bruce.armstrong wrote: Somebody just said it better than I did, and with more chops to say it:
Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg & Facebook Mobile
In a move likely to be hailed as the final blow for the walled gardens favored till now by the wireless operators, Google is said to be leveraging Linux and Java to open up the wireless handset market in the same way that it just launched OpenSocial to break open social networking and get beyond the walled garden approach of, for example, Facebook.
According to USA Today this morning, Google today "plans to announce the formation of an 'open phone' coalition, with the goal of developing an operating system for the so-called Google Phone."
In the key quote from the article, Morgan Gillis of the LiMo Foundation, says:
"If you're a developer, you'll be able to develop (applications) for the new Google Phone very quickly."
AT&T and Verizon Wireless are "noticeably absent" from the coalition, claims USA Today, adding that it's because they do not wish to support a device that favors Google over other providers.
The report adds: "Sprint, the No. 3 carrier, supports the coalition, but it hasn't formally agreed to make the Google Phone available to its 54 million subscribers."
One of Google's mantras is: "We believe one of our chief competitive advantages is surprise."
About Open Web Developer News Desk SYS-CON's Open Web News Desk tracks the constant stream of compelling technology and Open APIs being released by or catalyzed by Google and its allies.
It was only a matter of time. For years the telecomms have locked out developers with the requirement for proprietary code signing and other barriers to development on mobile devices. I'll gladly support the Google effort including subscribing to their service if only to show support for "breaking" the monopoly held by the telecoms. Mobile devices should be no different than PC's in terms of development. There's just too much potential that has been denied in the name of "security."
#2
devvxn commented on 5 Nov 2007
I am familiar with OpenMoko but the device base is still weak and it doesn't support windows mobile either. For true ubiquitous computing, you need all major OSs supported and a wider device range. These guys have a great vision though and definitely predate Google's announcement. But even before OpenMoko, Voyager which used to be an Objectspace product, has been going this route for years. From what I've seen it supports the widest range of OSs I have seen and is Java to .NET agnostic. But they still aren't on CLDC phones, so I'm going to hold off on a recommendation. But they have P-2-P and P-2-Group publish/ subscribe which I haven't seen from anyone else without proprietary hardware. recursionsw.com
Don Babcock wrote: It was only a matter of time. For years the telecomms have locked out developers with the requirement for proprietary code signing and other barriers to development on mobile devices. I'll gladly support the Google effort including subscribing to their service if only to show support for "breaking" the monopoly held by the telecoms. Mobile devices should be no different than PC's in terms of development. There's just too much potential that has been denied in the name of "security."
devvxn wrote: I am familiar with OpenMoko but the device base is still weak and it doesn't support windows mobile either. For true ubiquitous computing, you need all major OSs supported and a wider device range. These guys have a great vision though and definitely predate Google's announcement. But even before OpenMoko, Voyager which used to be an Objectspace product, has been going this route for years. From what I've seen it supports the widest range of OSs I have seen and is Java to .NET agnostic. But they still aren't on CLDC phones, so I'm going to hold off on a recommendation. But they have P-2-P and P-2-Group publish/ subscribe which I haven't seen from anyone else without proprietary hardware. recursionsw.com
About Newsfeeds / Video Feeds
.gif)
