google_voice_androidOne of Gizmodo’s trusted sources claims the oft-rumored Google Phone “is a certainty” and has seen it with their own eyes.  Further, they claim that we’ve yet to see the “real” Android.

So if what we’ve been treated to over the last year is not the real deal, then what is?

And by “Google Phone” we don’t simply mean another Android handset. We’re talking about Google-branded hardware running a version of Android we haven’t yet seen.

Over the next few weeks, Google Phones (most probably in early, prototype form) will flood the Mountain View campus. They’ll don large LCDs while running a new version of Android, either Flan or the version of Android beyond it which our source spotted running on Google’s handset…

We’re crossing our fingers that there really are multiple handsets and that they end up getting some leak/blurry cam treatment.  Who doesn’t want some more

You tell us…

What would constitute as the ‘real’ Android? Leave a comment below and share your guesses.

Note: Select outbound links may include affiliate tracking codes and AndroidGuys may receive compensation for purchases. Read our policy. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.


  1. If google holds back the best stuff for their own branded phones, thats terrible. It would completely piss off every hardware manufacturer out there and further fracture the android community.

  2. I don't know if I agree with you there. I have already seen evidence that many manufacturers don't seem to have a need to be always on the cutting edge of what is new in android. Also certain carriers don't seem to pay much mind to it either. You would think if they did, every manufacturer would have had their phone ready for 2.0 the moment it was finished…(plus all the phones that haven't even come out yet that aren't going to be running 2.0 at release time) … in addition you would think every carrier would have been ready for their phones to be 2.0 ready.

    Now some of this could be attributed to the fact that maybe verizon had an exclusivity deal with google for 2.0, but if this were really the case I think most other carriers would have caused an uproar about it.

    i for one, picture google rolling things out to their own phones first and allowing other manufactures and carriers to adopt what they see fit…and why shouldn't it be this way… the fragmentation of android builds is on the verge of annoyance and I think there needs to be one place where you can go and get the full deal…. if this is the case though i see google phasing out the "google branded" versions of phones carriers sell… maybe not though.. (personally I don't see why anyone would buy a non-google branded android phone… all the sense UIs and motoblurs and SEs upcoming UI just create a nightmare from an upgrade position.

  3. Can a data network really sustain VoIP calls as you move between towers (like while driving in a car)? I don't know much about it, but was wondering ever since these rumors came about. Has anyone made Skype or Fring calls while driving? Did it work well?

  4. yeah you need to have an 'IBM PC' in order to have IBM PC compatibles. Microsoft didn't do that with WinMo and it just whittled away.

    • The article is nice but completely discounts that…yes google may not want to be in the hardware business, but this doesn't discount them from having a manufacture build a phone/s for them that they will offer directly to the public.

      Through this scenario Googel does not violate what was said here… “We’re not making hardware; we’re enabling other people to build hardware.” – Andy Rubin

      To be honest i don't see how telecom companies could really be upset by google having their own handset… think about it…. what truly at this point in time is the adoption rate of VoIP services? Walk up to almost anyone you see with a cell phone and ask them if it is utilizing VoIP and they will give you the "deer in the headlights" stare. Potentially what it does do is take away future customers, but this is a good thing from a consumer standpoint … competition and whatnot.

      Next, what better way is there for google to better control and showcase what their vision of android is? As I said before fragmentation is getting laughable and I'm sure this doesn't go by unnoticed at Google HQ.

  5. My guess regarding the REAL Android is that it will have dramatically more speech recognition. You'll be able to navigate the main applications using Voice User Interfaces. And, oh yeah, you'll be able to make phone calls just using your Bluetooth headset, without touching the phone.

    Some reasons behind this guess:

    1) Voice User Interfaces are much better than GUIs for a lot of what a user wants to do when the device has a teeny keyboard and a teeny screen.

    2) Android quietly deleted the grammar-based speech recognition code from the Android codebase over a year ago, and AFAIK there's been no public discussion of Android's speech recognition plans since. (Android has what is called transcription or dictation or speech-to-text, but that's not suitable for what I'm talking about.)

    3) (This reason is a stretch because I don't know if it's related to the lack of speech reco support.) You can't make phone calls using just your headset, a feature that has been on other phones in the past and is essential for some folks.

    You could play detective (I haven't done this) by trying to figure out who has worked on Android speech-related stuff in the past, and seeing if they've gone dark.

    Changing subjects now to my take on why Google might be motivated to put out a Google phone. (This is at least partly a synthesis, or maybe just a rehash, of things other folks have said.)

    Google is in the advertising business. When someone uses Google stuff, Google shows them ads and learns more about what ads to show them. So Google wants more people to spend more time interacting with Google stuff. Smartphones are extra great for Google because they motivate you to move more of your doings into the cloud, where Google lives, as opposed to keeping your stuff on your desktop or laptop.

    By giving Android away, Google already makes smartphones cheaper and/or better, so Google gets more eyeballs spending more time using more Google stuff.

    If Google offered an even cheaper and/or better smartphone, and especially if there were cheaper carrier support for it (in part because it used only VOIP for calls), then there would be even more eyeballs spending more time using more Google stuff.

Comments are closed.