Google Phone is confirmed, employees already have them in hand
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
Just like the current mystery device, both of those handsets:
- are made by HTC,
- are unlocked GSM handsets,
- are sold directly to individuals by Google,
- and have been given out to Google employees at all-hands meetings.
And Google was directly involved in the design of the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1 / Android Dev Phone 1). For example, they pushed for the debut Android phone to have a five-row keyboard: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10387677-265.html
So none of the concrete facts here (even the rumored ones) are unprecedented. I don't see how Google selling a yet another unlocked handset is a big deal. It certainly won't have a noticeable impact on the US market, competing with subsidized hardware sold by carriers. Just like the ADP1 (T-Mobile G1) and ADP2 (T-Mobile myTouch 3G), carriers will probably have locked version of the exact same phone but at subsidized prices. The ADP is nice for some techies, but for most mainstream US consumers it doesn't make sense to pay for an unlocked phone.
http://googlemobile.blogspot.com/2009/12/android-dogfood-die...
This seems to be different in the USA.
Suppose you are Motorola. You just developed the "Droid" and partnered with Verizon for a well funded marketing campaign. You dumped Windows Mobile in favor of Android, and tied yourself closely to Android OS by calling your phone the "Droid." The Droid is your flagship product.
So, as Motorola, how do you feel about Google developing an official "Google Phone"? How do you feel about the fact that they are doing this with your competitor, HTC? How do you feel about plastering Google logos all over your phone and it's software? How do you feel about the fact that the Droid runs Android 2.0, and the Google Phone will run Android 2.1?
Moreover, if you are LG, or Samsung, will this affect whether you want to partner with Google? If you are Nokia, will you start taking a closer look at Symbian again?
And finally, if you are an average consumer that doesn't read TechCrunch or HN, do you have the faintest idea of the difference between the Droid running Android with Google, the Droid Eris running Android with Google, and the Google Phone running Android?
But Moto needs Google more than Google needs Motorola. And that's why they can pull a move like this and nobody can say boo.
The basic idea of dual microphones to filter background from signal is pretty common.
You don't even need a CPU for that, you can do that with simple electronics. Noise-canceling headphones are freakishly complicated, directional (what is often meant by "noise canceling") microphones are possible with very simple designs.
I wish I could google up a piece on signal processing but my google search is getting dominated by things I can buy.
IF the carriers come up with a reasonable data only plan for it, we can save by not paying for less used voice plan.
Maybe not that bad. Apple can sell the iPod touch at a profit for $200, and the phone hardware can't add that much. It's a long shot, but if Google does this right they could break the stranglehold that the carriers have on the market. That's what I was hoping the iPhone would do until Apple decided it was more profitable to serve AT&T instead of its customers.
The added competition of customers not being locked into contracts is defeated by competing standards. Many GSM phones won't work on T-Mobile's 3G network and most of the handsets engineered specifically for T-Mobile don't work on AT&T's 3G. An unlocked CDMA phone would fair better since you would have legitimate choice between Sprint & Verizon. What we really need is an unlocked GSM/CDMA hybrid and we might see some real competition.
I'll have to check those out. I'm writing some Android software currently, but my phone is an iPhone. I would love to switch (or not switch, if iPhone starts allowing background processes).
Now, the physical keyboard on it is crap, and I wouldn't buy one. But if they made a Droid with only the soft keyboard, I'd camp out.
If it looks like a brick, then it's not going to turn any heads and nobody's going to buy it. The iPhone, despite all its limitations, has sold over 20 million units. Geeks get too caught up on functionality, and miss what really matters in the marketplace.
I just want an Android phone to have great commercial success, so I can program really cool apps. But no phone designer really gets what moves the market, except Apple.
Blackberries are some of the ugliest phones in existence, but I see a lot more of those than I see iPhones. The HTC Magic / Hero / Dream or the Droid is infinitely more beautiful than any of the Blackberries.
(But, Blackberries are not popular because of looks or function; they are popular because many large corporations mandate them. Just like why Windows XP is so popular.)
I just want an Android phone to have great commercial success, so I can program really cool apps.
Nothing is stopping you from programming really cool apps right now. (If it's a money issue, don't worry -- the iPhone was a commercial success but nobody is making a lot of money from really cool apps.)
I'm looking to do something with background processes + network effects (needs enough people using it to make it interesting). I've actually wanted to make apps like this for awhile, and then just realized that smart phones were the perfect vehicle to make it happen, provided a whole bunch of people have ones that enable background processes.
The iPhone would be ideal if it weren't sandboxed. So, I'll be making the alpha for the Android and hoping the platform takes off.
I guess I could make it for the Blackberries and etc, but does anybody buy apps for those?
It seems to me that you really don't get Android. You don't need to have one phone to be a great commercial success to develop for it. You need to think on the long-tail. If you have 50 Android phones, each selling "only" about half-million units, you already have more of a potential market than targeting the iPhone.
The Apple platform has proven itself useless in mobile computing. The Android has proven itself to fill those gaps.
People say they want a physical keyboard.
Desperate iPhone competitors latch onto any competitive advantage they can find, even if that means embracing design features that the iPhone has actively avoided, and given solid reasons for avoiding.
People buy 20 million iPhones.
You could also add: and the geeks who didn't buy the iPhone find that their battery cover falls off if they look at it funny.
(According to an ifixit teardown, 1/4 of the weight of the Palm Pre was due to the physical keyboard. I'd imagine it had similar impact on volume.)
It is a very nice device. I'm now waffling on whether to get this or the Droid as my upgrade from the G1; kinda leaning toward this because of the unlocked nature of it.
the article said tmobile and the networks are not compatible.
I thought the same thing about the "feel" of the phone, at first, but 13 months later, the slider action and buttons and overall function of the phone are as good as when I bought it.
My next phone will hopefully be another HTC with a keyboard that runs Android 2.0 with no visible lagginess.
Overall it's a really well built phone somewhat lacking compared to the faster models on the market these days. I definitely sticking with HTC for my next phone unless we happen to see a CDMA 4th gen iPhone on Sprint.