Especially the thought about “breaking down walled gardens”. I discussed that point in my blog:
http://newsofthefuture.net/index.php?/archives/25-Mobile-OS-Android,-Google-and-the-10m.html
and made a reference to this article.

This is one of the reasons why I want to see the Android SKU. How closely will the apps be tied to the hardware? For that matter, how closely will they be tied to Linux?

One way for Google to provide app security would be to limit the applications to Java only, in a totally sandboxed environment. That could also enable Google to port the SKU to other mobile operating systems.

We should find out this week…

A platform is a real thing i.e. hardware by definition. Programming is using hardware functions of a processor or a family of processors. What is Microsoft Windows 3.0 as a ‘PC platform for everyone’ without Intel’s 80286. And the Internet that has been developed by users on a x86 architecture.

The same is for Google - Intel is offering the Menlow platform with a Silverthorne processor now. That’s all this is about - a x86 architecture for mobile devices. Plus WiMAX supported by Menlow platform now and as ‘the only’ connectivity for Moorestown SoC platform.

Michael Molin

-
GeneTechnics - http://geocities.com/gene_technics/

‘Now, if Google buys a bunch of spectrum in the US, and then deploys a lot of Google phones on that network, that would put some very interesting pressure on the operators.’

I think the US may be the least important market for a company like google to own there own specturm. That is because of the internetwork roaming already commonplace and the fact that everything works on an airtime model. They may find this a market that they could effectively operate as an MVNO similar to how virgin mobile and other operate.

This could be much a much more difficult acheivement in europe. I am thinking largely on the assumption that google will be looking to intergrate VOIP(as in Gtalk voice chatting) into there platform. The european operators survive on a per minute termination charge model. This does not translate easily if voice is not being dialed in through the traditional networks; it could be worked right into bundled airtime minutes in the US on the same basis as PSTN calling. Also the sort of domestic roaming(with companies like US cellular, alltel, verizon all promoting the same combined coverage map) common in the US is not common in europe; therefore european operators have much higher wholesale roaming that could make use of these networks much more expensive for a potential google MVNO than in the US.

One update before I respond to the comments: Richard Windsor of Nomura just published his take on the announcement. He believes Android is aimed at mainstream phones rather than at smartphones, because the midrange phones are the ones where Google can’t deploy any of its services today. So he sees the main impact being on the embedded phone operating systems (Nokia Series 40 and friends) rather than Windows Mobile and company.

I don’t think Google is that finely focused, but it’s a really interesting perspective.

He sees Nokia’s Ovi services as a big loser in this announcement because Google’s phones apps will compete with Ovi. I’m not sure I agree with that one either, but it’s worth passing along. Windsor is a sharp guy and an original thinker.

raddedas said…

>>With two JVM vendors on the initial roster this seems unlikely

But Google has been quoted in several places saying that one of their main goals is to produce a single consistent platform. I agree with you about all the barriers to all this, but they’re not stupid. At least I think they’re not stupid. Anyway, I really want to see that SDK they’re promising for next week. That’ll tell us a lot.

Speaking of which, I’d love to know why they did the announcement this week and then held back the SDK for another week. Trying to milk publicity out of the announcement, maybe? But Google doesn’t need to do that. Weird.

>>I’m intruiged as to why you think Windows Mobile, with negligible market share (especially outside the US enterprise market) is so critical to the existence of walled gardens.

I think the target isn’t Windows Mobile, it’s Windows. In my opinion, one major intent of this announcement is building a big high wall around Windows, constraining it so it can’t spread into adjacent markets. I didn’t make that clear in my post.

But yeah, I agree that the operators’ gardens are also a target. But Google will need to generate user demand for its phones in order to use Android to pull down the operators — and that needs (in my opinion) compelling devices based on the Google OS. Won’t happen from the usual phone hardware crowd; if they knew how to build compelling mobile data devices they would have shipped them already.

Now, if Google buys a bunch of spectrum in the US, and then deploys a lot of Google phones on that network, that would put some very interesting pressure on the operators.

Stefan said…

>> imagine if they enabled developers to create applications in web scripting languages (like Nokia’s S60 will enable with Widget support) and then use Google Gears to let those applications run offline?

Nice. Sounds like bad news for the mobile ambitions of Silverlight and Air. I really, really want to see that SDK.

Adobe is moving too slowly on Air, but that’s a subject for a different post.

Scott R said…

>>I’m anxious to see what comes out of the SDK next week. I’m expecting that this isn’t just “plumbing” but GUI and user experience guidelines as well.

Good point.

>>If the timing estimates are right, we could see the Google OS covered on CDMA and GSM carriers by the end of next year with developers having had several months to get familiar with it, whereas the iPhone will still be stuck on the one GSM carrier.

Good point, although I bet the one (or two) Apple phones by that point will be more compelling than half a dozen devices from LG and Samsung. It’s going to be a very interesting fight.

>>I think you underestimate the impact to Palm.

I agree that Palm has plenty of challenges, I just don’t think Google’s actions make them much worse. Palm’s problem is not that its strategy is necessarily wrong, it’s that it hasn’t been executing well on that strategy.

gibtang said…

>>Unless all the phone manufacturers produce phones with a standardized screen size, say 240 x 320. Device fragmentation will still be an issue.

I don’t agree. If you write the API to take into account multiple screen sizes from the start, it’s not a big issue. Mac OS did that in the 1980s.

>>there is still nothing to prevent Nokia, LG, Motorola etc to put their own implementation of the JVM on the phones

Yup. All the more reason I want to see that SDK. What is the default API set of this OS?

Douglass said…

>> I think Google’s partners have all the commitment of a Facebook friend.

Nice line!

I don’t know how Google expects all of this to play out.

If they want to break the operators’ power, at some point they need something that’s so compelling to users that the operators can’t avoid offering it.

But that’s assuming they expect this announcement to be the one that breaks the operators. Maybe this one is aimed at the OS vendors, and the frequency auction will be the tool to deal with the operators.

The one thing I’m sure of is that we haven’t seen the full picture yet.

Let’s cut to the chase, are these OHA operators actually going to open their networks to developers in a manner similar to the PC-Internet. I see nothing in this announcement that indicates that. Unless that happens this is a non-event.

Am I missing something here?

Cheers,
Doug

I do think you answered yourself, although not clearly, in your write-up. Google aims at being a concurrent of Apple, Palm, etc. Both companies are selling (or willing to) their own Linux. So how to sell Linux? Have it integrated into some *shiny* hardware.

Google, instead of going down the software/hardware couple route, it goes the Windows CE route; only one software that would go into plenty of different hardware… but it does it for free.

Good idea or bad idea???