Recently Google held three developer workshops - in London, Munich and Tel Aviv - to publicise accurate Android facts and demonstrate how to code on the platform; another such event will be held on the 23rd in Boston.  Lance Davis of RegDeveloper was invited, along with other software coders, to visit Google’s London office and get some basic understanding of how the company has put together the Android embedded OS. 

For the non-coders among us, or those new to mobile development, Lance neatly illustrates the challenge Google has faced - and perhaps set for programmers already working in the field - by comparing computer versus phone architecture:

“Computer people coming to mobile have a very different view of phone architecture to phone people adding features. Phone people see the phone functions - the GSM chipset, Bluetooth, DVB-H, for example, as a foundation, with drivers on top. Then there’s an abstraction layer, an operating system, a user interface framework and the applications on top. Computer people look at the system as a processor with a BIOS on top, then an OS, framework and applications. The bits that mobile phone people see as a foundation, the computer people see as an adjunct connected by drivers. Voice is just another application. And this approach was reflected yesterday” Lance Davis, RegDeveloper

Google provides a Linux 2.6 kernel that will handle things like memory management, the display driver and power management, but GSM stacks and chipset will be provided by the hardware manufacturers (e.g. Qualcomm, Intel, etc); they’re also expecting that, however good their software 3D rendering, ODMs will add in hardware acceleration.

“The real magic is the Android runtime called Dalvik. This is a custom virtual machine designed to be a better embedded OS. … It’s “Open” because you don’t need permission to ship an application. Developers can integrate, extend and replace components and users don’t need permission to install an application. The installer is part of the platform, along with a roll-back and un-install. But Android is not (yet) open beyond Dalvik” Lance Davis

Anybody expecting a fully complete OS, which could be slapped onto a dumb hardware platform just before it shipped out the door, will be disappointed.  Google will provide non-mandatory Home, Contacts, Phone and Browser applications (though no messaging app) as part of Android, but ODMs will need to either code or source the rest.  Here, though, a worrying flexibility to the project’s premise as a universal platform becomes apparent: while OHA members have signed a non-fragmentation agreement, this does not cover applications and is not, in fact, even binding. 

“There is nothing to stop a phone manufacturer or one developer modifying code in a way that will inadvertently break an application. The user always owns the experience, in theory the operator could lock the home screen but this would go against the morals of the Open Handset Alliance” Lance Davis

A reliance on “morals” in the cellphone industry is likely to give many consumers - myself included - a sense of discomfort.  As is the so-far unqualified support hierarchy, with Google expecting software providers to give tech support for their own programs, while the general assumption being that - in keeping with the established cellphone model - users will go directly to their carrier.  Verizon Wireless has already distanced itself from support queries on non-operator-provided handsets, and this is likely to become a theme throughout the industry.

Lance came away from the workshop with an interesting conclusion: that Android phones would occupy the same price point as, say, Nokia’s N95 smartphone.  Interesting, I say, because many manufacturers expressed interest in the platform as a low-cost way to equip cellphones with a widely-recognisable OS.  This month’s Mobile World Congress in Barcelona (which our sister site PHONE Mag will be attending) is expected to feature a number of Android-powered handsets, and while many of them will be highly capable smartphones, what might be more curious is to see the number of mainstream, entry/mid-level cellphones which would feasibly be the best selling models.