Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/01/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
/95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP/Vista/Win7
1.5/1.5 with Sense/1.5 with Blur/1.6/2.0/"real" android...
This will make it harder for the Market to really thrive - too many versions. Hoping for a complete roll-up into 2.0 soon so that the Market can thrive (w/o the need to test apps on mult versions)
11/30/09
11/30/09
More likely is the possibility of a Google Plan as a free, lower-bandwidth alternative to plans from Verizon and AT&T. People worry far too much about the price of the device itself, as if the difference between plunking down $100 and $200 at the store means anything when you’re contractually signing away $2,400 on the spot (a two year contract at $100/month). Based on that knowledge, carriers subsidize the price of a device as long as you sign their hefty contract; seen this way, many phones today are already “free.” Therefore, it’s not the the device that matters. It’s the service. And it’s going to be free.
More at:
[nofilmschool.com]
11/30/09
11/30/09
The benefits for Google is that there are no contracts, no need for underwriters, no need for creating an entire customer service infrastructure for things like contract disputes or bill collectors or anything like that - it's a single transaction and that's it.
It's the sort of thing that would shake-up the entire industry and change the way we think about our cell providers, in the same way Google's shaken up industries with its GPS and Voice applications.
11/30/09
I see your point, how ever. It takes less effort to budget a cost once than once a month.
11/30/09
Google is able to offer a lot of their products and services for free because most of their products and services are software. Users handle the hardware needs of the system. As soon as Google starts putting out hardware (and especially if they offer it with wireless service), they suddenly start incurring an insane amount of extra costs. With my G1, for example, if the hardware is damaged, I go to T-Mobile for a replacement. If service sucks, it's on T-Mo's shoulders to repair/upgrade their lines. All Google's responsible for is making sure the software works. And once it's done, it's done. Code doesn't unravel, wear down, or get old. There's no end to bugs, sure, but for the most part, once it's made it's made.
Can you imagine how much more it would cost Google to say "Alright, first off, here's the hardware, and also, free cellular service forever!" Heck, even just a couple of years, and their support costs will go through the roof. I mean, does Google even have a call-in support line right now? Because if not, they'd need one.
As much as I'd like Google to tap into that Money Bin and give free cell access to all, that would be a seriously major venture even for them. Just manufacturing hardware is such a departure from their usual business model, I'm less than convinced they could do it all in one fell swoop.
11/30/09
11/30/09
Of course, @OCEntertainment and @ian.nai bring up some great points about how it wouldn't be as profitable for Google (though to be honest, I'm not sure how a lot of what Google does translates into profit either) or, more importantly, how such a plan would necessitate an entire business hierarchy that would need to be developed just for the launch of what is admittedly a pipe dream.
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
A laptop with something other than Chrome OS? A Google hardware phone? Running Android that is the "real Android"?
So the Donut/Cupcake/Eclair is a lie?
All the different versions of Android are hard enough to keep up with. This is annoying. My strategy will just be to follow HTC wherever they go because Sense is amazing and their commercials make me feel special
11/30/09
11/30/09
I don't believe it!
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Kinda makes sense actually. Thats why google has been pushing the FCC so hard for the whole free provision after they lost the 700 mhz spectrum. Its a pretty risky maneuver I'd think.
11/30/09
11/30/09
Like I said, I think thats part of the reason they're fighting with the FCC so hard about open access.
The day the carriers give in is the day they launch the phone.
Thats why its risky too. If thats really what they've got planned VZW ('cause I think its mostly going to be a 700 mhz thing) could "accidentally" flip some switches and google would have no real recourse but to cry to the FCC.
11/30/09
I'm more inclined to believe a Giz post from last year.
[gizmodo.com]
Google was never interested in owning spectrum, they just wanted Verizon to adhere to open access rules.
The manuever is risky, how? You get a data only contract and use that to transmit your Google Voice calls.
11/30/09
11/30/09
Yeah they only bid to get it to the point where the open part kicked in but they still didn't have the winning bid so...
Yes it maybe a kind of win but thats where the risk comes.
And its super risky for the very reasons I pointed out. Google is forcing the old guard into a new game and they're not always going to go quietly.
They're trying to make them act like the cable providers and while the carriers have started opening up and realizing their future is nothing more then a "pipeline" they're not 100% there yet. Its already lead to major legal fights and will undoubtedly lead to more.
11/30/09
I understand what their strategy was but at the end of the day its a crap shoot. They weighed their options and felt that it would be cheaper to push VZW (or whoever won but it was pretty clear from the start there was only one real bidder) to play their game. Could work. Could backfire spectacularly.
11/30/09
11/30/09
Yes in a perfect world VZW loses, hangs their head, kicks the dirt and says, "OK, open access for everything," and we all bask in the warmth of the soft glowy screens of our new toys.
Thats not how its even worked so far though. VZW is constantly getting slapped on the wrist for their interpretation of what the "open" part meant.
Its open to any handset that we sell.
What we don't "use" of the spectrum is open.
Only this part in these States is open.
The spectrum may be open but none of our infrastructure is.
and the big one:
We reserve the right to limit what we feel adversely effects the health of the spectrum (you can read that as we're going to pull the plug on people only paying data fees and getting what we charge our customers twice for).
It goes on and its likely to keep going on. Just look at it from their perspective. You've got a new competitor that is going to use what you bought and paid for to under cut not only your current business but the very basis of how your business works. Its silly to think they can just get muscled into it and go along quietly (if thats really all Google's endgame is).
I assume that at some point if the phone is real and works like what we're guessing, google is going to release it to people. If Google is trying to skirt in under the open requirements it could backfire still. I'm sure if its successful and millions of people pick it up VZW could make a claim that its a danger to their network and pull the plug. What really happens then? Google petitions the FCC, seeks an injunction, and tells all of its customers without service to just "hold on" while the gears of justice turn? What happens to that model ever 4 years when we get a new president and new FCC head?
I don't know. Maybe thats not what they're going to try at all. Maybe they'll just play it safe and make some deals with the carriers. I guess we'll see.
If it ever comes out of beta ;)
11/30/09
11/30/09
11/30/09
Ahhh yes, here it is: [gizmodo.com]
11/30/09
11/30/09
Only its not to do it themselves, its to make the FCC flex their muscle a bit more until the carriers have no choice.
11/30/09
11/30/09
I'd say:
A. No, if anything it pushes the other companies that much harder.
Most of them are struggling as it is right now. There is a major shift underway and most of them are on the wrong side of it. If google entering the market on their own just pushes HTC to turn out some killer handsets I'm ok with that.
B. There is still some question as to what this really is going to be. There are rumors of some kind of nebulous VOIP type thing just running off cellular data. I have no idea how its actually supposed to work in the real world.
Sounds like a lot of google ideas when you get down to it. They're great but not quite there yet. Look at chrome OS, wave, etc.
Regardless if its something completely different they're not even directly competing against some of their other "partners" like HTC or Moto.
C. I don't think google cares. They're google.
11/30/09
But oh well, let's see how this one plays out... I love Google, but there are tons of Google services that I chose the competition.