…writes an app, and that app is on portrait display, the platform also will run that same app on a landscape display.
What other types of devices that aren't exactly [mobile] phones could Android enable or run on?
The sky is the limit. This platform has been contemplated in different devices, from car-navigation systems to set-top boxes to laptop computers and, of course, [mobile] phones.
One of our alliance partners, Intel, has a category device called MID, or Mobile Internet Device, which is somewhere between a [mobile] phone and a PC. It's a large-display device meant to be primarily an internet access device.
Will Java be the primary foundation for software running Android?
Yes.
What are the lessons you learned from Danger?
I learned a lot of things.
One of the things I learned is it's getting easier and easier for people to build [mobile] phones. In 2009, there will be single-chip [mobile] phones, so you can go to Qualcomm and get basically a phone and a chip, or to Broadcom or one of the other alliance partners.
Pretty much anybody now can build a [mobile] phone right, and I mean anybody. The big lesson I learned coming out of Danger is, let's figure out a way to take advantage of that and provide a solution for the hardest part, which is the ever-changing software component.
The Sidekick became a cult hit. What limited its adoption?
I don't think it has limited adoptions, but it's probably best to ask the folks at Danger that question. I've been out of the company for about four years now, so I feel like I'm a little out of touch.
How would Android be different if you hadn't sold the company to Google?
It would have taken me a lot longer to do what I did as a start-up company. The platform within Google has a broader chance at success. Within Google, I think we have the opportunity to pretty quickly accelerate it and push it into different areas.
The [mobile] phone industry has so much legacy software today. One of the great things about starting from scratch is, you get to re-evaluate the importance of the legacy. And you can make decisions about which parts of it you want to support and which parts just don't make sense.
So the part that I think becomes really important is more around the heavy lifting that you can do in the cloud. ("The cloud" refers to data residing on a server on the internet that anyone with a computer and an internet connection can access.) Remember, the cloud didn't exist when the internet didn't exist — when [mobile] phones first were introduced. So that's part of the game that changed.
Do you think the big US carriers — AT&T and Verizon Wireless — will join the Open Handset Alliance?
It's certainly possible. The alliance is completely open. It's not a closed thing; it's not a club. We welcome anybody. Members who wish to join the alliance actually have to contribute something, so I encourage people to join and contribute.
When did the work on Android start, and why did it take until now?
Why did it take until now? Because it was a ton of work. How often have you seen a completely new operating system come to market? It doesn't happen that often because there's just so much [required] to build an operating system these days.
Remember, Android is not just an operating system. The Alliance put everything on top of the operating system necessary to build a [mobile] phone. We built a web browser, and we built email applications, and we built a Google Maps application.
How strategically significant is the mobile market for Google?
I would say very. There are close to three billion [mobile] phones out there today. They are pervasive. They're intimate. You bring your phone with you wherever you go. So it has a lot of touch points in your life because it's in your pocket with you most of the time.
That is super important to Google. This is just going to be, for some people, the first way to get access to the internet. They might not even have a PC. So it is the future.
Which is more important to you: the richness of the platform or the affordability of phones the platform runs on?
I would say both are equally important, and that is the reason we made this an open-source project. By having a free and open platform, we're reducing the cost of software, which, in turn, reduces the cost of the [mobile] phone. When we built the platform, we didn't go for the really expensive $600 smartphones. We went for the mid-market.
What do you think of the iPhone?
I love it. I use it every day. That's my phone, and I think it's a great product. It's probably the best version 1.0 piece of consumer electronics that I've ever used.
Do you think that the Android devices are going to be competing with the iPhone?
No, I do not. I think it's a different business. Apple has a great business in building really, really high-quality consumer products, and the platform that we're building can go into a lot of different products.
What have we not discussed that we should?
I'm really proud of the team that came together to create this, both internal to Google and within the alliance. It set a precedent of co-operation.
When you build an alliance of 34 companies in an industry like the mobile industry, and you get them all to work together to produce something as functional and as high-quality as Android, it's a completely new model.
I'm really proud of the way it turned out. I'm really excited about the possibilities that open up in the industry.
Talkback
I hate developing on emulators. The articles's mentioning the option of running the Android platform on notebooks made me think: Wouldn't make
all our dust-covered 333Mhz notebooks make great Android testing platforms?
And while we are at it: Wouldn't that be also absolutely GREAT
for making these old machines useful for basic internet surfing again?
It's just LInux, so adding some state-of-the-art USB and WLAN drivers
should not be any problem.
This post has been removed by a moderator.