phones should be beefy enough for that, right?
Re:Why Not Existing Phones? Am I Missing Something (Score:5, Insightful)
why do we need to feature new phones?
Because the phone manufacturers and networks would love you to buy a new phone and sign a new 2 year contract. If they allowed you to upgrade your software, the only company that wins is Google.
WTF are you talking about???? (Score:4, Insightful)
Android is Open Source . Did you miss the memo?
Google only wins if we win. It is a symbiotic, and very healthy relationship type known as interdependence, which you may want to read about here [wikipedia.org].
Oh yeah, and one final thing. Google already won. We already won. I have a G1 running Linux with root access and the ability to cross-compile whatever kernel, libraries, and applications I want and install, boot, and use them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem isn't that "Google wins", but that "the people trying to sell you a new phone & contract lose".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still haven't purchased an Android Phone... (Score:1)
Re:I still haven't purchased an Android Phone... (Score:4, Insightful)
which seems counter-intuitive to the concept of an open platform
Not at all. Android can't have drivers for a technology if there's no way for its authors to get their hands on specs, short of reverse engineering each piece of hardware which is prohibitively time intensive.
Re: (Score:1)
take a common base for a platform (be it software, hardware, food - yes, as in beer), then declare it "open" and release the specifications for it to be seen, modified and reused at will
this obviously has the double advantage of letting people add or subtract parts, but you do either of these "operations" at your own risk...
to give an example (different for the usual car one): take water, you can add CO2 and have fun or you can r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes we totally can do that. In fact, many people already have. The hard part is writing the drivers with no hardware documentation.
Re:Why Not Existing Phones? Am I Missing Something (Score:5, Funny)
1. Joe Sixpack is gonna use whatever OS is on the device they buy.
2. Commercial driver support is needed for this to avoid the hell that linux drivers can become.
People using Android on a phone do not want to mess with the OS on their appliance. For adoption to happen, people must have a smooth transition, and a cobbled-together Android distro for $HARDWARE will turn off a lot of potential users.
That said, do you really want an Android with a Razor? What could it possible need to shave?!.
Or an Android with a Chocolate, or a Blackberry? My wife would leave me in a second for a robot that takes orders and comes bearing sweets.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My wife would leave me in a second for a robot that takes orders and comes bearing sweets.
Fortunately for you I'm already married -- what's that honey... OK, I'll have it ready in a minute -- GTG.
Re: (Score:2)
If your wife does say she's leaving you for a robot, remind her of the sexual issues. I'm told their lovemaking is rather mechanical.
Marketing is not technology (Score:4, Interesting)
Marketing IS technology (Score:1)
if you were to create a technology to do these three thing, people would call it marketing.
Re:Marketing is not technology (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure the phone/OS being attached to Google is a big deal or game changer. What we're seeing is not phone vendors selling phones to the public but Telco's still selling phones tied to their networks. Apple controls the iPhone OS much like Microsoft controls the OS for some phones. but, the difference with Android is that vendors are allowed to take Android outside its basic design. For instance, Microsoft, for over a decade would not let vendors change the desktop UI phone users saw on their WindowsCE/PocketPC/Mobile phones. Only late last year after much complaining from one vendor did Microsoft allow the vendor to define what the UI looked like for the customer. Microsoft also dictated the screen resolution. Android give alot of power/control to the device or telco vendor and also provides alot of backend stuff with the application store end of it. Unfortunately, we're finding out that the Telco's are still given ways to block apps so Android is not yet the "user" friendly phone platform. Telco's like a massive amount of control and they are still getting it.
LoB
Re:Marketing is not technology (Score:4, Interesting)
You've touched on something I've been trying to understand for a while. I'm a big proponent of OSS. When I first heard about Android I figured it would be similar to Linux except on my cellphone. From what I've seen it's the same old bullshit as usual. Tied to certain carriers, certain apps are blocked, etc.
Would someone with an android phone or maybe an android dev explain what exactly is open source about it?
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen it's the same old bullshit as usual. Tied to certain carriers, certain apps are blocked, etc.
Would someone with an android phone or maybe an android dev explain what exactly is open source about it?
G1 owner and hobbyist Android app developer here.
Android is open source in that you can download the source code for the OS, recompile it, redistribute it with or without modifications, recompile it, bundle it with hardware you sell, and so on. Just like Linux. That means you can expect to see it on a lot of hardware, since companies can use it for the cost of porting (no license needed to get the code or distribute it).
That doesn't mean the hardware is open source, though -- just like Linux. That's up to t
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a win-win to me; they've left the back door open so you can work around it while allowing them to at least pay lip-service to the request. I don't see how they had much choice, anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
most mobile phones, from free up through the $300 models with WinCE on them, have just plain horrid UIs. the iPhone came along and, far from being perfect or even close to it, didn't totally suck. and people were amazed, and wanted to know why their phone didn't not suck. Android also doesn't suck, so now people will have more options. and the best thing the iPhone's done for the industry is making other manufacturers realize that, in the near future, their i
Re: (Score:2)
most mobile phones, from free up through the $300 models with WinCE on them, have just plain horrid UIs. the iPhone came along and, far from being perfect or even close to it, didn't totally suck. and people were amazed, and wanted to know why their phone didn't not suck.
Windoze suck! Amiga rulez!
So you think they suck, and the Iphone doesn't - that's an assertion of an opinion, can you tell us why, with evidence or examples?
As an example: my phone's UI doesn't suck. Good things about it are that it can cop
Re: (Score:2)
compare the SMS interface. the chat-like representation blows away pretty much everything else. application selection beat most things (on par with palm), scrolling beat pretty much everything, zooming beat pretty much everything, soft keyboard beat pretty much everything (despite still being the weakest part of the UI, imho), popup notification (even before 3.0 beat most things (and i
Re: (Score:2)
As an example: my phone's UI doesn't suck. Good things about it are that it can copy and paste, and if I want to run applications from a unofficial site, or use it as a modem ("tethering"), it doesn't need to be hacked (it Just Works). All good interfaces have objective reasons why they are good - I would be curious for some examples?
So when talking about interfaces, you run off several features as evidence of why it doesn't suck?
The parent wasn't talking about tethering, or running unofficial apps, he was talking about the interface (copy and paste is the only thing you mentioned which *is* a UI issue, and agreed it's crazy they didn't have it in from day 1 on the iPhone).
Compared to Nokia, Motorola and Samsung phones, the UI on Android or the iPhone is far far ahead. Things like picture manipulation, app launching, tabs (on Android),
Re: (Score:2)
The Android OS is separate from the Hardware, in other words, the OS is a
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's my understanding that Android is a mobile OS based in Linux [wikipedia.org] so why do we need to feature new phones? Can't we take an already popular model (like the Chocolate or Razr or whatever the devil it is the kids consume these days) and just compile it down to match the architecture and write the drivers for the devices on the phone?
The motorola razr2 v8 already comes with Linux:
https://opensource.motorola.com/sf/projects/razr2v8 [motorola.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why Not Existing Phones? Am I Missing Something (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Because mobile phone hardware architecture is far from being standard. There are too many options and no standards to speak off. It can have two processors (application and baseband), or one, or the two can reside on the same die. There multitude of buses and interfaces. It takes many man years to create a decent mobile phone (Openmoko anyone ?)
Re: (Score:2)
you can do this in Europe because they have an open system and people buy phones and then pick what service they went to enable for this phone. You know, competition on performance of the network. Here in the US, it's all about the lockin and preventing competition. The Telco's sell the phones already customized and tied to their service so you have to buy the phones from them in most cases. You can find unlocked phones but they are usually 2+ year old models already or going out of production. Telco's don'
Re: (Score:1)
You can buy unlocked phones in the U.S., too. On AT&T's and T-Mobile's networks, there's nothing preventing you from doing it. Verizon and the other CDMA carriers are a bit tougher, and you do admittedly get mostly older phones on the secondary market there, but that's what you get for going with a proprietary, non-standard technology.
I use T-Mobile and have bought my own GSM phones for years; sometimes I've chosen to buy phones that are a few years behind the bleeding edge because I'm a cheap bastard
Re: (Score:2)
that's what I said in one sentence. The fact that people can't purchase the latest greatest phones for any network is a limiting factor. We'll see if Android eventually breaks that model in the US.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
If you had a G1 or newer hardware, you'd have never asked the question, because you'd know that the second question's answer is yes, and in a big way .
You might be able to run Android on the Motorola RaZr, but what would be the point?
... and that is just off the top of my head. I suspect the processing pow
minimum feature set ... (Score:2)
touch screen
storage
net access of some kind
gps/compass/g sensors etc
I don't get it (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:hmmmm (Score:4, Informative)
No, nobody is as lame as Verizon.
been debating: iPhone versus Android (Score:1, Interesting)
I've been debating on learning to write software for the iPhone or the Android OS. I'm thinking if T-Mobile has a nice tablet PC based on Android that this will probably make me decide to go with Android since it uses technologies I already know how to work with.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
For something like 3d games, you'll have to decide on a platform. If you're doing something that can be rendered in a browser but still requires hardware access, you might want to take a look at the opensource PhoneGap project. That way you can write in a somewhat cross platform way and target both android and iphone devices.
To distribute or for yourself? (Score:2)
I'm thinking if T-Mobile has a nice tablet PC based on Android that this will probably make me decide to go with Android since it uses technologies I already know how to work with.
The question you need to ask is, are you writing stuff mostly for yourself or for other people to use? Are you thinking to write something targeting the tablet specifically?
On the iPhone, free or paid app you are going to get a larger user base.
On Android, you are going to have a smaller number of people using the app but potenti
Re: (Score:2)
"On the iPhone, free or paid app you are going to get a larger user base. On Android, you are going to have a smaller number of people using the app"
OK right now there are more iPhones than Android phones out there. I bet in 3 years time Androids will outnumber iPhones by 3 to 1 or better, as there's just the one iPhone and the one carrier for it (usually) but a near infinite possible range of 'Droids..
Stats do not point that way (Score:2)
OK right now there are more iPhones than Android phones out there. I bet in 3 years time Androids will outnumber iPhones by 3 to 1 or better, as there's just the one iPhone and the one carrier for it (usually) but a near infinite possible range of 'Droids..
Yes, there will be many more Android phones in the next few years. However there are a ton of Windows Mobile phones right now, and that has not stopped the iPhone from surpassing them in sales. What I see in a few years is the iPhone OS having a command
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At this stage I'd go with Android simply because of the fact that there are more Android devices planed. From HTC the G1/Dream is released and the G2/Magic is slated for release mid year. Samsung have claimed to have an Android device out by EOY,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not, but people do like free things. I'm hoping that the more Android devices come out, the bigger the market of free apps will get.
Re: (Score:2)
I
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like paper books, but only for things I want to keep, if I could have all my textbooks in E-book form I'd be very happy, as for my nove
Re: (Score:1)
Orthogonal (Score:5, Funny)
> ... that blur the line between cellphone and home PC.
I always wanted a desktop cellphone.
Re:Orthogonal (Score:5, Interesting)
Well verizon are selling something like that
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/vzhub/overview.jsp [verizonwireless.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Here ya go. [sparkfun.com]
Re: (Score:1)
It'd be a bitch to text on!
Re: (Score:1)
It's about 40 years late. (Score:1)
I always wanted a desktop cellphone.
Cell phones designed for home use are sort of the 'next big thing,' at least to the cell companies. Each of the 3 major carriers seems to either have one out already, or in the works.
It makes sense -- right now, they've pretty much saturated the market for cell phones: I don't know a man, woman, or child in the U.S. that wants a cell phone that doesn't have one (people who truly can't afford them excepted, although the barrier to entry is getting lower by the month; ther
Is this a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't seem like a good idea to me. I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if they make something great, but this just strikes me as a device that we don't need.
A cell phone (I've got an iPhone) is designed to be portable. I'm just not going to use a portable 8" tablet all the time. A cell phone should be small, but it's portable so I can whip it out at any time to look something up.
Something larger, a home PC, is too big. Even if we take something like a netbook, it's bigger than something I want to carry around all the time. I don't think there are enough people who will want to carry something that size around all the time.
I'd expect battery life to be a problem, at least if you want to keep it light.
There may be a reason that people aren't rushing to buy stuff bigger than Nokia 810s. As other cell phones get more powerful and easier to use for the web, there doesn't seem to be a big reason to carry something bigger. You quickly get to the point where a netbook would fit you better.
But something between a netbook and a cell phone? I'm skeptical of the size of that market.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you move to consumptive web browsing, such as playing Pandora radio, checking stocks and weather, reading e-mails without responding more than a very few words, reading news, etc., then that can be done on an iPhone sized device, although personally I'd like a little bigger screen, or at leas
Re: (Score:1)
When you're home, you plug the phone into a dock, with larger I/O. Duh.
Re: (Score:1)
You have no idea what women carry on their bags.
Room enough for a netbook, even battery back integrated in bag.
Some integreated social network software and you have a new bussiness line in your computer production
Dell? Apple? Are you hearing?
Re: (Score:1)
An excellent point.
And it will be interesting to watch 50% of the population miss out on new gadgets (or have to awkwardly carry them around), because they are constrained by centuries old social gender roles. (Or perhaps the old requirement about having to cram everything into a small pocket will finally be done away with - of course, they'll be "netbook bags", not handbags...)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Thats where a few years of seduction experience is more useful than a 20 something's decade in moms basement.
Woman can seduce their way onto any OS or system or network.
Woman programme you and get to enjoy bags of any size.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be nicer than a laptop for reading in bed.
I really enjoy having a g1 phone, but I only put up with a 3 inch screen when I'm not near a full sized computer.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm almost there, I currently have only one PC, a dell-ubuntu mini 9. It is connected at home to my 20 inch CRT and an external dvd drive to watch movies (planning to add a bea
Re: (Score:1)
Who is this "we" that you speak about?
Blurring the line between cellphones and landlines (Score:1)
I'd like to see a cellphone that you could plug into a wired jack.
That would often let you make calls more cheaply and reliably. It would presumably use a lot less battery power, and you might be able to charge the phone off the phoneline. And you would have all your stored contacts, messages and whatnot in the phone, so you wouldn't have to rekey anything.
It would probably need some sort of "locale" support, so that you could use different prefixes when dialling via the cell network or via the landline net
Why not just use Linux? (Score:2)
BTW, the HP article linked to is hosed.
Try: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123852934905974845.html [wsj.com]
Why use Android on a netbook? Will we get the same vibrant community that the Asus Eee PC has - with many custom Linux distros available, most a vast improvement on the crap that Asus ships them with - with HP & Adroid?
Re: (Score:1)
Eh? I just jumped ship from Verizon to T-Mobile for the express purpose of getting better reception at home (yes, I understand, YMMV depending on location), but I also really wanted the G1.
I get MUCH more from my two phones from T-Mobile (family plan) than I could if I had stayed with Verizon and purchased new phones, and I pay the same as my old Verizon rates.
My wife has a WiFi/VoIP capable phone, and it works very well for us. I was impressed at how hands-off the process was, and how nice the calls soun
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
You're never going to get newfangled devices on Verizon. I'd be interested to know what Verizon offered RIM to get the Storm to try and stop the hemorrhage of subscribers to AT&T and the iPhone.
Re: (Score:1)
CDMA is far superior to GSM, but much like Beta vs VHS, the better technology doesn't always win.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually T-Mobiles plans are priced very well.. but phone wise, unless you buy into the G1.. their options for data plans (for phones) suck. For example, I was close to purchasing a Sony Ericson phone that they offer, but could not get an unlimited data plan to go with it, like the G1 has. The choices were 50gb a month or 100gb a month... For all I know either of those MIGHT be enough for me.. but why can't I get the unlimited plan for $4 more than the 100mb like the Google phone ?
Anything to do with Cell phone companies = (Score:1)
ripoff.
wow, why wasn't any of this at the CTIA conference (Score:3, Insightful)
The CTIA 2009 conference was just a few weeks ago and there was almost no news on Android. Now we are hearing from many vendors who where there but showed and said nothing about these products. I even saw one post where a reporter had to ask about Android to find out they were going to ship an Android phone mid-2009. That same reporter noticed that this vendor was only announcing Windows Mobile 7 stuff at the show and _that_ wasn't even targetted for 2009.
Now that we are starting to see/hear about Android products and phones, it really blows me away that businesses still let Microsoft sucker them into defining their marketing. I would not like to see Google or anyone else have to resort to paying customers to pre-announce and pre-promote their products to stall or diminish the value of the partners other products. But this is classic Microsoft and not any new and improved Microsoft. They've done this in the 80s and 80s so change is not in their blood. But what is up with these companies how let them do this and take their money while allowing them to dictate what their customers want, need, or deserve? Does $$$ really buy everything including the future of your company?
It's good to see someone is finally talking about new product showing up this year. I still wonder what kinds of backroom pressure is being exerted to limit these kinds of things.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
The next logical step. (Score:1)
I think the next logical step is to bring to market something between the mobile/PDA and a netbook. I thought the 7" screen of the eeepc was more than enough for me.
I want something small to bring with me to read the internet, check mail, write mail and do simple online tasks. What i dont want in any way, shape or form is a small Windows computer. I want it to just work and no computer has ever done that for me like a mobile phone can.
An android phone with a bigger screen, about 5-6" would suite my needs pe
Re: (Score:1)
Probably a good move (Score:2)
A small device with very long battery life. Also, the Android SDK with Eclipse plugins is a nice dev environment, so there may be lots of small usefull apps. That said, a tablet device might need different types of apps (e.g. geo location may not be of as much use?)
Re: (Score:1)
Even if you were required to supply external power to use the projector feature, this would still rock.
Since they're making tablets and such ... (Score:2)
Here's what I'd like to see in a new tablet. But I doubt I'll see it.
A4 or A5 sized screen
E-ink or similar
Touch-like/pen interface (maybe with a decent type of protection for the screen, like thin layer of glass)
Slimmed down UI for browing and viewing documents. (Linux seems a safe bet here, even gives you access to better flash storage optimizations)
Custom program for displaying pdf-files and the like, where you can write on top of the document. Doesn't have to do recognition, I just want to to put a secon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could also relieve your wallet of it's contents. The iRex 1000 [irextechnologies.com] is pretty close. Pretty spendy (and mostly limited to Windows) as well. Keep dreaming.
Re: (Score:2)
A4 or A5 sized screen
In Amerispeak: letter-sized or half-letter-sized.
I actually own a Motion tablet that's almost letter-sized. But I paid a stiff premium for it. Until this technology gets more commodified, I doubt that you'll see anything affordable.
yes (Score:1)