Big article on the front page of the NYT business section about Andrew Rubin - formerly of Apple, WebTV, Danger (creators of the Sidekick,) and now director of mobile platforms at Google. In other words, he's in charge of the Google phone, which isn't itself a phone but a mobile operating system (a modified version of Linux) that phone handset manufacturers can use to run their products. There isn't any information in the article about the phone because Google is still not talking about it, but if we believe the Wall St. Journal an announcement from them is very near. There will be a ton of press about this, so I guess the Times is just jumping to the head of the line with this background piece on the man running the show.

I have a bunch of thoughts on this, but no time to get them down. Maybe I'll leave some comments here over the next few days. But one thing that really struck me, although it's not touched on in the article, is the extent to which Google and Apple, while competing with each other, may create the perfect storm which disrupts the rather staid telecom industry.

The speculation, especially given Rubin's background, and Google's track record with open eco systems, is that the Google mobile OS will be *very* open to 3rd party development. Telecoms don't necessarily like open products because they are dinosaurs intent on bringing their own destruction with the unholy alliance of closed platforms and user hostile product designs. Apple tends towards the closed side, but is very strong on design (both physical and UI.) I think this might lead to an interesting struggle where the consumer will be the winner.

If it wasn't for Apple and the iPhone, I think the telecoms might line up against Google, and just not permit phones running the Google operating system to connect to their networks. But because of the iPhone's success I think they will be more open to it as the non AT&T operators search for a counter to AT&T's iPhone exclusive. So that's one win. But then, in the other direction, it may well be the case that the openness of the Google platform will tip Apple - which presently seems to be trying to exactly straddle the line - over into the more open camp. Another win for consumers. We get better phones, with better design, more open to outside development - and the cellular operators wind up with less control. I like.
- jim 11-05-2007 1:51 am

Here's the official posting on the Google blog. Sounds very open and developer-centric which is good. But we won't see the first phones until 2nd half of 2008. That's a long way out.
- jim 11-05-2007 8:26 pm


I like open.

I've been a VZW subscriber for years, primarily because of their nationwide coverage. But as phones become more capable, they've become much more intrusive in determining which features of the phone are enabled, and how the UI works. I suppose on the latter point I wouldn't mind so much, except VZW sux big time at UI design. They screw up basic stuff, like the speakerphone button on my phonef becomes non-responsive because there's an alert on screen that I haven't responded to. WTF? That's just doofus design work.

However, the issue of disabling features is really arrogant. Could you imagine your ISP not only forcing you to run their software, but deciding which ports on your laptop were functional?

I certainly hope the Google-Apple competition changes the rules. But I worry that without fundamental legal/regulatory change, the US will be farther and farther behind Europe in not just interoperability, but basic functionality.
- mark 11-05-2007 9:13 pm


Completely agree. I'm basically hopeless about the possibility of legal/regulatory change though. The phone companies are so in bed with the government (especially after all this wire tapping stuff!) that I seriously doubt anything could be passed that they didn't sign off on. But I think the market can work. The struggling cellular operators (like Sprint) will be forced into a more open posture in order to attract customers, and when that works the other carriers will have to follow suit or lose subscribers. It will be a slow process though.

As for the rest of the world, I agree that the US is behind. The only thing that looks okay (last time I checked at least) was "unlimited" data. European plans seem expensive (or they want to bill you by the bit.)
- jim 11-05-2007 9:32 pm


Five problems with Google's Android:

Android reminds me a lot of the first cellphone OS I ever worked on, way back in the Mobile Paleolithic - 1997. "Liberty" was written in C++, not Java, and it used its own kernel rather than Linux. But these are details. The basic idea of an object-oriented application framework is more or less the same. I suspect Android is also not unlike the Danger Research (Sidekick) OS, as some of the same people are involved.

In other words, Android is a conservative design. It does nothing to disabuse anyone of the general view held by most programmers today, which is that the era of interesting software is over. Done, finito, stick a fork in it. Certainly this is the safe position. And when you have a trillion-peso market cap, why not play it safe? I suspect that if I worked for Google and you asked me to build a handset OS, I might well come up with something much like Android.

So I can't really blame Google for the fact that Android strikes me as kind of lame.

- jim 11-21-2007 4:04 pm





add a comment to this page:

Your post will be captioned "posted by anonymous,"
or you may enter a guest username below:


Line breaks work. HTML tags will be stripped.