We talked to AT&T Wireless CEO Ralph de la Vega shortly after the Android announcement was made and asked them whether they would join the Handset Alliance. Their answer that their networks were open, and people are free to use any handset on their network because you can just plop a SIM in and go. We decided to pass on relaying this info to you, since you didn't need to hear something you already knew. So no, AT&T didn't just fling their doors wide open; it's just as open with handsets as its always been, but everything else remains the same, for better and worse. [USA Today]

McAdam dismisses the idea that being a "founding" member of the OHA would have been anything more than a press-release opportunity for the carrier. Once the dev kit went out, though, he says his engineers were impressed.

"Clearly the Android system gives a lot of developers the opportunity to develop applications for a wide range of handsets."

The result has been what we have reported over the past week: Verizon declared its network open to all phones and devices that share its network technology, following an easy security and functionality verification process. Furthermore, Verizon will migrate to the 4G standard co-developed in Europe by its parent company Vodafone, Nokia and the 3GPP, a standard that would be in line with much of the world's wireless data network.

Though this could be showboating for the FCC in the period leading up to the 700MHz spectrum auction, BusinessWeek points out the same impression that we've had, that the openness model is inevitable, and that "market demand for open networks would be impossible to hold back indefinitely." You hear that, AT&T? [BusinessWeek]

Of course AT&T and Google have "talked" about OHA—note the past tense, and that de la Vega hasn't met with Google himself. Also, neither AT&T nor Verizon will publicly shut out joining—via the WSJ there were similar rumors about Verizon "weighing" the option. But there's too much against it happening.

Wilson broke down why Sprint and T-Mobile joined and the two largest carriers didn't. There's also the wildly conflicting interests, which seem to have gotten still more intense this past week. Sure, AT&T could still buddy up. And so could Microsoft. [Mercury News via Broadband Reports]

The Droid family of fonts consists of Droid Sans, Droid Sans Mono and Droid Serif. Each contains extensive character set coverage including Western Europe, Eastern/Central Europe, Baltic, Cyrillic, Greek and Turkish support. The Droid Sans regular font also includes support for Simplified and Traditional Chinese, Japanese and Korean support for the GB2312, Big 5, JIS 0208 and KSC 5601 character sets respectively.

What do you guys think of what they've already got? [Typophile via Daring Fireball]

Namely, what's shown in the image above. No, that's not me. It's some other Jason Chen that's taken my name and is using it to whore out the Android project. The only whoring I do is for my own book, thank you very much. I thought I was the only Chen in the world. :'( [Android Developers]

He added:

"There's 10, 15, 20, maybe 25 different Linux platforms out there. It sometimes appears that Linux is fragmenting faster than it unifies."

"I think if you look at the market share slides you'll see we're no stranger to competing with big brands... We're the market leader, and we aim to remain the market leader."

For starters, Sprint and T-Mobile are big companies but they don't have the momentum or subscribers that Verizon Wireless and AT&T do. T-Mo's the baby with 26 million, though that is part of a global subscriber base that's vastly larger (over 109 million). Sprint has an impressive 54 million subscribers, but is currently in a public panic about waning performance. Both, contending with bigger gorillas, have reason to latch on to the biggest of them all, Google.

There's a second reason for T-Mo and Sprint to be onboard: HTC. HTC has had a good run with both of those carriers, introducing two of the coolest recent products exclusively on them: T-Mobile's Shadow and Sprint's Touch. Verizon and AT&T have relationships with HTC as well, but it's easy to see how HTC would feel comfortable developing an Android product for the two smaller carriers.

Qualcomm's high-level involvement in OHA is actually very surprising, both because it is such a close partner of Verizon, and because it is one of the biggest architects of the closed application-and-service environment that you see in US carriers. Brew is Qualcomm's baby, a closed Java equivalent that may be easy for developers to work with but comes with strings attached.

Clearly, though, Qualcomm's participation signals something else, that it is time for even the master walled gardener to embrace the open field. At least, that's what I hope it means, because its presence means that a Verizon Android handset can't be too far off. (Verizon today told us that it "shares the goal of more open mobile application development," and that this competitive move on Google's part shows that innovation comes without the need for "legislation nor regulation," so here's hoping.)

The point is, even if you're neither a Sprint or a T-Mobile customer, you should be happy with today's announcement. Google said explicitly that the OHA is open to everyone, and that the absence of partners (for example, AT&T and Verizon) should not be taken as exclusion. But having Sprint and T-Mo ensures equal development time for both networks, GSM/HSDPA side and CDMA/EV-DO. T-Mobile promises to have their HSDPA (3G) network up by early next year, in time for any Android smartphone to take advantage.

When it matters, there will be HTC (and perhaps Motorola, LG and Samsung) phones that work on the networks of all four carriers. It's a sped-up version of the Treo or BlackBerry scenario: once a handset gains a certain level of popularity, even the mega carriers must yield to their demanding customers. When the Treo or BlackBerry first came out, there was no CDMA version so Sprint and Verizon customers got the shaft, and it took years of development, not just a quick port, to give them what they wanted. Thankfully that will not be the case with Android.

The iPhone is different: it was developed for GSM/EDGE only, and with an exclusive deal with the largest US GSM carrier. Although Apple hasn't confirmed the 5-year exclusivity rumor, it could easily remain locked out of everyone else's hands, in spite of unprecedented demand.

Speaking of locked, while we can assume that the early Sprint Android handsets will be partial to their carrier because of the lack of SIM cards with CDMA phones, HTC told us that it will sell unlocked Android phones directly to consumers, so that anyone with an AT&T contract who wants in can get in early.

There's also a difference between Google's and Apple's approach. By creating an open platform, Google is trying to make money not on software or hardware sales, but by creating vast hordes of ad-susceptible phone users. Google can be less selfish about design, and less worried about stumbles on the road to perfection. Google boss Eric Schmidt told us today that they would not be in the business of clamping down on independent development, and from the sound of it, would be encouraging carriers to adopt a hands-off policy toward third-party development.

What Google is saying to carriers is that customers are grown-ups. They can own a PC for years before it's chock-full of viruses, malware and memory hogging crap they don't need. Why not give them access to a world's worth of software—and expose them to the same acknowledged risks—with their phones? iPhone owners should be happy that Google's move simply adds pressure on Apple to open the SDK faster. But the larger question we should ask is this: Why will Android succeed where Symbian, Palm OS and Windows Mobile have failed?

It is possible that Google's muscle, outspoken pledge of openness, ability to bring much of the familiar PC experience to the Android phone, and vast think tank of collaborators who can avoid the mistakes of the smartphones that failed, the carriers that squeezed too hard and lost their grip, and of that famous experiment in gadget lust and contractual obligation that is the iPhone. But then again, it could be no more than the fragmented world of Linux development, without much mainstream splash.