Second Google Android Phone Revealed 176
KrispyDroid writes "The world's second Google Android phone has been unveiled — by an Australian-based electronics company called Kogan. It will ship worldwide on Jan 29. It looks like a surprisingly nice form factor, not unlike a Blackberry Bold. The phones will be sold without a contract at low prices — $A299 ($US192)."
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it Google's fault that developers aren't embracing the platform? It seems like that's the developers doing.
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems like Google is uninterested in the end user's extendibility of the platform, which was supposedly it's raison d'etre.
One would hope this isn't the selling point of the phone, but rather that it is a flexible phone that meets the users' needs. The fact that it's hackable and "community-driven" is a means, not an end.
Different hardware spec to the G1 (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing that strikes me about this phone is that the spec is noticeably different from the other shipping Android phone, the screen is 320x240 not 480x320, and the camera is 2 megapixel not 3.2.
It will be very interesting to see how well the software on the AppStore^H^H^H^H Android MarketTM works on different hardware, and how many developers will be willing and/or able to patch their software to work on it.
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the reason the G1 won't allow installation of non-signed firmware is due to carrier (T-Mobile) requirements, not because Google doesn't want you to be able to hack it.
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the openmoko hardware was worth a damn, then maybe.
It's OK if you don't care for fast data, or being able to reliably make phone calls.
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
.
I'm running the openmoko Android version from Sean McNeil (check out openmoko's wiki) in dual boot mode, along with Qtopia and it shows promise too, though I think koolu's team of devs will likely reach a optimized distro quicker. Comparing both the G1 and Freerunner, Android runs faster on the G1 (of course), where as the Freerunner has the ArmV4 compatibility issue (DOH!) and the lack of keyboard (all OM touchscreen keyboards fail at this current time).
Re:I just want an android device, not a smartphone (Score:3, Insightful)
I've read that, in regards to other products, about 100 times before. Eventually it'll be true...
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is.
Unfortunately the software stack written by the openmoko guys is (and it pains me to say this) in a total shambles, and until very recently the developers basically refused to do anything about it, preferring to "look to the future" and make shiny bells and whistles. I'm watching the android software on OM very carefully because it seems to me that when the porting is finished (and it's got a decent way there, it runs and makes calls) it'll turn the OM into a decent phone.
Yes, there are problems - no camera, no 3G - but it's interesting from a linux-geek perspective at the moment.
Re:Actually, this is the third Android phone (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you actually seen a zzzPhone? Even a video of a zzzPhone?
All I've seen are Photoshopped images, and very poor ones at that (far worse than the Agora images).
Until someone gets a zzzPhone in their hands, it's vaporware.
Re:HTC Touch Dream (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that data plans are pretty ridiculous, but I think we will move away from the "per text message charge" era and people will embrace the unlimited plans. When everyone is offering a true unlimited plan for $99, then choosing networks is actually a matter of networks or unique features. I think it will force carriers to improve their networks and offer better speeds, or start lowering the price of their unlimited plan.
Re:I just want an android device, not a smartphone (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm afraid you've dramatically missed the point. I'm not interested in selling my soul to Apple for this privilege. Initially I only made the purchase (and arguably it was foolish) because I knew I could jailbreak the device and do what I wanted with it. However, Apple chose to go to war against those who would use the device in ways Apple didn't want (oh the irony of living in a free country) and they have decided it's illegal for me to use my iPod to sync against Amarok if I ever upgrade to 2.x (which they practically force on me every time I plug it into a computer with iTunes on it).
I want a platform that I'm free to do anything I want with, since I own it. I want to be able to write new software, access the shell, sync against amarok, etc. I don't want to pay apple $100 for the privilege of accessing a device I already own and should have access too. That's just silly and a bit ludicrous if you think about it. Cue the bad car analogies... Sure we'll sell you a car. But if you want access to the trunk you have to pay us for a trunk license and then we reserve the right to take away the key at any time if we see fit.
As for being compensated for my work, Apple's policies don't even allow GPL'd software at all, so I couldn't even offer my work to others to begin with.
In hindsight, the iPod was a stupid buy. It doesn't work well with just about anything. I can't easily attach peripherals to it, except what Apple sanctions. However at the time it was the best device (when jailbroken) on the planet. I'm hoping that a device with Android will reach that point soon.
Re:HTC Touch Dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:2, Insightful)
You, like most other people, seem to think that Google has some sort of say in wether the phones are hackable or not. Google published (and open-sourced) the OS and SDK. What manufacturers do with their phones is their business.
And like someone else said, if you want a fully hackable phone, go get an OpenMoko. Nobody promised you that Android would be this.
One thing remains in the way (Score:3, Insightful)
Software locks in the form of chroot jails and forbidding root on your own device, such as those that Android phones and the iPhone line have.
If this obstruction is removed, my (jailbroken) iPhone will be on eBay faster than you can say "screw you, Steve Jobs."
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about supporting open media formats like OGG and FLAC?!! The owner talks bout being a long time OSS supporter, but ignores these vital formats! Weak!
Suprise? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it surpiseing? Is Apple the only company that makes pretty products?
Re:I just want an android device, not a smartphone (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's policies don't even allow GPL'd software at all, so I couldn't even offer my work to others to begin with.
The GPL isn't a prerequisite for offering your work to others.
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose the question following on from there is selling point to whom?.
If the sales pitch is directed at phone manufacturers, then giving them a cheap software stack that they can customise to suit their desires, and then lock down tight, Is probably going to be very appealing. That said, it doesn't really offer the end user very much in that scenario.
If it's selling to end user, as in trying get people excited about using Android, then, really, it's got to be hackable.
It's a tricky one for Google. Do you GPLv3 the stack, and hope that community pressure will drive adoption? Or do you licence the code so it can be locked down, and hope for buy in from the manufacturers who want to use DRM on ringtones or are frightened you might filter out their SMS spam?
I couldn't really blame Google for going for the second option, but I can surely understand the disappointment of those who'd hoped for something that would be open to the end user.
Re:When will it become *our* phones? (Score:4, Insightful)
Until we get a phone that doesn't use any code signing, nobody is going to be very interested in the product, because it's merely an iPhone competitor (and the iPhone has Apple's sexy marketing behind it, so you might as well just develop for that and make more money).
But to develop for the iPhone, you need to get a $99 development license, and then you still have to play by Apple's rules: no emulators, no competing with built-in apps, etc.
Developing for Android is free, and there are no limitations on what you're allowed to develop or distribute. You can write software that not only competes with built-in apps, but actually replaces them. And you can distribute them through Google's marketplace, through a competing marketplace, through your own web site, or anywhere else.
Code signing only means that you can't replace the OS with a version you've compiled yourself... but even that is being worked around [arstechnica.com].