Verizon Joins Linux Mobile Foundation 100
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say they don't care about something until it costs them money, but here they don't know that there's any other way, since most Americans think other countries are fictional.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Ignorant is more like it, but there isn't an option for that so Flamebait would be more accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it's true. We Americans really do pay for text messages, and I rarely hear people complain about it. Maybe it's "ignorant" (i.e. I haven't actually conducted a serious poll) but those really are my real-life observations, also.
Maybe the lack of complaints is due to there not currently being any competition, though. (All the carriers overcharge, so if you shop around, no carrier's prices look particularly bad.) When open phones become usable, I can see the situation changing. Maybe. (I hope.)
Death t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By hanging onto the theory that people buy ringtones for $4.99 because there is no easy way to copy over the MP3 files because you disabled bluetooth OBEX... That's just crazy talk.
It's about time they were talking about openness. They've been a closed book for too many year
Re:Android not as open (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's an accumulated 35 years worth of software written in "C" for the UNIX API that includes pretty much all the software that I'm personally interested in running, one way or another.
Writing a compiler for a subset of C that would make even a fraction of these programs work would probably be a bigger job than creating Android was.
Re: (Score:2)
In the end I don't think it is a bigger job then Android jus
Android is a Java phone, Linux doesn't matter (Score:2)
And even if I'm wrong, and you could do it with only (say) twice as much eff
Re: (Score:2)
God forgive me, I'm defending Verizon. (Score:2)
That's fine, but the whole thrust of the slashdot conventional wisdom here is that Verizon is doing something underhanded by going with a "different Linux phone" instead of Android. And that's where I'm coming from here: if you're looking for a platform to run Linux software on a cellphone, then Android isn't the platform you're looking for, and castigating Verizon is, well, not fair.
Re:Android not as open (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Android isn't about Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I can use native libraries in Mono, too... that doesn't mean that the fact that Mono runs on Linux makes a
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: (Score:2)
It's not much, of course. But you can also argue that you can run Symbian OS applications on Windows if you care to port its API and binary loader.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting when one is considering the quality and details of the implementation, but unless it's exposed through the API in a way that depends on the fact that it's Linux under the hood that doesn't change my point. Android provides an Android environment, not a UNIX one.
But you can also argue that you can run Symbian OS applications o
Android isn't about Windows Mobil. (Score:1)
This person thinks that Android will significantly stunt Windows Mobil plans [informationweek.com].
Re:Android not as open (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They do have some performance reason for the change, but it's hard not to suspect some politics.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 term, they can probably stick with GPL2 software easily enough, if they feel they need to. But if and when a critical mass of FOSS is being released under GPL3, it will be harder to achieve full lockdown of the platform.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
2) I predict a "L/GPLv2 and later" fork of large parts of the GNU project, particularly glibc, fileutils, binutils, etc.
So, no, I don't think the anti-tivoisation clause will end up stopping Verizon in the near term or long term. Remember: Verizon is on the board of LiMo, so they, at
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and this can be summarized even more: The more open it is, the easier it is to close down.
I think, this is what "GPL vs. BSDL" debates boil down to:
Verizon? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Verizon? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
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:Hans and Linus meet Verizon - mods: -1, Unfunny (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What's funny about this?
Re: (Score:1)
US catches up with the rest of the World. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll try to be clearer after I've had coffee...
Re: (Score:1)
They still sell phones that are locked to their network, but I don't think they have done much to prevent people from using unlocked phones.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the devices use that chunk of spectrum, Verizon may not have had a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I admit I do not like what they do to the Icons (they have a standard icon set) but normally they do not remove features. (They tried at first with the N95 and its in built SIP functionality, but were forced via a lawsuit to put it back in!)
They DO Sim lock the phones, but considering they do give a HUGE discount, that is fair, and its not too difficult to unlock most phones, and they have an offici
Germany frees the States (Score:2)
Martin
Re: (Score:2)
It's GSM - which is about a decade old and is the same thing, except it also works across networks, countries, and even continents.
Whereas Verizon is only a pillar of freedom... on Verizon. And in the States.
Very confusing (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to this question is right there in your post: "you wouldn't have to go buy a new cable every time you got a new phone."
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Yeah, exactly. I've been with Verizon for almost 5 years on a family plan, now up to 5 phones and it's been one of the worst experiences in terms of hardware and upgrading. Every two years you get the chance to upgrade to another proprietary, locked-in phone, and if you want to buy a better phone or upgrade before, you're paying an arm and a leg for even the most basic phones, and renewing your subscription for two more years.
I'd love to see cell phones become like cell phone numbers: you can them wher
Re:Very confusing (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Swapping your regular, subscriber SIM for a pay-as-you-go SIM when you get off the train in your destination isn't even a technical task in Europe. It's just what you do - walk in to a O2 or Orange store, grab a PAYG SIM and slap £20 of minutes on there
I did it when I went to London from the States, worked great. I paid a grand total of the £50 - while my parents paid $600 in roaming.
Re: (Score:1)
And the GP comment (don't take it personally) shows why the world is laughing at the US cellphone market.
If this were the case, then I'd think the US would have good reason to laugh at the world's ignorance. In the US, you can travel from coast to coast, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands all without roaming, so there is no need to have to swap SIM cards on any regular basis.
In Europe on the other hand, you can only get a couple hundred kilometers from your home before you're roaming and paying out the nose. This makes SIM cards a necessity for the reasons you mentioned.
Personally, I
Re: (Score:2)
Then, when I started playing around with Bluetooth for the first time, I realized how much I couldn't do. My girlfriend and I had the same make and model phones, but we couldn't transfer files between them. In fact, I had to install BitPim (love it) on each computer just so we could transfer wallpapers and ringtones without having to pay for
Re: (Score:1)
If they want to abandon closed proprietary technologies for an open international standard, they're going to have to make the same change to their handsets and open them. Might as well get your consumer hardware infrastructure ready for the change before hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 prevent feature-superior uncrippled phones from using their network (bypassing the overpriced replacements for the features removed from Verizon's version of said phones - see Treo 650 Bluetooth DUN as an example.)
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia has almost no cdmaOne/CDMA2000 phones
Keyword *almost*.
;)
Oh, you want a *choice*. I see
I would also imagine that this would change, if there were a sudden market for them. I notice that Nokia CEO claims [infoworld.com] the market isn't viable (for them) and that's the reason - of course that was a couple of years ago, so things are undoubtedly different these days.
If this move is as it seems, then I guess it will change a lot of things. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia has almost no cdmaOne/CDMA2000 phones. They're a GSM/UMTS shop.
Then look for Nokia's other countries that use CDMA. I know that Japan uses/used CDMA (don't know if they completely got rid of it now that they're 3G.) Hong Kong uses CDMA as well, and their Nokia site is in both Chinese (I'm guessing Mandarin, but I really have no clue) and English. Just go to http://www.cdg.org/worldwide/index.asp [cdg.org] and check out what other countries use CDMA, and then check out those countries' pages for Nokia or any other large company like SonyEricsson
Re: (Score:2)
and their Nokia site is in both Chinese (I'm guessing Mandarin, but I really have no clue)
FYI, Mandarin is a spoken language, and they speak Cantonese in HK (mostly)[1]. The written languages are 'traditional Chinese' and 'simplified Chinese', for former being what they use in HK (and Taiwan?).
[1] IINM Cantonese is a English 'corruption' of the word Guangdongese, Guangdong being the neighbouring province.
Having said that, I can't see it's all that similar a word. So, like "Peking" being the western word for "Beijing", I wonder if it isn't that the Chinese are now using a different word, or pron
Why I'm excited about Android (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one example of the creative ways communications problems can be solved.. but only if you have an open platform.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 I would say it's possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like your saying that Symbian doesn't allow 'cool' applications, so long as 'cool' is defined as applications you can't develop.
Talking about S60 here (UIQ is also Symbian), there *is* a bluetooth API of course. There's even a bluetooth point-to-multipoint example [nokia.com]. The FAQ [nokia.com] (which seems a little out of date to me) says
# Do Nokia's phones support point-to-multipoint?
#
Nokia phones having Symbian OS support point-to-multipoint as a master. Thus, it is possible to develop an application that establishes multiple links from a Nokia phone to other devices. As a slave, the phone can only have one active Bluetooth connection. A master/slave switch is not supported.
Series 40 devices support only point-to-point connections.
(Note that Series 40 is not Symbian)
This [nokia.com] also mentions multiplayer games using bluetooth, so I can't help but wonder how they work, *if* what you say is true :
Re: (Score:2)
As for using point-to-point data to do voice over bluetooth, yes, you can do that, if you want to re-invent the wheel, just don't expect any sane o
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, the entire Android stack is (or is going to be) Open Source..
Oh, ok. That's news to me. I thought the reason Verizon doesn't want to join Android is because it isn't open. We'll have to wait and see, I guess.
As for using point-to-point data to do voice over bluetooth, yes, you can do that, if you want to re-invent the wheel, just don't expect any sane operating support to do it because Symbian supports voice over bluetooth to headsets only, not to other handsets. Or at least it did when I was a Symbian developer, they might have add support since then.
So, you don't know then. I don't either, actually. It's plausible, I suppose, but things change.
Re: (Score:1)
itsatrap (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I've been with Verizon for years and this sounds way too "nice guy" for them. It would be incredible if it was true, and maybe Verizon is feeling the pinch from iPhone subscriptions and the prospect of future Android defectors, but I doubt it. Think Microsoft OOXML vs. ODF: I think its similar.
Outsorcing phones while charging for the privilage (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Outsorcing phones while charging for the privil (Score:2)
I've been really suspicious of Verizon's sudden turn to openness since the original announcement. The contrast between its announced future plans and its past actual behavior is stunning.
I'm also wondering where OpenMoko falls into all of this. Are they just whistling in the dark while the carriers line up behind Linux Mobile, Android and Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking about a Centro... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will the day finally come (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
What about Apple? (Score:1)
I'm a Verizon customer who also doesn't like the control-freak mentality there. They may be dragged into OS kicking and screaming, but I think they finally realized they don't have the option of not opening their devices if they want to remain one of the top-tier providers.
With
Steps to get their source (Score:1)
2. Sue Verizon.
3. Enjoy the source!