Android phones in AT&T's future? Hey, anything's possible!

Sure, Ralph de la Vega was chatty at yesterday's AT&T luncheon during CTIA, but with the scattered reports you've probably seen, it's hard to keep tabs on it all. On the topic of Android -- the Google OS which the company had been reluctant to make a definitive ruling on -- de la Vega seemed to soften up to the possibility. According to the exec, meetings with the search giant have reassured him that carriers will be able to equip handsets with their own applications, not just Google's tools. "That's attractive to us. We were concerned that maybe the focus was just on Google apps," he said. Of course, other than vague pleasantries about the possibilities of the operating system, de la Vega wasn't concrete about actual Android phones in the pipeline, saying, "If it's good for customers we'll offer it like any other OS." Bottom line? They're not exactly storming into the OHA, but if they see something they like, they won't look the other way.

[Thanks, bdawg]

[PS3guy @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:43AM]

Palm Centro?

[danny @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:25PM]

It's just a mock-up that Google has been using since the release of Android. In fact, it may have been created before the public release of the Centro. Not entirely sure.

Anyway, props to AT&T for at least speculating. Although I'm sure they will never adopt an OS that allows the owner to actually OWN the phone. No hate though, AT&T, we love you for the iPhone, still.

-D
http://www.androidboards.com

[giuliop @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:27PM]

Looks a lot like it, and you know, I actually like its simple design and the seemingly larger - and thus more usable - keys.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:05PM]

@ danny: If you read the android press releases and info, they said that part of the extensibility of Android would be that carriers could lock down the os as much or as little as they want.

Of course, I'm sure there'd be nothing keeping folks from installing a more lenient version of Android, but that's been going on for years with Motorola's base OS's.

[Todd @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:47AM]

Oh hells no - total B.S. or someone at AT&T doesn't understand the implications of Android.

We Consumers can delete anything that AT&T installs, at will, and there's no way for AT&T to stop us from installing anything we want.

File under corporate mouth piece ignorance or outright lie.

[toleraen @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:28PM]

You lost me Todd. Where did he say we wouldn't be able to delete anything AT&T installs?

[Todd @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:37PM]

That's just it, that cryptic quote "...According to the exec, meetings with the search giant have reassured him that carriers will be able to equip handsets with their own applications"

So they are happy that they can block SIP/Skype ( per Steve Jobs iPhone SDK rules ) being installed, but there's no acknowledgment that Android is completely open for countermeasures. He's not thinking it through, or is lying about being "happy".

[toleraen @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:09PM]

"That's just it, that cryptic quote "...According to the exec, meetings with the search giant have reassured him that carriers will be able to equip handsets with their own applications""

Well, they don't block SIP/Skype (or any applications, actually) on Windows Mobile phones. Removing AT&T's programs from their default install is as easy as hard resetting the phone as soon as you get it and canceling the AT&T customization after the reset. I don't really see how this would be different on Android based phones.

The iPhone is an entirely different beast that Apple gets a good chunk of the profits from. This is unique to Apple as a handset manufacturer, so it makes sense that Apple needs to lock down their SDK so that AT&T still gets their piece of the pie.

I'm not entirely trying to defend AT&T here since I obviously don't know their true intentions, I just don't see this cryptic stuff that you are. It just sounds like they initially thought they weren't going to be able to install stuff like AT&T Streaming Video. Now that they know they'll be able to, they're "happy".

[lonecow @ Apr 3rd 2008 11:49AM]

That Android phone looks like the Kindle.

In other words: ugly.

[JerryA @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:53PM]

Wow, that must be the first time I ever heard someone call this mockup ugly. It's a good thing I don't buy phones based on how flashy their mockups are or I'd never get anything.

[Chris M (ClaMs) @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:10PM]

Will Andriods and iPhones be compatible with the Microsoft Surface?

[DMcGrew @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:16PM]

android = fail

[danny @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:26PM]

Judging an OS before it has even been released*? At least wait till the first phone comes out that is commercially available to make a judgment on it. ;-)

* Yes, I know. There is an emulator.

-D
http://www.androidboards.com

[erhan @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:26PM]

DMcGrew = Fail !

[andy @ Apr 3rd 2008 12:22PM]

I just wish we could get the practice of subsidized phones banned in the US altogether.

It would be so much cheaper for everyone if we just had unlocked GSM phones like the rest of the world.

[dcny @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:12PM]

I get what your saying but everybody in the country doesn't want to pay atleast 300 dollars per phone, it would be cheaper always for people buying unlocked phones say if your getting a family plan with more than 3 phones

[7on @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:30PM]

He's saying that with all phones being sold unlocked, then the market for OEM phones will go up thus making unlocked phones cheaper.

[andy @ Apr 4th 2008 9:43AM]

Yes, well, that and the fact that service plans would be more like 20/mo instead of 60/mo.

I had a phone for five years. I liked it (until it broke or I smashed it, however you want to look at it). At 60/mo, I was paying for a subsidized phone, that I didn't have. I know I'm not the only one out there doing this. Some people just get a little phone that makes calls, and that's all they really want. They keep paying the subsidy regardless, because that's the price of the plan.

I'd much rather pay 5 or 6 hundred for a blackberry or Kaiser and then just pay the 30/mo or whatever for voice and data. It would also make much more sense since you'd be able to switch carriers with your phone with all your data in it.

[Ubuntu 7.10 WindowsXP @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:11PM]

All I get so far is hype and people blowing smoke. I want a definitive video or written breakdown of exactly what Android will do and how it will look doing it.

So far I just get all these claims about its greatness, but no solid facts.

*Goes back to reading his OpenMoko forums*

[tonybullard @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:38PM]

Um, why not try out the demo?

[Ubuntu 7.10 WindowsXP @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:07PM]

Thanks, didn't know there was one. Will look into that. And it better not be a YouTube video.

[7on @ Apr 3rd 2008 3:31PM]

It's an SDK/Emulator

[iptydafu @ Apr 3rd 2008 1:41PM]

Man, c'mon--don't show that! It's like showing a steak to a starving man. Or Ryan Block in a tube-top.

[Ubuntu 7.10 WindowsXP @ Apr 3rd 2008 2:11PM]

Found them. They were all YouTube videos. I hate that. I did however find a lot of information about the SDK, which is awesome. Don't get me wrong I like Android, I would just like more I guess interaction with the demo instead of watching it, simple documentation of apps. and what they look like.

If anyone knows where I can get that, tell me.

[danny @ Apr 3rd 2008 5:15PM]

Thanks, Ryan. I hadn't seen those yet. I guess that would be an inherent "benefit" of being an open OS -- the brains at the service providers can lock it down before it gets into the non-tech-savvy users' hands.

[navamske @ Apr 3rd 2008 7:58PM]

What I want to know about Android is (1) can you use it in the Enterprise and (2) can you use it with a Data plan?

[Bonehead @ Apr 4th 2008 12:57PM]

"reassured him that carriers will be able to equip handsets with their own applications, not just Google's tools" seems disingenuous. Google's bid on the C block was made to force the carrier that got it to open it up to any applications, and not allow vendor lock-in on devices; these precepts are Google's, and are directly opposed to the operating principles heretofore in place at the carriers, who are the one who want to keep you from running anything but their apps. Danger's business model was predicated on giving end users the appearance of freedom while selling a walled garden to the carriers.

Apparently Andy and company have seen that even if they build a world-class programming environment, those restrictions result in a software ecosytem that provides only games, ringtones, and a biorhythm program. This again points to Google's Android being about openness, since Google's business model for seems purely defensive, betting it will prevent carriers from closing off up the billion cellphones (and another billion MIDs) from the real internet.

Now that the industry has woken up to the fact that mobile internet devices are not "smart phones" (i.e., cell phones with an "available" browser a la PalmOS), the carriers are seeing that they will no longer be able to enjoy their privileged position of getting people to pay for access to data or pay by the kilobyte, and they need a new business model. Yet, like the RIAA, they will try to cling to their role as gatekeeper and middle profiteer as long as possible.

Maybe Microsoft's acquisition of Danger will (I never thought I'd say this) force Danger to open up when they ditch the Java OS for WinCE. Microsoft will certainly acquire some UI expertise; someone need to tell them that a START button that takes up 25% of the screen isn't what mobile users want.

[gail @ May 13th 2008 3:33PM]

I am the owner of the android with the google base and i still have a say so to what is put on my open source site iphones by google is not in question at this time. since web2.0.social media and networks,plus mashups,ajaxs and the rest belong to me and my public iphone deletion is possible my site is also private for my advertisements not google.