February 11, 2008 9:47 AM PST

Google Android prototypes debut at MWC

BARCELONA, Spain--Prototypes of the first mobile handsets using Google's Android software debuted at the GSMA's Mobile World Congress here on Monday, and I got a sneak peek at a demonstration.

Google launched Android, an open development platform in November. Phones sporting the Android software are expected out later this year. Google also announced the Open Handset Alliance, a consortium of 34 handset manufacturers, carriers and chipmakers that have said they plan to support Android products and services.

I was one of several journalists to get a private demonstration of Android at the ARM Holdings booth here at the show. CNET News.com reported last week that ARM was planning to show off a prototype.

ARM's technology is found at the heart of almost every mobile phone on the planet. The company designs the processor cores that companies like Texas Instruments, Samsung, and Marvell manufacture into chips that run cell phones and smartphones.

ARM's Android

A look at Android at the ARM booth here at MWC in Barcelona.

(Credit: Marguerite Reardon/CNET News.com)

ARM has the Android software running on a prototype device using the ARM9 processor technology, which is already two generations old. The mocked-up handset resembled a full QWERTY keyboard smartphone, like Research in Motion's BlackBerry. But Bob Morris, director of platform solutions for ARM, said the ARM9 technology used on the demonstration prototype is actually used on lower-end handsets sold to the mass market, which means the functionality being demonstrated could be done on most phones sold today.

For the most part, the "welcome" screen on the Android prototype looked no different to me from that of a Windows Mobile phone or many other feature phones I've seen. There were icons on the bottom of the screen, indicating a browser or map tool. And the icons could be clicked to launch the applications.

My initial thought was, "What's the big deal? Android doesn't look like it enables anything different from what everyone else offers."

But James Bruce, North American mobile manager for marketing at ARM, said that it's not so much what Android allows cell phone users to do, but rather what it doesn't require handset chip and device makers to do.

"Android provides a complete application framework, which can be put on chipsets with a lot less work," he said.

In a nutshell, Android should simplify the process of getting a new phone and new applications to market. Today, the cell phone market is extremely fragmented. Every manufacturer has its own operating system for phones. And very often even different models of handsets are developed using proprietary software. This makes it difficult for handset components makers, application developers, and the handset makers themselves to develop new products and services quickly because they have to design functionality for each software iteration. Even the most basic functions like SMS could require different programming from one brand of handset to another.

Android is supposed to alleviate this problem, because it provides a common operating system and development platform that has all the basic functionality baked in. But the software, which is based on a version of Linux, is also open enough to allow application developers to design new applications and services for the device.

While this sounds like mobile phone nirvana, there's one snag. Android isn't the only mobile platform out there. Microsoft's Windows Mobile offers all the same functionality. And so does Symbian, which is used by Nokia and Sony Ericsson. Together these companies account for nearly half the entire cell phone market. And to complicate matters even more, there are several Linux groups also developing open platforms for mobile phones.

One such platform developed by the Limo Group, claims to be gaining traction among the Linux community and says it will soon become the unifying Mobile Linux platform.

So with that in mind, there are at least four distinct operating systems for mobile devices. While this is a huge improvement over the hundreds or even thousands of software operating systems running on phones today, four still sounds like too many to me.

Bruce conceded I might be right. But he said ultimately the market will decide how many operating systems it can bare. And he believes the mobile pie is big enough to support several competitors.

"The mobile phone market is huge," he said. "Over a billion phones are shipped worldwide every year. So even if a company can capture five or 10 percent, they can still do well."

Recent posts from News Blog
Nvidia CEO denies buyout of Via
Stolen Mac helps nab burglary suspects
Flaw turns Gmail into spamming machine
Facebook borrows $100 million
FBI probe nets counterfeit Chinese networking parts
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 9 comments (Page 1 of 1)
Why can't I put apps I want on MY phone?
by ArtInvent February 11, 2008 12:14 PM PST
Android, or some other open phone OS like LiMo or OpenMoko, if I'm reading the intent correctly, will allow us to do stuff that we ought to be able to do with a cell phone, but, idiotically, we can't. Any phone these days that's capable of running a browser these days is basically a small computer. Yet it can do almost nothing that we expect a computer to do. I have a brand new Verizon LG Chocolate that's been completely crippled by the phone company. It's got wireless obviously and bluetooth, but I can't even load my phonebook contacts from my old LG phone to the new one! Stupidest thing I can imagine. If it can't even do something that obvious, there's obviously no way to load new programs of any kind on the device. I can't transfer files from my computer the cell phone without some bizarre power/usb cable. I have to use the tiny little microSD card and swap it around, and even that is limited pretty much to photos and maybe music (if you can figure out how to rename all your music tracks just so the phone can recognize them.) Horrible. Apple's experience with the iPhone also indicates the huge appetite there is out there for some kind of capable computer phone that users can do with what they want. Apple's whack-a-mole efforts to contain these customization and unlocking efforts is practically comical and probably futile. Cell companies seem to know that selling people data and internet services on mobile devices is the way they are going to make money. Yet they are hopelessly crippling the very devices that we are supposed to use to access these services. If they would open up these devices, customers would customize them and make them do exactly what they need. Data access would take off. I'm hoping that Android shows the industry that an alternate way exists that empowers the users (and incidentally would be incredibly profitable for the providers.)
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
An open platform
by t8 February 11, 2008 2:13 PM PST
So long as Android is an Internet device and not a restricted network that allows Internet access for a steep price then it should be better than the crappy options we have now. Even better would be the ability to run Skype.
Reply to this comment
bare
by DonKelly February 12, 2008 12:51 PM PST
"But he said ultimately the market will decide how many operating systems it can bare." Woo-Hoo! Naked operating systems!
Reply to this comment
Apple is going to blow their big chance...
by BILLinBCN February 13, 2008 2:28 AM PST
Apple's current course will relegate iPhone to the same fate as the Mac OS. The excellent iPhone experience will be available only on the Apple hardware, which only Apple?s core fans will have. Mobile phones (unlike PCs or MP3 players) are highly personal devices -- many people see them as a fashion accessory, or a projection of their personality and social status. The idea that a single product (or even a suite of conceptually similar products) will have ubiquitous appeal is silly. Read the excellent analysis at http://www.broodingsavage.com
Reply to this comment
bare versus bear
by ricklev February 15, 2008 10:56 AM PST
Ooops, I think the author meant to say: "...But he said ultimately the market will decide how many operating systems it can bear..." Instead, he used bare. Bear means 'allow', while bare means 'expose'.
Reply to this comment
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
Click Here
  • About News Blog

  • Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Latest from News.com

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried A look at how technology is changing our lives and at the people behind all that life-changing stuff.

Coop's Corner by Charles Cooper Charles Cooper weighs in on Silicon Valley hijinks, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi Covering the latest in computer viruses and computer crime.

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman At the tech culture nexus of video games, fire art, and virtual worlds.

Green Tech Fresh green tech news and commentary.

One More Thing by Tom Krazit Tom Krazit takes on the tech phenomenon that is Apple, and keeps a close watch on the chip industry.

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber When business and technology meet, that's when things get interesting.

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh Exploring the intersection of politics and technology.

The Social by Caroline McCarthy Exploring all facets of social media and tech culture.

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland Coverage of digital photography, science, and open-source software.

advertisement
Click Here
On MovieTome: Catch the PINEAPPLE EXPRESS
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: