Google's Phone Platform: It's Not an OS, So What Is It?

It all depends on your definition of "open."

The real reason handset manufacturers may be driven toward an open platform, Google CEO Eric Schmidt stated this afternoon, is because they're in need of a full-featured, common Web browser.

"The fundamental problem with most of the phones that people have today is, they do not have full-power browsers," Schmidt said. "So...we've been taking our various mobile services...and we have to do specialized engineering to get them on those devices. The Android platform includes a full-power browser and a full Internet experience. So no longer, if you are using Android as your platform, will you have to shoe-horn, if you will, the application in. So...every application that runs well on a future Web environment should run well on Android as well as on your PC and your Mac and so forth.

"This has a lot of implications for applications developers," he continued. "There are many, many examples of applications that'll be really, really amazing on a mobile device, which are extremely difficult to build because the underlying architecture, software, developer platform isn't powerful enough. Examples include games, multiplayer activities, social networking applications, things which integrate video and audio - whole categories of applications that are obviously useful to the mobile user at any price point and at any place in the world, and the Android platform will, in our view, be the first platform to enable those on a broad scale."

But what browser is it, really? When pressed further by a Seattle Times reporter who cleverly asked whether a new operating system would end up further fragmenting the existing mobile developer community, Rubin would only say this: "The key difference between this and some of the other platforms that are out there is that this one's open. Open in two ways: Open in that third-party developers are free to develop their applications on top of it, and also this platform is made available as open source, which means anybody can take it [and] modify it to suit their own needs."

The Washington Post's Rob Pegoraro found an interesting side-note in press material he received, saying carriers would have the right to make modifications to the platform. Does this mean they could use any Web browser they chose - or any Linux, for that matter? Is there a minimum set of required software to earn the "Android" label?

"No, the purpose of it being open and providing it as open source," responded Google's Andy Rubin, "means anybody can do whatever they want with it. The particular license we chose, which is the Apache v2 license, has no restrictions."

Meaning the carrier can't limit the user's ability to add in his own software? Rubin deflected it to the manufacturers on the call, saying it wasn't a "software question," but all the other Alliance members quietly declined to respond.

Later, a PC Magazine reporter followed up by asking whether the Apache v2 license applies to the end users, or whether carriers and/or manufacturers remained "open" to locking down the phones entirely. This is where the greatest contradiction of the day came up, as Rubin responded, "When you free something into the open, it's really up to the industry to do something with it. There aren't any restrictions, so the industry can decide what to do, and how to enable it in their product."

So the industry could use Android to create locked-down devices, the reporter pressed on? "Yes," was the response.

At that point, Eric Schmidt tried to save the day. "I understand your question," he pleaded, "and I would suggest that it's both possible and highly unlikely, because the more constraints that manufacturers put on the platform, the fewer of the kinds of applications and the kinds of extensions that we anticipate will be built on this platform, will fundamentally work on their device. So while the license would certainly allow that kind of behavior - and you can imagine [it], in an extreme case - it's highly unlikely that you'll see the scenario you described."

Schmidt's response contrasted against an earlier response from Rubin to a question about whether Android was a "soft phone" platform that would run on basically anything - in an attempt to ascertain any of the basic hardware requirements.

"You know something, I don't see an easy way...We're talking about mobile phones, which are essentially embedded devices," Rubin began. "They have flash ROMs and technology that makes it relatively hard for an end user to upgrade them, so to speak. So regarding the Android system as a 'soft phone,' I don't think we're there yet. It's an interesting opportunity. We'll be thinking about it, I guess, after your question."

Typically Google earns its revenue from advertising. So where exactly is the value proposition in Android from Google's standpoint? The notion that Android simply "makes more Google users," doesn't necessarily wash if you consider that user on Android's competitive platforms may also be "Google users."

"One of the interesting things about Google's business is the flexibility and the relevance of its advertising system," responded Rubin, looking for somewhere to go with this line of thought. "We take those ads and we put them on phones via the Web browser, typically. Part of this Android solution is a very robust HTML Web browser, so there's really no difference between the browsing experience on your phone and your desktop PC. This, of course, enables Google's business. Contrary to a lot of the speculation out there, you won't see a completely ad-driven cell phone based on this platform for some time."

"For some time." As another reporter later pointed out, in order to drive advertising in the mobile space, you need to make agreements with the carriers themselves. You don't bypass the carriers by routing any old advertising to users via Google-driven Web pages. So is this really what the Alliance is about? Is this the deal that's been worked out with the carriers, and will they be receiving cuts of ad revenue? In other words, is this Alliance not really about the software but about an underlying deal?

Eric Schmidt's answer was very revealing: "We're likely to want to enter into such agreements with handset partners because sharing in the revenue, sharing in the advertising, produces just a better total ecosystem. Our whole strategy around partnership has been to work with people, literally share in the profits, share in the revenue, under whatever terms make sense, [because then] everybody's in alignment. The fact that Android allows it does not require it. I think it's highly likely we would do it."

Schmidt later made this comment: "It's worth emphasizing that industries develop with essentially proprietary solutions of one kind or another, and that if you look at the history of technology, you usually end up with a good volume solution that is one that is standardized, because many, many people have access to it. But the best model to get volume is to be open - that's what the Internet has taught us. So the fact that Android is a piece of software, essentially, that everyone can use and everyone can modify, means that people who might even be competitors are much more likely to adopt it and use it as a basis for their work, as long as it's good enough."

After this afternoon, even that last point is a question that remains up in the air.