App Inventor is a new tool in Google Labs that makes it easy for anyone—programmers and non-programmers, professionals and students—to create mobile applications for Android-powered devices. And today, we’re extending invitations to the general public.

For many people, their mobile phone—and access to the Internet—is always within reach. App Inventor for Android gives everyone, regardless of programming experience, the opportunity to control and reshape their communication experience. We’ve observed people take pride in becoming creators of mobile technology and not just consumers of it.

Pretty cool stuff. It's similar in many ways to what Palm did for webOS with Ares... only, you know, actually good.

Cisco may be the first vendor out of the gate with a successful Android-based tablet when its Cius portable collaboration and communication device—announced today—officially launches in the first quarter of 2011. 

The Cius ("see us," get it?), aimed squarely at business users, will integrate with Cisco's business applications such as WebEx, and it can dock into an optional phone base to connect to a user's corporate communications infrastructure.

The Cius is dominated by a 7" WSVGA touchscreen, weighs 1.15lbs, and appears to be much smaller than an iPad. It's also powered by a customized Android OS, though there has been no mention of what version of Android. 

With the heavy focus on real-time communication, the tablet comes equipped with a 720p HD front-facing camera for video conferencing, as well as a 5MP rear-facing camera that can stream VGA-quality video. 

It may be a decade or so late, but it seems like video conferencing is finally going mainstream. Ten years ago there was a push by quite a few companies to get video conferencing units into the home, over regular telephone lines no less.

Now with Apple leading the way for consumers with the iPhone 4, and Cisco leading the way for business, video conferencing may eventually become ubiquitous in the way that Kubrick and many others always thought it might.

Honestly, I don't even remember owning a TV. It's like a distant memory. I haven't had a TV for over 4 years now, and I don't miss it. Anything I want I can get faster (and higher quality) either through Hulu, network/studio websites, or torrents as a last resort.

It will be neat of Google TV runs on the desktop like Boxee, but other than that I guess I'll be sitting this one out. I really have no desire to go back to $50+/mo fees and have to deal with commercials and "scheduled" programming. The only thing I miss is the comforting feeling of waking up at 3am and watching bad infomercials.

That happened a lot faster than I thought it would. It's awesome to see. My next phone isn't even going to be a phone. I'm going to wait until Google rolls Gizmo into Google Voice and then get rid of my cell phone for good and just use my phone over WiFi. And with the $1000 I'll save every year in cell phone service charges I can just buy a new device every year... and still end up saving money. Is it odd that I'm actually excited to get rid of my cell phone? I just don't see the need anymore, really. The only time I can make a clear call is when I'm at home or at work, or at a quiet coffee shop; and all of these places have WiFi.

Well, today we're pleased to announce a new way for consumers to purchase a mobile phone through a Google hosted web store. The goal of this new consumer channel is to provide an efficient way to connect Google's online users with selected Android devices. We also want to make the overall user experience simple: a simple purchasing process, simple service plans from operators, simple and worry-free delivery and start-up.

The first phone we'll be selling through this new web store is the Nexus One — a convergence point for mobile technology, apps and the Internet. Nexus One is an exemplar of what's possible on mobile devices through Android — when cool apps meet a fast, bright and connected computer that fits in your pocket. The Nexus One belongs in the emerging class of devices which we call "superphones." It's the first in what we expect to be a series of products which we will bring to market with our operator and hardware partners and sell through our online store.

Today Google launched the Nexus One, in collaboration with HTC. Built by HTC, designed and branded by Google, and launched on T-Mobile's network, they now have their own "superphone".

I don't see the big deal. TechCrunch's Michael Arrington seems to like it so much that you get the impression that he'd marry it if he could, while Engadget is considerably less impressed. Honestly, I don't see the big deal. It's yet another Android phone. That's not a bad thing per se, and it's the best Android phone to date, but it's also nothing to get excited about.

My biggest problem with the new device is that it has even worse stated battery life than the iPhone – in some cases, 33% less. How is this even remotely acceptable anymore? The reason I moved away from the iPhone was because the battery life was abysmal. You can't rely on a phone when it's dead. The Nexus One has a beautiful 800x480 OLED display... but what good is it if you have to set the brightness to 10%?

What is pretty cool is that this shows actual progress towards a more open mobile communication structure in the US. The Nexus One probably wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for T-Mobile, who has will fully support, and even subsidize the fully unlocked device. T-Mobile recently changed their business mode in a wayl which provides support for unlocked devices by providing low cost, no contract plans for voice, text and data.

As someone who now uses T-Mobile, I'm glad to see that there are more big releases coming to the only carrier willing to sell unlocked, unhindered devices, but I'm not about to rush out and buy a phone that will be dead before lunch time.

Technologies tend to be global, both by nature and by name. Say “television”, “computer” or “internet” anywhere and chances are you will be understood. But hand-held phones? For this ubiquitous technology, mankind suffers from a Tower of Babel syndrome. Under millions of Christmas trees North and South Americans have been unwrapping cell phones or celulares. Yet to Britons and Spaniards they are mobiles or móviles. Germans and Finns refer to them as Handys and kännykät, respectively, because they fit in your hand. The Chinese, too, make calls on a sho ji, or “hand machine”. And in Japan the term of art is keitai, which roughly means “something you can carry with you”.

... Mobile phones do not share a single global moniker because the origins of their names are deeply cultural. “Cellular” refers to how modern wireless networks are built, pointing to a technological worldview in America. “Mobile” emphasises that the device is untethered, which fits the roaming, once-imperial British style. Handy highlights the importance of functionality, much appreciated in Germany. But are such differences more than cosmetic? And will they persist or give way to a global mobile culture?

Everyone feels the impending mobile revolution. As notebooks have largely replaced the need for desktops, so too will mobile phones supplant both. But how exactly that will happens isn't quite clear. People around the world use mobile phones differently. The concept of what a a mobile phone is for is different around the world. Can a revolution really happen without a clear consensus of what a mobile phone is for?

Google's Android may present a solution to this problem. Google's vision for Android extends beyond today's elite HTC smart-phones. They have expressed interest in creating a future for Android where all phones are "smart phones". Since Android runs on Java, this is actually possible. If a device has a fast enough CPU and enough memory, in theory, it can run the full Android operating system. Ten years from now the phones sold for $49 in the checkout lane at the supermarket will be capable of running an Android-like operating system.

When Apple came out with the iPod, it created what seemed like an entirely new market. Even today, there are "digital audio players" and then there are iPods. Apple's branding has lead consumers to see them as almost being two distinct kinds of products, and the iPod is now known around the world. Could we see the same thing in the mobile market in the not to distant future? A future in which there are mobile phones and there are Android phones? Can Google do for the mobile market what Apple did with the iPod?

I have no idea. Here's to finding out in the next decade.

Happy New Year.

Material wealth creation / destruction should surpass earlier computing cycles. The mobile Internet cycle, the 5th cycle in 50 years, is just starting. Winners in each cycle often create more market capitalization than in the last. New winners emerge, some incumbents survive – or thrive – while many past winners falter.

The mobile Internet is ramping faster than desktop Internet did, and we believe more users may connect to the Internet via mobile devices than desktop PCs within 5 years.

Five IP-based products / services are growing / converging and providing the underpinnings for dramatic growth in mobile Internet usage – 3G adoption + social networking + video + VoIP + impressive mobile devices.

Apple + Facebook platforms serving to raise the bar for how users connect / communicate – their respective ramps in user and developer engagement may be unprecedented.

Decade-plus Internet usage / monetization ramps for mobile Internet in Japan plus desktop Internet in developed markets provide roadmaps for global ramp and monetization.

Massive mobile data growth is driving transitions for carriers and equipment providers.

Emerging markets have material potential for mobile Internet user growth. Low penetration of fixed-line telephone and already vibrant mobile value-added services mean that for many EM users and SMEs, the Internet will be mobile.

I guess we've still got five years. Until then, most large companies will continue to pay for (and agencies will continue to produce) Flash-based web experiences that a limited number of people want spend time with; and never bother to run any kind of quantitatively sound analysis to find out how they actually performed. Oh well, such is life.

What worries me is that there is a shift underway from Flashy (pun intended) websites to flashy iPhone applications – again, that few people want to spend time with. You've got companies out there creating iPhone applications that don't need to exist, and others out there trying to create applications that run on every mobile operating system. Yelp, I'm looking at you.

At least there is a reason for the Yelp applications to exist, since not all mobile devices can access features like GPS through the browser (although both iPhone and Andorid-based devices can). But what I hate about Yelp is that the user experience isn't consistent across platforms. It's not even really well thought out. If you switch phones, you get an entirely new Yelp experience. And I don't blame them, because it's ridiculous to expect a small, venture-backed company to develop applications simultaneously across 5-different platforms and maintain a consistent feature set.

Personally, I reject the idea of native application development as a philosophy. That's not to say I think native applications shouldn't exist – they should. But they should only exist if they need to exist. If you need to access functions on a platform that can't be access through the browser then it makes sense. Otherwise, I subscribe to Google's philosophy on mobile: Focus on creating great web-based user experiences. Four of the six major smart-phone operating systems now render web pages with WebKit (BlackBerry OS and Windows Mobile being the exceptions). Shouldn't the focus be on developing and optimizing for WebKit? Instead of having to fight for space on the home screen of someone's device, and risk being deleted for a new application, you can develop a mobile web presence that users can come back to at any time; and more importantly – one which can be easily iterated on. If a native application is to exist, it should be only part of a mobile web strategy, not the entire thing.

Also, if you ever wanted to download a 659-slide powerpoint presentation on mobile from one of the largest global financing services companies, Morgan Stanely, now you can. Just head on over here. So next time you have a client that's resistant to the idea of creating a mobile presence, just forward them this deck. Remember to put, "LOLWUT" in the subject. :)

"Truly open-development, open-source phones like the Nokia N900 will never hit the mainstream in the US because wireless carriers in the country hate the unexpected, writes PCMag's Sascha Segan. The open-source philosophy is all about unexpected, disruptive ideas bubbling upwards, and that drives network planners nuts. So, you get unsatisfactory hybrids like Google Android, which uses some open-source components but locks third-party developers into a crippled Java sandbox. The bottom line is that while Linux the OS, the kernel, and the memory manager are attractive to phone manufacturers, Linux the philosophy — and users banding together ad hoc to create new things — is anathema to wireless carriers."

It’s sad but true.

But even if the carriers were on-board with and open source operating system it still might not work. In fact, it may make things worse. Why? Versioning. Just look at Android. It’s only gone mainstream in the last few months and there are already three different versions of the operating system, all with proprietary UI elements, running on an array of different hardware. There is no uniformity, and application development is pretty lackluster. There are only three versions out in the wild (1.5, 1.6 and 2.0), and it’s already problematic.

RIM has run into problem similar to that of Android, being that there are quite a few versions of the the Blackberry OS, and not every application will run on every version. Some phones can be upgrade, and some can’t. Its up to the carrier to decide what happens, and often they do nothing.

Despite the draconian policies Apple has put in place with respect to application development (and application approval) for the iPhone, it just works. At any given time there is only one version that developers have to worry about: the latest version. It runs on every iPhone, and every iPhone user can upgrade to the latest version of the OS. Applications lack the ability to access certain system functions, and so you never have to worry about them turning your iPhone into a brick.

I have a feeling that even if we had a real open source operating system for mobile, we’d still have problems and the user experience might be even worse than it is today with Android handsets. You might have hundreds of different versions of an OS, with the carrier only supporting one or two. Whether or not an application would run on your phone would be determined by what spin you have and what your hardware specs are. No one wants to sit there hacking away at a command line just to get the GPS to work in some new application you downloaded.

It sucks, but as bad as the Apple/iPhone model is, it’s the best we’ve got.