The most important thing about Android, the open mobile operating system and platform sponsored by Google, is arguably not the technology or the implications for handset cost: it's the development of business models.
One might think: "well, this is open source, so we will look for business models that are like the existing models for open source." But that's probably not going to be the case. Today's revenue model for open source is payment for enhancements, support and training.
To some extent, the business model is implicit rather than explicit. If I am a hardware or software applications provider, I simply use Asterisk because it is a lower-cost way of implementing something that an end user actually buys, even it the thing being bought essentially is a "legacy" requirement.
Voice mail, phone system or messaging platform are examples. In those cases, the operating system is an input to a business model, but not the model, which is the same one that existed before the open source tool was available.
Translated into a mobile market, it looks different. Open source will not do much, in and of itself, to lower the cost of a handset. So open source doesn't necessarily mean "cheap or free handset."
One can assume handset makers using Android will stabilize their versions so there is little need for third party end user support. That is a bug, not a feature, in the mobile end user world.
And since the whole idea is "easy to use," there shouldn't be much of a market created for training people how to use, develop, maintain and upgrade their operating systems. End users don't want to do that.
Assuming Android devices are used on existing networks (the 700-MHz C band network remains a bit of a wild card), the pricing models for data access are relatively affordable already, so it isn't clear whether there is immediate impact on data plan pricing either.
So consider Android a better way to help create a mobile Web business. The mobile phone business is built on recurring payment of access fees for voice, text and data access. The mobile Web just assumes access.
So the revenue model must begin where the Web itself begins. And that means advertising, to the extent that features and content have to be monetized directly. Of course, there's also content and applications given away for free in hopes that the attention will lead to support for some other business model, be that public relations, consulting, marketing, software or what have you. In that case a content provider doesn't necessarily require a revenue model.
But that's not what service providers, device manufacturers and application providers are looking at. The issue is revenue. And from where I sit, that means a media model.
The media model includes "for fee" and "for free" services and content, with greater or lesser degrees of advertising support. That means "aggregating eyeballs" and "aggregating highly-detailed information about the owners of those eyeballs" and "tracking the behavior of those people." That makes the advertising model quite valuable.
In the mobile arena, valuable as in "can I entice you to visit Starbucks right now; it is around the corner?" Valuable as in "are you hungry and a lover of good Thai food? You are half a block away."
Some will speculate about whether an entirely ad-supported model is conceivable. Well, it's conceivable, but not likely. Broadband access isn't free. But that isn't the point. If the value is high enough, a reasonable fee is not a barrier to usage.
Android is more likely to have an impact in making the mobile Web, and applications built on the mobile Web, far easier to use and vastly richer in functionality.
That's a hugely important and economically significant activity. But I don't think Android is about "free phone calls" or "free Web access" or "free phones," as many either think or hope for. Rich applications will be reward enough for users, who are quite capable of figuring out a value-for-money proposition. Android is about the promise of a mobile Web so useful we won't mind paying access fees to use it.
The one exception is that some users will appreciate "sometimes" being able to use Wi-Fi hot spots to access applications. This is a subset of users who choose not to pay a recurring fee for fully-mobile access, and want to rely on Wi-Fi for all of their connectivity.
Then there are users who occasionally will be happy to have Wi-Fi access for signal strength reasons, even if they are comfortable with a fully-mobile broadband connection.
Still, it seems likely that the early pull of Android applications is going to be location-based. "Where am I? How do I get there? Where can I find it? I didn't know that was on sale. So that's where you are."
Ad-supported phone calls, devices or access might have some role to play, sometimes. But I doubt that's the big impact.
