SIM / hardware-unlocked Android Dev Phone 1 surfaces for $399

Oh, snap! Out of seemingly nowhere, Google has revealed the Android Dev Phone 1, a SIM- and hardware-unlocked G1 designed to be sold exclusively to hard working developers. The handset ships with a system image that's fully compatible with Android 1.0, and obviously, it complies with any SIM card and can "flash custom Android builds that will work with the unlocked bootloader." In other words, the mobile should seriously appeal to devs who live far, far away from areas blanketed with T-Mobile coverage. In order to get one, you must first register as an Android developer on the Android Market site (which involves a one-time $25 setup fee); once you're in, you simply surf over and nail the "Purchase" link. For $399 (including free shipping in the US of A), this swanky G1 -- custom back and all -- can be yours, and it's scheduled to ship in 18 international markets soon. Would it be too much to yell "snap!" again?

[Thanks, Ryan]

Gallery: SIM / hardware-unlocked Android Dev Phone 1 surfaces for $399

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[Fernando @ Dec 5th 2008 11:47PM]

I'd get it.

[james Churchman @ Dec 6th 2008 8:47AM]

does anybody know or have experience of (specifically on o2 in the uk) if you have an iphone on contract with unlimited 3g internet access on the phone, if you transfer the sim to this (or any phone, such as winmobile) will it still consider the 3g access free (and if so is there any setup required)


only asking as i am developing full time for iphone and if i decided to do an android port i would like to test the apps performance over 3g or the slower edge connection and it would be preferable if it was still covered by the iphone's data contract

[paul-engadget @ Dec 6th 2008 5:09PM]

apparently O2 keep a list of all iPhone IMEIs so that if you take the SIM out of an iphone and put it in a different phone or even a 3G modem they can decide to block the non-iphone device. I don't know of any specific cases - but I think it's primarily designed to stop abuse of the very high data usage limits.

[Das Gluten @ Dec 8th 2008 5:59AM]

Great. Now just make an unlocked G1 that isn't $400 so I can buy one without paying hundreds of dollars to drop my current service. If they're willing to do this, why not just make a normal unlocked one?

[change @ Dec 5th 2008 11:47PM]

I'd be curious about the radio...the Google info page doesn't have any specs. What frequency bands does it operate on? T-Mobile's 1700/2100MHz bands only, or does it have a radio capable of communicating on the 1900MHz band as well?

[yokken @ Dec 6th 2008 12:30AM]

I want to know as well. If it works with AT&T 3G, this will raise a LOT of interest.

Good job, Google.

[feffrey @ Dec 6th 2008 1:17AM]

Don't forget the 850 band!

[SuperQ @ Dec 6th 2008 1:24AM]

Unfortunately, as far as I know it doesn't work on AT&T 3G. Hopefully they can get HTC to make one with a different radio chip.

[pinke123 @ Dec 6th 2008 10:59AM]

it has 850 for gsm 2g, but it only has international 2100 and t-mobile usa 1700 for 3g, not the 1900 that AT&T uses. everybody should just use 2100, makes the world so much more simpler.

[bob vansteel @ Dec 5th 2008 11:48PM]

This is awesomeness...when you say SIM-Unlocked, i assume that means works with AT@T SIM cards and the such?

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 12:37AM]

That's the general idea.

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 10:45PM]

OMG I got a high rank! Get it off!

[Link2877 @ Dec 5th 2008 11:48PM]

This thing looks bichen If I could buy G1 I would totally look into this one.

[Bufsabre @ Dec 5th 2008 11:54PM]

i was kind of upset i was hoping the developers link would lead to that ballmer video from a couple years ago

[Marvin Quach @ Dec 6th 2008 1:09PM]

Are we talking about
http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/30/steve-ballmer-steve-ballmers-fists-to-deliver-ces-keynote/

Or the even more hilarious :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8To-6VIJZRE

???

DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!


One hell of a try at motivation though, I'll give him that much!

[Christian Walters @ Dec 5th 2008 11:55PM]

HOT DAMN! Once I get paid....ZING! Google will be reveiving 425 dollars of my money! This has got to be one of the smartest things that Google could have done to raise developer interest. Well done!

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 2:59AM]

Yeah, I guess it was that or start selling a non-phone Android device for devs to use (like an equivalent of the iPod touch from Apple). This way seems to have made a lot of people more happy. Heck, even I want one now!

[jojowasher @ Dec 5th 2008 11:58PM]

um, just checked it out, they want $264 to ship to Canada...

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 12:39AM]

Just for shipping? Well, I guess they are stationed on Mars...

[Babau @ Dec 6th 2008 2:18AM]

They want $140 USD to Australia. What a rip :|

[o rly @ Dec 6th 2008 2:17AM]

In that case, I'd suggest a mail forwarding option.

[Greg @ Dec 6th 2008 10:14AM]

Maybe because G1 = made by HTC = comes from China?

That's probably why it's cheaper to ship it to Australia.

Google must have gotten a deal with HTC for the U.S., most of the interest for this device might be elsewhere.

[Levi @ Dec 6th 2008 11:35AM]

jojo... just have it shipped to my house, then I'll ship it to your house for like $20...

...yea... I'll ship it to your house...

[Dustin Plunkett @ Dec 9th 2008 12:59AM]

jojo, I live in Michigan, just have it shipped to my house, and meet me near Detroit, we'll work something out

[klew @ Dec 6th 2008 12:02AM]

Good deal, even cheaper than buying off contract in most brick and mortar stores.

[digitallysick @ Dec 6th 2008 12:03AM]

Kick ass i know what im about to do with my money, just to have a real unlocked g1, without all the extra crap and the price is fair

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 12:41AM]

It's funny, but if you do the math (including every factor) this costs the exact same as it would to get an iPhone 3G that is unlocked. What a co-inky dink, eh?

[Jesse S @ Dec 6th 2008 1:56AM]

An unlocked 3G would amount to like $1,000, because you would have to get it from Europe, and unlocked ones cost a lot.

So, umm, how?

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 2:17AM]

I'd really rather not say. If I did take the time to type it all out, it would all be for naught when my comment gets Low Ranked into invisibility (a feature of the comment system that I greatly detest).

[o rly @ Dec 6th 2008 2:18AM]

I'll help you get started "who?"

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 2:45AM]

@o rly

[If Engadget had a good comment system, and if there was a 'confused' or similar emoticon for me to insert here, I would] I am unsure if you read my post incorrectly or wrote yours wrong, but... say what?

[schmitty338 @ Dec 6th 2008 9:38AM]

@Who?

...I think he is referring to getting you started with helping your "comment [get] Low Ranked into invisibility".

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 1:41PM]

@schmitty338

Too bad he didn't actually read my post, I was talking about a potential comment, not that one.

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 10:47PM]

Is he gone yet?

[o rly @ Dec 7th 2008 1:41AM]

I'm still here "who?" Are your previous comments? I can't really see them. "Low Ranked into invisibility" seems to have occurred.

[who? @ Dec 7th 2008 10:08AM]

You know, it's pricks like you that give everyone else here a bad name. Nobody who can operate a keyboard could possibly be as immature as you. Grow up.

[o rly @ Dec 7th 2008 12:41PM]

You know , "who?" I'm not even the one "whom?" got you "Low Ranked into invisibility", you did that to yourself; but it's the "pricks" here (EVERYONE ELSE) who negative voted you (I'm sure it takes multiple negative votes and you seemed to have gotten a lot of them, MANY times).

You called me (and other members of the Engadget community) "pricks" because you were "Low Ranked into invisibility" and I'm the immature one that needs to grow up? "srsly?"

[who? @ Dec 7th 2008 4:51PM]

I was refusing to answer Jesse S's question on the grounds that the resulting comment would get low ranked, this has nothing to do with you. What the hell is your problem?

To answer your question, using "srsly" as a word is a sure way to prove immaturity. Enough said.

[o rly @ Dec 8th 2008 12:15AM]

"Dude," the use of "srsly" was simply mocking you, "hell," there is no problem. You know it's just the intarwebs right? It's not as "serious business" as you actually seem to believe. The world doesn't revolve around getting "Low Ranked into invisibility" and will move on regardless.

"who? @ Dec 6th 2008 10:45PM

OMG I got a high rank! Get it off!"

I'm glad this made you happy or has seemed to invoke some sort of emotion in you. I'll even upvote your previous posts in hopes that you'll stop crying completely, dude, 'nough said.

[who? @ Dec 8th 2008 12:57AM]

Why do you insist that I care about getting low ranked? Where in the world are you getting that idea from? For the last time: I was just refusing to answer his question because it would be a pointless post when it was no longer visible.

You have a serious problem...

[o rly @ Dec 8th 2008 6:18PM]

@who?
Simple, like yourself:

who? @ Dec 6th 2008 2:17AM "If I did take the time to type it all out, it would all be for naught when my comment gets Low Ranked into invisibility"

who? @ Dec 6th 2008 10:45PM "OMG I got a high rank! Get it off!"

The pointless part is how you've mentioned that "refusing to answer his question because it would be a pointless post when it was no longer visible" when a bunch of your comments (in reference to this and other comments) have now become "invisible" anyway; quite the "irony."

Don't forget to mass upvote your own comments & mass downvote the others, (call me a prick or some other name as well, for good measure of course), as it'll keep you happy; Internet: Serious Business.

[who? @ Dec 8th 2008 7:35PM]

You, my friend, have a problem. You came here to do nothing but pick a pointless fight, a verbal sparring match to which you supplied both sides of the argument. You started your charade by phrasing your words with a condescending innuendo to get a rise out of anyone you could, a tactic which, to my great regret, I allowed to affect me.

You joined in, not to contribute or to make your opinion heard, but to completely dismantle what could have potentially been a well reasoned discussion. You put quotes around single words like it signifies something, and try to use use big girl words like irony. I'm going to be the bigger (and apparently the only) man here by putting an end to this here and now. Reply all you want, any way you want. Go ahead and have as big a hissy as you want.

Buddy, I am done enabling you.

[o rly @ Dec 14th 2008 8:07PM]

I applaud your use of a thesaurus & dictionary (for once), quite the big words this time, you're special; but you're done now? So a winner isn't you? That's too bad, especially as you haven't had a fair amount of "well reasoned discussions" (yet to find one, but one may just turn up). Thanks for coming out!

NOTE: Don't worry, I'll be voting you up again to appease your feeble attempt, even if it was just another vacuous reply.

Also, I'm not your buddy, guy.

[Zach @ Dec 21st 2008 12:34PM]

And I'm not your guy, friend!

[Kris120890 @ Dec 6th 2008 12:06AM]

How much in the UK. I'm not paying a set up fee if it costs too much.

[z @ Dec 6th 2008 12:09AM]

Which 3g does it come with? I'm hoping/guessing it would be the standard 3g used in europe since they are shipping international?

[Reapman @ Dec 8th 2008 3:57PM]

the zoom zoom kind?

[digitallysick @ Dec 6th 2008 12:10AM]

If you compare the ebay prices for unlocked g1s its almost the same and they are used

[who? @ Dec 6th 2008 2:53AM]

You commented three times... you must be really psyched about this, huh?

[Gnormie @ Dec 6th 2008 8:13AM]

Hypocrisy, thy name is 'Who?'

You've been seen commenting 20+ times in news posts relating to Apple, but 3 is obviously too many when it relates to a Google/HTC product? (excluding T-Mobile because of the unlocked nature of this product)