A visual tour of Android's UI
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted Nov 12th 2007 2:06PM
posted Nov 12th 2007 2:06PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
The UI doesn't look like anything special to me. Is there supposed to be anything special about it other than it's open source? I guess that's great in itself, but it still doesn't make me want to run out and buy it.
The fact that it is open source, will allow any elements to be changed. This is a great boon for the phone market because now you can buy a phone with the hardware that you want and customize the OS to your liking.
I think the point is to show that Android is much more than just "words on paper" as Steve Ballmer so eloquently put it the other day. The UI will look much nicer once the SDK gets out and developers have time to write apps, custom interfaces, etc for their particular handhelds.
Also, I'm pretty sure having an open source OS means all you're paying for is the hardware, so a decrease in the initial cost the phone or device.
The user interface shown it one of a million options what developers can create. Unlike Windows Mobile, developers will have free reign over the interface and will be able to display information, graphics, and anything they would like without the constreint of a set user interface.
The nice thing is, even though multiple phones will run android, most likely they will all look and function a little differently.
http://htcsource.com
Agreed. Open system be damned –– this is already a colossal flop. The whole thing is hysterically passé.
I hope Google completely overhauls this UI before lauch. For example, the tiny menus as shown which pop up in the corners of screens which are in themselves only about 2 inches tall are laughably antiquated; what, do I use a stylus? LOL. No, if there is any lesson to be learned from the iPhone, it is that menus should be as freaking LARGE as they can possibly be ––– EVERY PIXEL UTILIZED! Full screen... with fonts large enough to be finger controlled.
Like you said, if the object of this game is to excel at creating an open mobile device (something which Apple has miserably FAILED at, leaving others like Google to step in), then I'm completely perplexed by these stupid screenshots. They reveal absolutely nothing innovative in that regard. They're worthless garbage. They've just wasted everybody's time.
Oh boy! I can't wait until someone makes Android: Vista Edition!
*ducks*
"The user interface shown it one of a million options what developers can create. Unlike Windows Mobile, developers will have free reign over the interface and will be able to display information, graphics, and anything they would like without the constreint of a set user interface. "
Um, I would say things like the HTC touch and Tmobile shadow sort of demonstrate that the iron hand control of the UI that you assert MS wields may not be as in line with reality as you believe. I'd argue that MS could benifit from exerting more control over application UI design to make a more unified look, but it would be hard for you to argue that is currently what they do.
Personally I don't think this is indicative of the final UI that will appear on the phones. I think it is just an early seed to get developers familiar with Google's Android platform from a coding standpoint rather than a UI standpoint. As for the benifits of an open platform, WM licenses cost mere dollars, has a very robust dev environment, and allows a great deal of customizability, plus comes with a great deal of developer support, so I think google has their hands full making this stand out (making a UI that OEMs don't feel they NEED to change would be a good step over WM, but this isn't that UI).
@josh
The fact that HTC (the people you cite as your example of WinMo customisers) is one of the main companies in this initiative should tell you something about how much they like the process of turning Windows Mobile into something that they can sell on a phone..
What Apple (or some other company) needs to do is suck it up and create another "iPhone" like device, but this time, make it run off of the Android software. Seriously, I don't think that anyone here could argue that the iPhone isn't pretty and that the idea of having no buttons was wonderful for designing new apps that need different keys that would normally be available.
In a perfect world, Apple and Android would work hand in hand, we would have a really sexy phone that ran off of Linux and would be infinitely customizable, and we would all go skipping happily into the sunset, never to hear another word of "God, this phone sucks."
p.s....And DRM would be vanquished.
The contacts icon reminds me of something...
and the maps icon looks awfully like Safari...
it obviously reminds you of an old school contact booklet, since that's what it is
The interface looks like a nokia s60 OS ripoff.
Looks like a real snore to me.
Can we start a ANDROID-LESS Engadget link?
I can see where this is going...
Engadget feed without the Android news:
http://pipes.yahoo.com/cleaner/engadgetnoandroid
Wow, it hasn't been a week and already someone is griping. It's been a lot longer since the iphone release and still there seems to be 10+ posts daily about the iphone. BOOO
I'm excited for Android - I used to love windows mobile until I outgrew it and realized how constricting, restricting, and SLOW it is. Bring on the tweaking!
I don't get this whole Android OS thing... why is Google's opensource OS better than others besides its brand name? Does it support more phone hardware or something?
I think the big deal is that it's going to be a widespread OS and it's not Microsoft or Apple.
To me this is a very exciting development. Mobile OS' are still extremely primitive compared to desktop OS' right now and it's about time that someone came to the rescue.
I think one of the reasons that Linux is not doing so well on the desktop is because of the large application base and high switching costs of leaving Windows and MacOSX (the latter also have quite a few other advantages over Linux). In the mobile space, there are no entrenched operating systems and high switching costs. People would move en mass to a better device if it came along. Android can help improve the mobile experience by giving accessibility to a complete OS to many developers. This strategy has a lot of potential in the long run. There will always be room for other phone OS's, but 5 years from now, I see Android derivatives playing a much more important role in the mobile space than, say, Linux in the desktop space. And having a mobile device will be a lot more fun and useful than it is now.
wow. So far it can do everything my Blackberry could do three years ago.
When will the excitement stop? please. it's so thrilling. wow.
Try to step out of your little box and actually put thought into what possibilities Android opens up.
Every year that goes by a company sets the standard for cell phones. At one time it was text messaging, then to camera phones, and more recently multi-touch. This is another big step in the market and will set the precedent that all other cell phones would have to meet to be competitive.
i was expecting more to be honest. like ZOMG google good....but this 3/5 stars
I should add. wow.
and hey, is the red dot a sign? is the android actually a robot from battlestar galactica? wow.
The red dot looks like HAL. You should only fear it if your name is Dave.
Red glowing eye = HAL
Red streaky dot = Cylon
I hear the latest models look like iPhones now. Nobody is safe!
Make it blink across the screen instead of streak, now you have KITT from Knight Rider. Oooohhhh the possibilites.
@ etrigan
Actually, I would be more afraid if my name was Frank. He was the one jettisoned into space.
is the red streak supposed to be like a cylon?
Android OS = Symbian S60 + a bit of MAC .. not really innovative if u ask me.
The lack of vCard support for the Contacts--or even any robustness in that area--will keep me away from this MobileOS.
@Leopard
Is that assumption based on these screenshots?
Or the knowledge that this OS will fundamentally not be able to support it.
Considering that it's opensource, chances are it will support every format worth supporting (give or take a few extra installed modules)
What i'm really looking forward to is a really good syncml implementation on a phone.
syncml is just waiting ready to woop every syncers ass in the galaxy, if only anyone would use it!
Does the browser do "all internet" like iPhone, or is it the "mobile internet?"
It's the mobile internet because all phone manufacturers (except apple) don't see any reason to put anything higher than QVGA on a mobile phone. And browsing the web proper on a QVGA UI is a real pain.
Android uses webkit, just like Safari in the iPhone.
Opera Mini works great on a QVGA screen.
It's the real Internet, like in many many handsets beyond the crappy iPhone..
JS, you're pretty dumb... do such idiotic replies only after actually knowing stuff.. I for instance have the iPhone resolution on a 2,1 inch screen, and the whole web. with cursor and all...
you're as out-of-date as the iPhone
Damn, Johan, you're right! I'd better take this Toshiba G900 and its WVGA (800x480) display back to the shop, because obviously I was lied to - no phone can display more than QVGA!
The irony is that you're posting that kind of comment on a site that reports WVGA and, indeed, VGA screens moderately regularly.
Ugh. Check your facts before you post.
theChipmunk
I already knew there are phones out that have WVGA displays (proof: http://www.engadget.com/confirm/397f3a7fad060273c56663343bbda5a2 ). However, these phones are not widely available in the US. When I said "all", I meant the mainstream manufacturers. And also before someone jumps on me for saying it's the mobile internet .. it really is -- i hated trying to browse full HTML in QVGA.
This seems destined to be the ultimate geek mobile OS, but never take off as a "casual" cell phone OS.
The UI looks OK, there are a few pretty blatantly copied elements from the iPhone (which I think is good), but it could still use some work (which the OEMs hopefully will do)
BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Moving on, nothing to see here..
Engadget's Eastern Europe Troll Gang. Trolling since 2007
The UI looks like it encourages QVGA development. That sucks.
When can I put his on my HTC Excalibur? The possiblity of an open-source phone OS *drools*.
Really, really uninspiring. There seems to be nothing in it that hasn't been done by others for a couple years now. Dull, dull, dull!
Judging from a lot of the comments I have been reading today, I think the Android marketing team has failed. Listen, this is a BASE Platorm (stikll in BETA no less). The UI can be changed, apps will be written, and collaboration will take place between expert and beginner developers from accross the globe. This is Open Source. Those of you that use Firefox - you like it, don't you? With all of the skins, add-ons, user-created utilities... How many times have you been on these boards discussing other phone OSs and how many complaints or public requests are there for apps we would like to see? Now they can be written, now they can be done. The base platform is great with 3D accelaration, 3G, GPS (and wi-fi?). Think of all the possibilities.
Sorry, I'll keep my iPhone for now.
Of course you will.
You're in a two year contract.
Remember?
I'll second that. This Android thingy actually looks outdated rather than innovative.
Besides, Linux smartphones have been around for some time already and they never really take off. When people buy phones, most could care less about whether it's open source or not.
Since I paid $500 for my phone, a $200 fee to get out of it is no big deal at all.
@Guzzie,
Contract? What contract? Oh you mean my T-Mobile contract?
@Guzzle
Fail...
If it's anything at all like that developer says it is in the video over here http://code.google.com/android/ then another significant boom is that it's really pleasant to develop for. Sounds cool. I guess someone will very soon compile it and run it on an iPhone and see how it plays there. Then it could really be benchmarked to Mac OSX mobile that right now looks like it's significantly faster judging by the videos.
@Andreas- Are you kidding? Watch this YouTube video and watch how the browser lags as it is scrolled when it is demoed on the "advanced prototype":
http://www.youtube.com/androiddevelopers
It lags because in contrary to the iPhone it loads the whole page, not a snapshot of it and I also think that that proto cpu isn't really fast....
Mr Kaiser: so open source makes it more customizable than WinMob? And this makes it technically superior and helped Linux dominate the desktop market?
Yeah, I think you guys are missing the point. This is like a Linux for mobile phones (sure you can already find flavors of linux that will run on mobile devices, but this is taking it one step further). Google has done the hard part and laid the foundation, it's going to be up to everyone else to build on it and turn it into something awesome. The idea is that any device that can run this OS can also run anything anybody writes for it.
All you have to do is look to where Linux has come today to see the potential for this open source OS. Google is planting the seed - don't judge the tree on what it's sprout looks like!
It's not "like a Linux", it is Linux.
Exactly. It doesn't matter at all what this looks like, because every phone (or at least manufacturer) that uses it will make it look like they want it. Advanced (and even not so advanced) users will be able to do anything they want with it.
Ah, I didn't realize that - even better! ;-)
The humorous thing is that you guys believe this. Windows Mobile has been encouraging ALL of their device manufacturers and carriers to customize the OS and build applications on top of it(like a few finally are doing now) for YEARS!! And most of them didnt even hire enough development to even change the default incoming calls screens that were put in as placeholders and not ever meant to be used. But now these same companies are going to hire huge development teams to create all new UIs or better yet trust what the open source community does, and just let you put any old flavor of GUI on your phone that some kids in Aruba hacked up because it looks cool.. Yeah, there would be no Technical Support issues there for a Phone Carrier... LOL! C'mon the world you dream of just isnt going to happen...
It's amazing from these comments how little people understand googles goals here.
My thoughts exactly.
I suppose all the pre-announce hype are partly to blame. People were expecting a gphone or something next-gen new/completely innovative, something that Android isn't. Now they're comparing it oranges to apples (pun somewhat intended).
Maybe you can elaborate on Google's goals. So they introduced an open source mobile OS (which they bought to begin with) and there are going to be some manufacturers that customize it and sell phones.
At the end of the day, won't casual cell phone buyers still be at the mercy of the phone manufacturers to actually make cool phones? It's not like casual buyers are going to see a phone and say "wow, there's a lot of potential to make that phone cool -after- I buy it".
Google may have announced this too early. They should have prepared one of these mythical Android phones with as much coolness as they could muster to help people see the vision.
Folks, if you are developing for this thing .. make sure your app can scale to resolutions higher than QVGA.
Anyone know if the UI can easily zoom scale a QVGA app upwards for VGA or higher screens?
Most of you kids are missing the point. The main thing about this is that it's an open-source mobile OS. The screenshots here just show that it's viable and able to do what's expected from a modern mobile OS.
Assuming this is a solid platform, don't you think phone manufacturers will be *really* interested in not having to pay Microsoft (or whomever) any licensing fees?
Hmmm... looks like Yahoo Go on my smartphone... sorta
And besides... it looks pretty good, IMO. Certainly much nicer than WinMob (and, yes, my phone for the past few years has been a WinMob one...)
excellent! I just want to quit my day job and start a mobile deb company. This is THE platform.
Pardon the typo. Deb ~ dev
FAIL
Most importantly, we're talking about Google here. Google has a VERY deep bank account and a VERY good Add/Marketing scheme. If this even remotely catches on, Google can/will push this hard. They're in this for the long-term, not the short term. All of this equates to a very enticing genre of mobile phones to come.
I'll give you deep pockets, but very good marketing scheme? Really? So far (in terms of revenue), Google is a one trick pony. They sell ads incredibly well.
I can't think of too many places where I've seen Google successfully market themselves (vs. let's say Apple or Microsoft's massive marketing machines). If anything, I'd say Google's -inexperience- at building a marketing machine is more of a weakness for Android than a strength.
Man so few people here grasp what this really means. It means that once this thing gets around you could have a phone that's just as beautiful as the iphone, is far cheaper than the iphone, is fully customizable, and on which you could install hundreds of programs for free that could do whatever you want. That's what this means. And that's freakin awesome.
Damn
Even a CGI of the "perfect" google phone can't get good reception.
Actually, Thats not CGI. It is running inside of an actual emulator which comes with the SDK.
If you download the SDK you can actually run this for yourself. I gave it a spin and found it very nice.
he means that the phone handset is CG, which it is.
It's a computer generated image framing an emulator
actually, he's using that handset at this url:
http://androidev.com/devforum/index.php?PHPSESSID=b23dacebc57c7dced5a6b68157e325f4&topic=8.0
i stand corrected :(
This is interesting and all and looks like it could be a very cool OS. The thing that has me going "who cares" is not so much about the idea of it all, it's about actually getting my hands on it.
When someone says there will be phones available in '08. Do people really expect to SEE these phones show up on time. I also find the idea of "using this on any phone" to be a little flawed. There will need to be specific hardware requirements for phones to run this and is a little misleading to tell people (wether it be Google saying it or otherwise). I can't install this on my SE W900, I can't install this on my iphone, etc etc etc.
Also. It's been mentioned before and has had non-answer's given about the subject. Carriers love to lock features, brand cell phones and have final say on what is and is not available to the user. Nobody has addressed the issue of carrier specific applications or services. A few carriers may be on board but it's hardly a revolution of cellular technology.
I agree with some posters, the marketing people behind this have failed. They haven't really presented anything different.
And as much as I'd hate to compare it with Apple's iPhone. Google REALLY should have had something concrete to give consumers, not just tech journalists and programmers. Telling me, the average gadget loving consumer that they have this fantastic new thing for cell phones, and I'm going to love it. Isn't going to stop me from picking up an iPhone when it's available in Canada (do I ever hop that will be soon).
It's sounds interesting. But I'm not getting my hopes up... by the time this thing actually matures. My iPhone contract will be up. so no worries there.
I'd rather develop on this instead of Microsoft's crappy unstable mobile OS.
Agreed. Heaven forbid we can actually use APIs to TAKE A PICTURE!
Who are you kidding, if you have that opinion you havent really 'developed' for anything. But thanks for pulling your name out of the Windows Mobile Development pool, everyone is now happier..
If you ask me, you all are missing the point completely.
To me, its like this:
I use a Motorola Q right now. The hardware, I don't much mind. It's thin, it's light, it has a relatively decent camera and keyboard, and the screen is actually quite nice. You want to know what my gripe about it is?
Why can't this perfectly capable 3G smartphone do mundane things like threaded SMS or instant messaging? Or why do I have to view a webpage a block at a time when other devices with less processing capability can do it just fine?
It's because the software developers aren't focused on it. They've moved on to the next "latest and greatest" device, and left the users of previous software to die.
The beauty of Android, in my eyes, is that everyone is using the same standardized software stacks. So if Joe Blow over here writes this beautiful AIM client for Android because he wanted to use it on his smartphone, I can use it too. I dont have to wait for some corporate tech division to release these bi-yearly updates to software, or pay $25 for an IM client.
Android allows for anyone to create and develop and share and download applications. It becomes more personal, more of a community of sharing, creating, learning. It's nice to know that there's always somewhere you can post a question and have someone who can help you, maybe even the developer.
Look at the iPhone's 3rd party software following. Have you looked through that software catalog? There are TONS of applications in there, and alot of them are very polished, very useful, and very intuitive. And if you ask me why the 3rd party software push has been so successful for the iPhone, I would probably tell you because it's free, and it's open source.
Android isn't supposed to be this huge revolutionary software device platform. It's more of the first real shot at an open-source OS making it off the ground. I mean look, they have the SDK out already, which means when this launches and shows up on devices, you can bring it home, unbox it, and have 100's of apps already at your disposal.
Just my .02
yawn... double yawn... Until this thing really gets off the ground (and I mean gets a lot farther than Linux in it's usability) it's pretty average. I have to say I expected more from google. Basically it just looks a lot like WM but without a lot of the functions.
Is it just me or does the Wallpaper pic in the gallery look alot like one of the Vista backgrounds?
This looks like....sounds like is probably better, it could have some serious potential. Time will tell.
I'm getting a kick out of all these people getting all upset about something they supposedly don't care about.
Unfortunately it's a little too early for us to make any real judgments about what Android means to the mobile phone industry because right now there are no handsets, the SDK was just released, and it's for the most part still in it's infancy as far as being applied to the market. So what's the excitement about? Potential. And that's the reason why I said 'unfortunately'.
PS3 excitement was all amped up, but when things were quiet through it's launch all anyone had, and still has, to go by is POTENTIAL. The PS3 has A LOT of potential. An open network, the cell, linux can be installed onto it, blu-ray drive, but we have nothing to physically grasp until we start seeing stuff actually come out that takes advantage of those things. Same with Android. It's got so much potential, much like FF with it's extensions anyone can make, but until we start to see fruit growing off this tree then we can't really say anything good OR bad about it.
Personally I like the video demonstration by the guy on the last Android post earlier today. Seemed simple and easy to use, and fast(to an extent). How I hate waiting the 2 seconds(it seems) for my dumb motorola slvr to do something when I click a button. That can be attributed to the power of the phone, yes, but is everything as smooth? Hmm, maybe not a good comparison, but I still think this is leagues beyond the typical slvr/razr OS, and at least matches, if not surpasses(with the help of the community), WiMo6 and iPhone.
It's too early right now basically. Those looking for screens of Android doing everything WiMo/iPhone are doing currently are going to need to wait a bit while everyone builds all that stuff, and makes it even better.
This new os is open source but isn't the blackberry pretty open source i mean it's GREAT that we are finally getting a good open source os in a phone cuz the current os' SUCK BALLS.
Actually, I would think that having a standardized GUI would be a *good* thing. Just look at Symbian - its GUI is fractured between just TWO primary flavors, S60 and UIQ, and it's a lot of extra work for developers to port between the two.
Also, I'm surprised that so many are comparing this to the iPhone when more appropriate comparisons can be made with S60, UIQ, and WinMo. For instance, the iPhones 3rd party app library is quite meager when comparing to that available for S60 phones. S60 is also very open, and has a freely available IDE for anyone who wishes to develop applications for it. Symbian has a sophisticated software signing/authentication system to prevent the spread of viruses (this applies to all GUI flavors), and offers free signing for those who wish to create freeware. WinMo also has a great free IDE, and Microsoft provides very good development tools, free of charge, to those who wish to create freeware for that platform. Both Symbian and WinMo, although not open source, are *very* open and extensible platforms, and speaking from personal experience, I can say that S60 is a joy to use, to the point that it's addictive.
Yes, the open source aspect is nice, but the concept of each manufacturer creating their own GUI seems like a bad idea to me. I'm also concerned about one more splinter in the already crowded smartphone market. Although WinMo is a proprietary OS, controlled by a single manufacturer, Symbian already fills many of Androids goals. It's owned and maintained by a large industry consortium (Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson...), it's stable, efficient, and extensible, and it's got *TONS* of 3rd party apps.
Personally, I'd like to see the industry work on enhancing the J2ME spec. What's really needed is a standardized, powerful, and extensible application development platform for mobile devices, that takes the OS out of the picture. Yes, it's slower, but it provides a unified development environment for a huge number of platforms - and this is what the mobile market needs more than anything else, a standardized platform, not another splinter in the already fractured market.
J2ME does NOT ensure a unified "write once run anywhere" environment. Due to differences in keyboard handling you must build versions of application for each platform.
I like the fact that it's open source because it offers true freedom for developers and this may spur them on to push it further. If this is a success, Microsoft, Apple, Symbian and others will have to up their game.
Kinda like stone age for iphone users
Oh yes yes, they ran out immediately and bought iPod/Phones in June so they could copy Apple's UI. Ya think that most of this stuff is pretty darn obvious and they just arrived at similar UI paradigms? Just because Apple pushed the beta version of their software to market sooner doesn't mean anyone ripped them off. This isn't the same as Apple and the artists.
Open Source means more folks can develop for it and will customize it.
WM has an expensive SDK -- not something the average hobbyist will get into (or will even *want* to get into). OS SDK and OS development tools mean anyone can develop for it without startup cost (other than time, of course). That means many of the hobbyist or freeware J2ME developers could port their stuff to Android.
Yeah, that darn FREE SDK for Windows Mobile is really expensive... Cmon, know what you are talking about before you post...
screens too small.
please visit www.androidev.com
Any chance this thing will run the OpenSource webkit? Apple uses it, Nokia uses it. Would be great to have another developer on it, and give MS a real run in the browser space -- of course, we might just substitute Safari for IE and get a whole new set of problems, but the openy nature of it must be of some benefit, no?
Another important thing: This user interface is very decoupled. That's the entire point of an open operating system!
Stop whining about that. Also, the claim that the possibility of many individual applications makes up for the "problem" is completely weak and flawed.
/The point/ of this, which really puts it above the others in a way that is not easily countered with a claim like "the iPhone is easy to develop for too," is that if someone really wanted to make an iPhone clone interface, he could, and all the same applications would work on it.
looks good to me
We're ready to test apps for Andriod emulator!