I’ve already covered pretty much everything I can say, from a technical standpoint, about Google and its vision for the future of communications. In parts III and IV, I described how Google imagines a world where information is always accessible, in different forms for different purposes, but always shifting from application to application as it’s needed. Whether it’s the information tied to your personal account, such as your favourite addresses or your contact list or your agenda, or applications that let you share information with others, like an online game of chess or a complex recommendation system, this information has to be unfettered in the way it passes from task to task, and it has to be accessible to the tasks that need it.

Android is not really a Google property, per se; it was created with the Open Handset Allience (a group of companies all working in mobile telecommunications; it’s as notable for the companies it excludes (Apple, Microsoft) as for the companies it includes (Intel, Motorola, Samsung, LG)). However, Google was the developer, and based on what I perceive as Google’s far-reaching plans for just what communications in the future will be like, I’m guessing it was pretty much entirely Google’s idea.

Essentially, Android is a platform that allows people to create programs for mobile devices. It’s written so that programming is simple, but also maximises the movement of information across applications and from device to device. It’s like an OS, in that it’s the system on which all the programs run, but it’s more than that, because it also includes the way the hardware operates. There’s also about a zillion different handsets on the market; one of the goals of Android is to ensure that no matter what kind of device you’re using, you’ll have a similar experience, and your device will be compatible with everyone else’s. In other words, Android is a language that allows different mobile devices to communicate with each other and with the Internet in various ways, but it’s a language that takes the function of the device into consideration.

While getting a bit of programming to use a built-in function of the device (such as an accelerometer, for example) can be quite tricky, especially when you want the programming to work on a thousand different models, Android can do the work for you, making the function of the accelerometer a basic part of the platform — kind of like how when you push the letter T on your keyboard, no matter what program or Internet application you’re running, you’re going to get a T.

In effect, Android removes the fussiness of trying to program around the device’s functionality by including it in the platform, but more importantly, it streamlines the entire programming process, making the creation of new applications something that just about any programmer can do. This is a philosophy Google has exhibited in other arenas; Google Maps is an open platform that allows programmers to make simple map-based programs without starting from the ground up. There are so many Google Maps and Google Earth mashups there’s an entire blog devoted to it. Ever wanted to know where you can buy beer in Toronto at 9:42pm on a Tuesday? There’s a mashup for that. Android brings the same easy adaptability to any of the functions of a mobile handset, whether it’s the accelerometer, the compass, or the GPS.

Not only does this convey Google’s philosophy of making their tools open to everyone, it also embraces their ideal of encouraging innovation from any and every source. By making programming easier, they hope to get more people using and creating for their platform. You never know what might be the next huge hit, or where it might come from; Google’s method is to make sure that whatever or wherever it is, they’ve done everything in the power to make it happen within their bailiwick. Better to have a basement innovator using Google Maps than using the competition, right? Making Google Maps a) the best it can be, b) easy to use, and c) open, is the best way to ensure that happens.

Google has some stiff competition from Apple and the iPhone. Apple beat Google and the OHA to the punch by over a year, and maybe closer to three. Apple revolutionised handsets with the iPhone not only because it’s really cool and does things no other phone can do, but more importantly, because it’s more computer than cellphone. Whoever heard of downloading updates for a cellphone? The iPhone ensures that it won’t become obsolete because its software can be upgraded, its glitches fixed, and new applications added.

But Google has one thing working to its advantage: Apple has been very reluctant to allow third-party programmers to mess with the iPhone. They eventually opened their handset to third parties, but retain veto power on iPhone programs. There’s also a lot to suggest that applications will always have to be written specifically for the iPhone, and will never work on other phones without some tweaking (sound familiar?). Android, on the other hand, means that, like the computer you’re presently staring at, handsets will be able to run whatever programs the specs can handle. And furthermore, whatever applications you write for Android will work on any handset running Android, whether it was made by Qualcomm or LG or Nokia. It’s the PC versus Mac paradigm writ small; Macs are closed systems, running only Mac programming on Mac hardware — PC, on the other hand, is a mishmash of different manufacturers, and any standards in programming are more the result of market forces than a singular directorship. There are benefits and downsides to both models; we can expect that iPhones will be more likely to work the way they’re supposed to, but Andoid handsets will be able to run a much larger and more interesting array of applications, and have easier and better access to pretty much everything.

The ubiquitous infosphere of the 21st century: in Google’s model, you’ll be able to get what you need from whatever point-of-entry is most appropriate, whether it’s your desktop or your mobile phone or the radio in your car. Apple wants to offer content in a similar way (see how they’ve made it possible to download songs directly from the airwaves to your iPhone for instant gratification), but Apple is a more closed system. I hesitate to use the word “totalitarian” to describe Apple because of its pejorative connotations, but in the traditional sense where everything is controlled to work as a single system, I think the word applies. I don’t mean this as a criticism; what fails as national policy may be the secret to computing success; but, as Derek Agnew recently noted, “If you want any wiggle room in your computing experience, Apple is not the platform to use.” This stands in stark naked contrast to Google, whose motto seems to be, “Come one, come all.” But it’s not a free-for-all; Android, acting as a platform to standardise all these applications, will ensure that not only do they attract the best apps, but also that they work well, and most importantly, that they work well together.

Telecommunications can sometimes feel a little like the Tower of Babel; what happens when a Pentium running Windows 2000 tries to talk to a mobile phone on a Linux OS? Hopefully, with Android acting as the handsets’ translator, every mobile device acting as a point-of-entry to the ocean of Internet content will be able to deliver the most consistent, most reliable, and most utile experience.