Since we've all been screwed by the mobile industry for the entirety of its existence, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel indignant towards Google for pissing off said industry. There are very few industries more arrogant and abusive than the telcos (at least in the US; I dunno about the UK), and if Google wants to take their place, I'm all for it. Instead of playing the consumer-screwing game better (like Apple did with the iPhone and its subsidized/locked-in model) Google is leaving those decisions up to the consumer and giving them a fair deal all around.<p>My impression is that Google looked at the existing phones and the way they were being sold (exclusive to specific carriers, and used to lock consumers in, just like all prior phones) and felt that it just wasn't doing the job the way they'd planned. Android had a reason for existing, and it was to break the logjam in the mobile industry so that Google could get on with the business of monetizing the hell out of mobile users. Since the old players decided to use Android to play by the old rules, Google simply reminded them of the way "open" is supposed to work. The play here is not for Google to become a traditional mobile device provider or to become a mobile service provider (though they'll touch on both). The play is to make the mobile web standard enough and good enough and pervasive enough to where Google can work their money-making magic there. Telcos are standing (aggressively) in the way of that, and the device makers remain willing partners in those plans.
So, I'm kind of torn here. We're watching Google ascend to a position where they can bend numerous markets to their whim, but they aren't <i>really</i> cheating the consumers at all. If anything, they've been great to us. Beyond that, as a college kid with an interest in distributed systems/networks, I should probably be angling to try to work there someday. But still, I'm scared, because it's hard to trust a company that big to do no evil.<p>Am I just being paranoid? (Not a rhetorical question)
The degree to which Google is "shaking up" the mobile industry has been <i>vastly</i> overstated by the media. I think this is mostly due to the crazy rumors that were flying before the launch (e.g. it was going to use SIP for calls, or that it would be massively subsidized/free even without a plan).<p>What Google actually offered with the N1 is not very revolutionary. Selling unlocked phones online isn't new. Nor is having phones that run on your choice of US carriers (hello, Blackberry).<p>Really, the only innovation here is at T-Mobile, which has calling plans that are a little bit cheaper each month if you bring your own phone instead of having them subsidize one.
How much the consumers have gotten screwed on the phones is peanuts compared to how much the consumers have gotten screwed on voice charges. Really, there is no such thing as circuit switched networks anymore, so there is no technical reason to charge people by the minute. Google, get Skype/Google Talk/whatever on there, let us buy flat fee data plans, and put the bastards out of business already.
Awww. Do the poor wittle cellphone manufacturers have their poor wittle feelings hurt? Here, have a blankie.<p>Really, I’m having trouble seeing what the complaint is behind all the bombast. The author doesn’t claim that Google is selling the phones at a loss or doing anything else that would raise an antitrust issue. Carriers can offer the Nexus alongside other manufacturers’ Android phones and, for that matter, the ten thousand other cellphone models that clog the market. Most consumers will choose among those models based on prices and features, not brand name. (Microsoft sells keyboards and mice under its own brand name, but they’ve hardly put the other keyboard and mouse manufacturers out of business.)<p>So where’s the problem? That competition might reduce the profit margins of cellphone manufacturers? From my side of the salesman’s counter, that’s anything but a problem.
The mobile providers are being pushed in to being dumb pipes essentially like ISPs and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? How is this anything but good for consumers, and fair for the mobile industry?
I wouldn't even consider a third Google Android handset in the future. HTC (and others) are burning too many bridges not getting updates out the door fast enough. I can't even run most of Google's new Android first party apps on my phone because I'm stuck with Android 1.5 and Sprint/HTC won't commit to any time table on an update. "2010" is as specific as they want to get. Android 3.x may be out before I even get 2.x. Good work guys. Great end user experience. Maybe Google did some shady stuff here but the third party handset makers screwed themselves too.
So Apple gets attacked for not allowing their OS to run on non-Apple hw and Google gets attacked for allowing their OS to run on non-Google hardware?
(I realize they're actually being criticized for now having their own device here, but just another perspective). I guess you could just not have your own hardware, since that's working so well for WinMo.
All another company needs to do is build a better phone and they'll have all the press again. Without Google's (free, by the way) OS, Motorola would be just about dead by now. And I don't think Sony Ericson or LG had some great mobile OS in the works either. Google may have single-handedly saved a half dozen companies from being eaten alive by Apple later this year when the AT&T exclusivity runs out and all we every hear is how Google is screwing over it's partners by having the gall to have an HTC phone Google branded and sold online.
Does anyone really believe the companies that were supposedly shafted were surprised when Google released their own phone? I knew the Google phone was in the works long before any of the other phones came out and I don't have connections at Google or telcos. I'd bet money the device manufacturers and the the telcos were well aware of the Google phone when they agreed to work with Android.
This guy doesn't understand the industry he's writing about.<p>Telcos benefit by not having the overhead of advertising and supporting phones. They make their money selling services not phones (hence the heavy subsidies.)<p>Manufacturers benefit by the popularity of the Android platform. It's easy to get people to switch to your hardware if they already know how the OS works and can use all their existing apps.
Other Android phones are to Nexus One as Firefox is to Chrome.<p>If Google does the same thing as you do it doesn't mean it doesn't love you anymore. It still will cooperate with you and it still will pay you. It just wants to try out some things but they don't want to force you to try it for them.
It would be interesting to see a decent unsubsidized $100 Android device hit the market. This would be inexpensive enough where a consumer could buy the phone outright and choose a telco without a long-term contract.
You have to take this article with a large grain of salt as Google's obvious target was not non-US mobile telecoms but US telecoms<p>And obviously caught in the middle is OEMs who attempted to do Mobile Telecoms bidding..<p>The other obvious target is China Mobile to derail their Ophone initiative