I think they said it was based on Linux, though. Doesn't that mean some parts have to be GPLv2?

My biggest hope for Android: the bluetooth DUN profile it has will work with the N800.

No. While Linux is GPLv2, yes, it doesnt require applications that run on top of it to be GPL. In fact, they could be any license, proprietary, from the kernels point of view, it doesnt matter. It could well be that the kernel is the only GPLed piece of code on the device.

Here are a couple of videos:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gphone/go...one-318878.php
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gphone/go...oha-318887.php

And a link:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gphone/ev...nce-318882.php

And watching the first video (regarding their wants) really makes me think of the N800.

H.

I'm not worried about the license so much as being able to get a platform with easy access. The downfall of iPhone isn't that development is closed so much as they actively make it difficult for those using alternative development environments. One shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get your code on the machine.
I'm not sure where this attitude comes from. Apple has given much back to the community. Sometimes the community isn't real good about accepting what comes back (webKit) so it is a two way street.

Frankly I think we will have to see what the companies deliver. All we need is one of the handset manufactures to deliver a platform with little in the way of restrictions on the hand set. If that happens in an acceptable form factor I see a lot of success.

Dave

You're being pragmatic...!

Android makes me both happy and sad. Google seems to "get it" providing a good API and a development platform that doesn't require linux or several hours of digging and fidgeting to get everything set up. I am sad because nokia could have done this years ago. By keeping it from being a media player or PDA etc. developers have spent their time on projects which IMO should be basic functionality and not on projects that are truly innovative. Is there a popular maemo app that isn't done at least as well by a closed source solution?

So the Android platform has optional hardware 3d acceleration. Use of chipsets incorporating Imagination Technologies (PowerVR) technologies will be unavoidable, especially considering that Texas Instruments, Marvell and Intel (all Open Handset Alliance partners) license PowerVR IP. Android has been developing their system for years now. Following this logic, PowerVR acceleration must have been available for Linux 2.6 for some time now.
So why is it that Nokia does not leverage the hardware video acceleration, present in the TI OMAP processor, in their Internet Tablets? Even the 2008 IT OS fails to enable it (link <--14th comment from top). If Nokia is not at fault, then who? I cannot imagine that Nokia passed up this opportunity due to NDAs or closed-source drivers. I Googled this topic one evening before considering an N800 purchase (just before I got wind of the N810) and found mostly passing references to the issue, and one rant. Shouldn't there be more developer outrage? It almost seems as if no one wants to discuss it
Or am I missing some key point or have my facts wrong (quite likely)?

There is exactly one reason the PowerVR driver is not available: cost.

Will the not inconsiderable licensing/development cost be outweighed by the benefit?

I never considered that a driver would be licensed separately from the chipset. I can't fathom how Texas Instruments can sell a processor and then charge extra to fully utilize it. Oh well, hopefully the Android platform will allow some neat UI tricks, 3d gaming and such, thereby forcing Nokia's hand.