Verizon Joins Linux Mobile Foundation

An anonymous reader brings news that Verizon Wireless has announced plans to use a Linux-based software platform for phones on its network. Verizon is the first US mobile carrier to join the Linux Mobile Foundation, the goal of which is to "collaboratively develop a comprehensive Linux-based mobile software stack that can be modified easily and used at no cost on a wide range of hardware devices." Many had expected Verizon to go with Android, but according to the Register, Verizon feels Android "isn't as open as it would prefer." Continuing: "Yes, Google bills Android as open. And, yes, it's backed by the Open Handset Alliance, another industry consortium calling for the open development of mobile apps. But [Verizon spokesman Jeffrey] Nelson argues that at this point, Google is calling the shots. 'Google said "Here's the plan. Sign on the dotted line if you support." It may end up being collaborative. It may end up being collegial. But it need not be.' He actually has a point. But maybe Verizon just wants more control over the situation. It should be noted that the company made sure it has a place on the LiMo board. In any event, Verizon says that customers will be free to attach any device and any application to its network by the end of the year - provided those devices and applications met certain minimum specifications. So, in theory, you'll have free rein to attach an Android phone even if you don't buy it from Verizon."

Android not as open

Verizon feels Android "isn't as open as it would prefer."

Translation: Google won't let use lock Android phones down, so we made sure we had a place on the LiMo board to ensure that we can continue to control everything the way we've always done.

Re:

More translations:

provided those devices and applications met certain minimum specifications

Minimum specifications: we can lock the device down.

Re:

It's all bad with VZW locking down their phones. By not letting every single phone have every single feature, people actually have to pick and choose phones based on how easy they are to hack to get the phone working with what they want.

By hanging onto the

Re:

I couldn't disagree more. These are American consumers we're talking about here. They care more about what color their phone is than how much more they get screwed as compared to cell phone customers in any other civilized country.

I'd say they don't care

Re:Android not as open

Android may be open source, but the fact that it's based on Linux is more or less irrelevant to the programmer. The native API is Java-based, Android applications run under the JVM, and you can't expect to run anything but Java applications on Android. It's not a "Linux phone", it's a "Java phone" that happens to use Linux in its implementation.

Re:Android not as open

Wrong.

You can already easily use native libraries in Android, even though it is officially unsupported. Android has a perfectly good security system which makes it possible.

In future, it should even be possible to extend the Dalvik VM (its sources are not available right now).

Android isn't about Linux

You can already easily use native libraries in Android, even though it is officially unsupported.

I can use native libraries in Mono, too... that doesn't mean that the fact that Mono runs on Linux makes a .NET application a Linux application.

The Android API may well be a better one than the UNIX API for a cellphone, by the way, so I'm not saying that this is necessarily a drawback to Android. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter all that much to the developer whether the OS below the Android runtime is Linux, Windows CE, Windows PE, whatever the Symbian OS is called this week, Palm OS 5, BeOS, or Amiga.DE.

The whole "Android is Linux" meme is just muddying the waters... Android isn't using Linux as anything but an implementation tool. Android isn't about Linux. Android is about Android.

Re:Android not as open

The native API is Java-based, Android applications run under the JVM, and you can't expect to run anything but Java applications on Android. It's not a "Linux phone", it's a "Java phone" that happens to use Linux in its implementation.

Partly correct, except it won't use the JVM. It will use a different virtual machine called Dalvik, so that they can get around Sun's ridiculous JME licensing, MIDP profiles [betaversion.org], and everything else that sucks about running midlets on phones today (such as the overzealous security restrictions that keep me from easily running a program I wrote on my own phone.)

Re:

That's the nice part about running Java on the phone most people don't seem to get. By having the Java wrapper they only have to secure Java from doing anything wrong not try to secure random code that will be running as compiled. Why Java and not C++ or [

Re:

The anti-Tivoisation is perhaps the most controversial clause of the GPL3, but as embedded Linux becomes more common, perhaps also one of the most important. It will be interesting to see how this sort of thing is affected in the longer term.

In the short

Verizon?

Of course, this will only be of any benefit to the users if they leave the 'modified easily and used at no cost on a wide range of hardware devices' aspect open to the users.

Judging by the past performance of Verizon, they will do anything possible to lock it down and maximise their profit stream/control over the platform.

At least it should make the devices more hackable though! :)

Re:

Yeah, I discovered this week how much Verizon wants you to mess with their phones. Try loading BREW apps on a LG VX9900 (enV) using BitPim sometime.

Re:Verizon?

That's why I'm an AT&T customer now.

I was interested in the XV6800 (an HTC Windows Mobile device), but Verizon was delaying it for months and months after Sprint released the same device for "network certification issues".

I learned my lesson the hard way what "network certification issues" means from Verizon delaying the Treo 650 by 6-9 months from Sprint release - It means "the phone's software hasn't been crippled to our satisfaction yet".

So if the phone you want is released on Sprint but Verizon is delaying it for "network certification issues", find another phone or switch providers, because the phone you get from Verizon will NOT have the features and functionality that the Sprint variant has.

Hans and Linus meet Verizon

Hans: Can you hear me now?
Linus: (pretending it's a bad connection) What?
Hans: Can you hear me now?
Linus: What? What?
Hans: Can you hear me now!!!!???
Linus: Sorry Hans, I can't hear you. Why don't you "have a talk" with that stupid Verizon guy.

Re:

This isn't remotely funny.

What's funny about this?

US catches up with the rest of the World.

will be free to attach any device and any application to its network by the end of the year - provided those devices and applications met certain minimum specifications.

So finally the US caught up with us....

Re:

No, the US is merely saying something that makes it *look* like a bastion of freedom and democracy and ice-cream-covered puppy kisses and unicorn farts. In reality, the moment that someone releases a free application for a Verizon phone that enables some c

Very confusing

I've been a Verizon customer now for about 5 years. The coverage is excellent here (Indianapolis) and the price is decent, so I've stuck around.

Really the only complaint I've had with them thus far is that basically every phone they sell is locked down and/or has it's interface completely changed when compared to the original phone, or the same phone sold to another carrier. Additionally, they are very choosy about how you can connect to their data network.

This "customers will be free to attach any device and any application to its network by the end of the year" seems like a complete 180 to that mindset. The only way I see them pulling that is if some huge charge is added to your data plan to allow it. They already nickel and dime you if you want to tether a phone instead of using their air card.

It just seems fishy to me.

Re:Very confusing

I'd love to see cell phones become like cell phone numbers: you can them whereever you go. Hardware should be carrier independent. It's not like my ISP makes me buy a computer which only works with their network. My TV works with any cable provider. But my cell phone?

Um, you can, more or less. It's called GSM. You can use any GSM phone that supports 850/1900 with any GSM carrier in the US. Most GSM phones sold in the US are 850/1800/1900, which means that you can even use those in other places like Europe. Just pop out the SIM card, put in a new one that you buy once you get to your destination, and viola, no roaming/international charges.

This is the sole reason why I'm sticking with T-Mobile. I get a Verizon discount at work, but for the value of the discount, it only brings the phone bill down to what I'm paying with T-Mobile. I'll use the discount on FiOS and a landline, maybe TV as well, but Verizon is staying hella far away from my mobile.

Why I'm excited about Android

A friend and I were trying to have a conversation with an old friend via loudspeaker on a Symbian based phone. If you've ever tried this, you know how difficult it is to hear the each other. What's especially annoying is that we had more than one phone on hand, but setting up a three way call is painfully difficult and expensive, but more importantly, it's completely unnecessary. There's no reason why any number of handsets can not be linked via bluetooth and only one make the call to the third party.

This is one example of the creative ways communications problems can be solved.. but only if you have an open platform.

Re:

What's to stop you from implementing this on a Symbian platform?

The SDK is free and I'm fairly sure you can do that sort of functionality. Of course, you have the SymbianSigned gauntlet to go through, and you will if you want to do that sort of thing, but

itsatrap

itsatrap? anyone?

Outsorcing phones while charging for the privilage

will be free to attach any device and any application to its network by the end of the year - provided those devices and applications met certain minimum specifications.

For a fee.

Yep, Verizon built a US$20 million lab to 'certify' products submitted for use on their network, and expects to recoup that investment by charging for their certification services. So unless someone with reasonably deep pockets is gonna back your whatsmawhoseits it won't going on Verizon's network. Compare this to, say, T-Mobile whose policy is pretty much if it takes a SIM plug it in and they'll be happy to bill you for it.

What is Verizons real goal?

Getting out of the phone business.

No carrier likes to be in the phone business - it costs money for all of those stores & racks of phones & inventory management and huge support overhead, not to mention the complex subsidy plans that everyone loathes. So Verizon's plan is to outsource it all to the phone manufacturers. Sure, buy any Verizon 'certified' phone (same as the rest of the world using GSM enjoys) and plug it in. Got a problem?? Call whomever you bought it from, or the manufacturer, just not Verizon.

It's an easy way for Verizon to expand the offerings on their network, at no risk or cost to Verizon, while shifting the overhead of supporting those phones elsewhere. Verizon will charge for the service, that lovely pricey plan, just now you'll be buying from their list of 'certified' products, not their Verizon-branded phones.

Expect in a few years to walk into Verizon stores with minimal selection of phones, just enough range to cover the basics for those too out-of-the-loop to buy their phone elsewhere. Or even a sublet strategy where phone manufacturers pay for square footage and supply their own staff to sell their brand phones.

But innovative homebrew startups etc.? Not on big red it'll be expensively certified products paying for the Verizon privilage thankyouverymuch.

Re:

I think Nokia [nokiausa.com] might sell you one.

Re:

Nokia has almost no cdmaOne/CDMA2000 phones. They're a GSM/UMTS shop.

In addition, previously only Sprint had an ESN whitelist that would prevent them from activating phones not sold by them. I have heard that Verizon also does this now in order to preven