Forum Moderators: goodroi
Google has designed an Android-based handset that it intends to sell directly to consumers, according to multiple reports.As recently as October 30, Google had flatly denied that it was "making hardware" or that it would "compete with its customers" by offering its own phone. But it would seem the web search outfit/world power was merely playing with words. On Saturday morning, the Mountain View Chocolate Factory admitted the existence of its own "concept" Android phone and confirmed reports from the previous evening that it had shared the device with company employees.
Google is too arrogant. It thinks it can be a disruptive power in every field. It is wrong. I bet there is no "win-win" in google's dictionary.
While the bajillions of Google employees given their early holiday gift were told not to tweet about it or share any information, that’s precisely what they soon did, declaring it delicious.And that exactly what Google execs meant to happen, of course, by slowly unleashing the Nexus One on the public.
[edited by: engine at 2:41 pm (utc) on Dec. 14, 2009]
It will fail for sure.Google is too arrogant. It thinks it can be a disruptive power in every field. It is wrong. I bet there is no "win-win" in google's dictionary.
Only webmasters are bitter towards the Gorg right now. The rest of the world still thinks Google is the best thing since sliced bread, and will likely eat this phone up just like the iPhone. When Google starts offering free calling and texting, then things will really get interesting.
^ Have you seen the above documentary yet? It's an eye opener. It of course contains the quote from Eric Schmidt that I feel set the stage for the snowball that is currently garnering mass.
Google will turn off the Internet if we keep it up. ;)
I've watched the CNBC show three times now. Each time I come away with something new. Mobile is the future. Actually, any handheld device connected to the Internet whether it be Mobile, Notebook, etc. Have you been keeping up with Google Acquisitions? The Wiki have...
List of acquisitions by Google
[en.wikipedia.org...]
Follow the references cited. Add those to your Smart Wall Cloud. Piece them together. What do you get? SkyNet :)
I'm going underground. No wait, Google have purchased some of that too.
Google is too arrogant. It thinks it can be a disruptive power in every field. It is wrong.
Apple was just a computer company until it launched the iPod and the iPhone. Were Steve Jobs & Co. "arrogant" for thinking they could succeed in other businesses? Maybe. But arrogance didn't keep the iPod and iPhone from taking the market by storm.
As far as a Google phone goes, it's worth noting that, in many markets outside the U.S., people actually PAY significant prices for GSM phones that can be used with any carrier instead of buying a relatively cheap subsidized phone in return for a signing an expensive one- or two-year phone-service contract. So, even if Google's unlocked, carrier-agnostic phone doesn't take the U.S. by storm, it may not have to: after all, the population of the EU alone is considerably larger than that of the United States. If Google's phone has features that users like and isn't appreciably more expensive than competing phones are, it may do quite well. For that matter, if Google can break even on its phone and build awareness for Android, that may be reason enough to bring the device to market.
...cited HTC as the hardware manufacturer and confirmed earlier reports that the device uses a new version of Android. Howell refers to the OS as Android 2.1
That's the next version of Android not currently released, and it would make sense for HTC and Google to build a phone on the bleeding edge and test it internally before launching to millions of customers, just like they have with previous versions.
Google's Android is far from failing and I'm glad it's making inroads as all these closed OS phones are a bunch of garbage and I'm sick of being at the whim of the phone companies and phone manufacturers for features and functions.
Early reports I read claim Verizon shipped a bunch of phones:
Mobile app analytics firm Flurry estimates that 250,000 Droids sold within seven days of launch -- more than four times as many as the HTC myTouch, which Flurry said had 60,000 in sales a week after its release.
I've real updates claiming 1 Million droid phones shipped in the first 30 days.
Also..
HTC's Android-based Hero is selling well enough that it's causing supply issues
Far from failure.
Things Android did right:
- Avoid AT&Ts horrible under-developed call dropping network
- Open development environment, you can even directly code scripts on the Android phone!
- Can develop apps on any PC, no need to invest in a stink'n Mac
- Almost every aspect of Android is customizable
I've got one and I'm loving it, it's an amazing phone.
Only thing ticking me off is the lack of a USB or Bluetooth keyboard driver so I can run a virtual laser keyboard.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 5:14 pm (utc) on Dec. 14, 2009]
What ever happened to broadband over powerline? GOOG acquired a chunk ($100M) of Current Technologies. We looked at the technology ourselves and couldn't figure out how it would work in the real world. It didn't and they no longer even sell the technology.
Googlephone is not a disruptive technology - it's a new operating system. Why in the world does Google think they can go this alone? Google chooses to fight with everyone – something I cannot figure out. I suspect greed or arrogance.
Why in the world does Google think they can go this alone? Google chooses to fight with everyone – something I cannot figure out. I suspect greed or arrogance.
While I don't approve of the size of Google, what should they be doing? "Search is good enough for us! Let's just do that!" said Google, as they put all their eggs in one basket.
Search engines in their current form may not be around forever. While Google is as powerful as they are they SHOULD be trying to do as much as possible to secure the financial future of the company.
Googlephone is not a disruptive technology - it's a new operating system.
Wrong, it's Open Source, it's disruptive to Apple trying to sell Macs to developers and Windows CE (losing the battle) trying to leverage the installed base of Windows developers.
Google chooses to fight with everyone – something I cannot figure out.
So does Microsoft, so does Apple, it's called establishing a brand, expanding an empire.
Those of you that don't see the "big picture" yet is that the phone is becoming global personalized GPS-based search so this is all about search in a HUGE way.
Think about how people will use these apps in their phones and Google wants to desperately provide this data because it will be advertiser driven, it's all about the ads.
Google providing their new free Google Maps-based GPS navigation system is brilliant because Google knows, thanks to Google local, where every vendor or merchant is along those routes.
- You want to go out to a restaurant?
Here's 10-50 near you sorted by user rating, michelin stars or zagat ratings.
- Need gas?
Here's 10 stations near you sorted by price
- Looking for real-estate?
Here's 10-50 near you sorted by price, amenities and neighborhood ratings
Using apps like Layar you can literally aim your camera outside and it drops a 3D grid across to the horizon and those little markers you see in Google Maps show up in GPS relative coordinates so you can actually SEE thru the camera where those restaurants, gas stations or real-estate exist in the real world.
It's way beyond disruptive, it's a new era.
The only way to own these searches and ad spaces is to be the dominant data feed and since iPhone is locking out some Google Apps the best way to dominate is to become the phone OS itself and the best way to entice developers, unlike iPhone and Windows CE, is make it wide open.
What's better than a completely open platform you can code on for free?
It's pretty cool.
As far as a Google phone goes, it's worth noting that, in many markets outside the U.S., people actually PAY significant prices for GSM phones that can be used with any carrier instead of buying a relatively cheap subsidized phone in return for a signing an expensive one- or two-year phone-service contract.
People outside the U.S. actually pay significant prices, but NOT in significant numbers. There are certain markets where the regulator has ruled that phones may not be tied to contracts. But these markets are the minority.
In most markets the "subsidy model" for post-paid contracts is reality. These markets are the most advanced markets, revenue-wise. Pre-paid markets are less advanced, hence people will spend less for phones. So, for expensive phones the mass market is typically the western hemisphere, and here post-paid rules.
The problem is that people are bound to their 24 months contracts and won't buy a phone in between (only rich geeks do). And when they do buy a new phone, they look for a phone that is subsidized. Unless Google goes in bed with the mobile operators, there is little chance that the Googlephone will be a success...
...unless...
Google tries to be very disruptive, killing the mobile network operators. They could do this by:
1) Making the Google phone network-agnostic (unlocked) BUT make all the Google services mandatory. Think Chrome O/S on a mobile phone. All the Google services would be tied to the phone, Google account would be mandatory, Google start screen, etc etc.
2) Then Google would itself subsidize the phone. Instead of the, say, $500 the phone actually costs to build, promote, and ship, it would cost, say, $200. Google would spend $300 per subscriber but htey would get almost exclusive data about the user (see # 1).
So, Google would not become a mobile network operator, but they would become a virtual service provider. Let's see how the subsidy could work out, financially:
Google subsidizes each device with $300. Let's assume that Google plans to break even with each device within two years. That's $12.50 per month. If they are able to sell ads at a significantly higher CPC on the mobile than on fixed, say, $1 per click, then it needs just 13 clicks per month to break even. While this sounds a lot of clicks to me, it probably depends on the services and the ad integration. Google maps (navigation system) with ads could work very well. (Also, a Google application store might bring additional revenues.)
Yet I think it's still a risky move. Getting 10 million users signed up would cost the company $3,000,000,000. Yes, 3 billion US Dollars would buy them a significant market share (in the segment of "Advanced Internet Phones"). Then again, 10 million devices are a drop in the ocean of the entire mobile phone world.
Evil? Sure. I am not a friend of the mobile network operators, but I am even more concerned about Google becoming our internet-communication overlord who wiretaps everything we say and do on that phone. Not good.
Apple was just a computer company until it launched the iPod and the iPhone. Were Steve Jobs & Co. "arrogant" for thinking they could succeed in other businesses? Maybe. But arrogance didn't keep the iPod and iPhone from taking the market by storm.
Without carriers, do you think iPhone can be so successful?
Tons of Chinese companies can make Android-based handsets in 6 months and it can be VERY cheap. Google cannot make money from selling Android license, and it cannot make money from cell phone service. As Android is open source, google is unable to control people to modify the system, either.
Please tell me how google can make money from this.
Unless Google goes in bed with the mobile operators, there is little chance that the Googlephone will be a success...
Google Android in the US is already bed and subsidized with t-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, Cellular South so it looks like success is coming.
Compare to iPhone with just AT&T and contractually obligated to stay monogamous with AT&T while Google gains group, oops.
It will get more interesting when iPhone can be sold on any US network.
That's when the real battle starts.
Please tell me how google can make money from this.
I already did previously - online ADVERTISING to everyone using the phones.
The GPS-based apps needing local information will be the equivalent of Yellow Pages advertising in the phone and already Google has a good lock on advertising revenue.
I doubt they care about making money off Android itself, but if they are, it's just icing on the cake.
Android is just another platform to deliver ads, nothing more, nothing less.
Think AdSense with a dial-tone.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 8:12 pm (utc) on Dec. 14, 2009]
It's way beyond disruptive, it's a new era.
Without carriers, do you think iPhone can be so successful?
tntpower - thanks. This is another point I was trying to make as people rush to Google's defense. For some reason, people like it when Google decides to be a bully. Unfortunately, Google's track record outside of Search and Adsense (which they do better than anyone else) is pretty poor.
Mobile industry, instead, is not a new area. It is a well developed industry with plenty of players and hundreds of billions of investment already.
To success in this area, you have to work with existed player. Team work does matter here, unless there is a disruptive new technology.
I already did previously - online ADVERTISING to everyone using the phones.
No way.
As I said, unless google can offer (or subsidize) free cell phone services (I would say at least 200 weekday minutes and unlimited weekend minutes), ads provided by google will only make customers feel disgusted.
Data rates are going to have to drop and coverage increase before the full potential of mobile is realized by the masses.
I have misgivings about G having yet another source of data about me/us. It is bad enough they know/store most everything about my web habits and behavior without letting them in on all my real world activities and location as well!
Who needs a cell phone carrier?
You do:-
Even my Jeep has mobile WiFi.
;)
The cell carriers will be around a long while yet.
To success in this area, you have to work with existed player. Team work does matter here, unless there is a disruptive new technology.
Exactly. And there is no disruptive technology. Voice is still a really important service, and it needs to be mobile. That's not the same as nomadic.
CDMA/WiMAX etc type technologies will potentially disrupt the cellular encumbents, but it's a while off yet and you can bet they'll be first in line for the spectrum.
in many markets outside the U.S., people actually PAY significant prices for GSM phones that can be used with any carrier instead of buying a relatively cheap subsidized phone in return for a signing an expensive one- or two-year phone-service contract
Why would we need to have more expensive recurring fees in exchange of cheaper or no up front costs that only lead to more e-waste being generated (and phones are far from low impact when it comes to the environment).
I fact I'm all out in favor of banning bundling phones with service. It's like you can't buy a car without buying service from the dealer for the car, like you can't buy a bathtub without buying the water as well (or can't buy the water without accepting a new bathtub)
Utterly and totally silly, uneconomic (it'll be more expensive), unfriendly to the environment, and whatnot. Why ? For allowing operators to get the lock-in ?
Who's to benefit from that aside of some boardroom manager with low churn figures ?
I'm sorry, but an open source operating system that has the SAME functionality as other devices already on the market is far from disruptive. I'm not talking about the device, I'm talking about Google's offering.
Nobody has clearly said there is a Google offering yet, only that they gave their in-house people some dog food devices for 2.1, there is no clear offering of them selling direct.
I don't think Google is going to get into the service business but anything is possible.
Besides, the whole Android concept is completely disruptive to iPhone, Windows CE and especially to those poor saps at Palm, but if people don't see it now, they'll see it later.
Just like open source PHP ecommerce destroyed Miva and all the early CGI-based ecommerce products, open source is highly disruptive.
BTW, note that the number of Google Apps is in the many thousands already, and it's those apps that'll attract customers which is what Google is banking on.
Then to shoot themselves in the foot, Apple won't let Google put their biggest killer GPS app in the iPhone Appstore.
OOPS! Just give people a reason to bail from iPhone, I dare ya Apple! :)
I have misgivings about G having yet another source of data about me/us. It is bad enough they know/store most everything about my web habits and behavior without letting them in on all my real world activities and location as well!
What about your bank or credit-card companies? I live in the U.S., and whenever I travel abroad, I have to tell my banks and credit-card companies where I'm traveling so I can use my ATM cards and Visa/Mastercards. And, of course, whenever I conduct a transaction, they've got a record of where I was, what merchant got my money, and how much I spent.
Also, some people want other people to know exactly where they are--right down to their CPS coordinates. They can be quite compulsive about it. I stopped following a company CEO on Twitter after he bought an iPhone app that automatically tweeted his exact latitude and longitude at frequent intervals throughout the day.
One other thing most webmasters and many others have WIFI routers at home and even in the US it could take off maybe affecting the long distance home phone market most of all plus Skype - Vonage etc and to the consumer it could be seen as much more seemless than current offerings.
I could see me buying one and slapping on a Pay as You Go service giving me the best of all worlds WIFI Google Voice when available and pay for other service when needed . US phone companies have had it to good for to long compared with Europe and other countries round the world.
What about your bank or credit-card companies?
I stopped following a company CEO on Twitter after he bought an iPhone app that automatically tweeted his exact latitude and longitude at frequent intervals throughout the day
dangerous to say the least.
One other thing most webmasters and many others have WIFI routers at home and even in the US it could take off
take off as fast as what? a skype phone on roids?
Think about how people will use these apps in their phones and Google wants to desperately provide this data because it will be advertiser driven, it's all about the ads.
I could be thinking naively about this, but it will be interesting, if it happens, to see how Google stands up a successful mobile ad market.
While the main motivation for wireless technology and mobile devices is convenience and mobility, folks are also interested in accessing the Internet without the "Internet junk" that comes along with traditional desktop web access. Sure--everyone likes restaurant finders, turn-by-turn navigation, and voice-activated technology, but those apps are built specifically for mobile devices and are convenient.
I just don’t think users will buy into apps with ads. I think getting users to engage in PPC-type mobile ads will be difficult. I think the lack of "in-your-face advertising" is part of the beauty users see in the mobile web.
With iPhone and other devices, for example, you can tie web-based mail (POP, IMAP) into your phone settings which allows you to retrieve/send messages without dealing with the Flash-based, 720x90 ads across your screen. You typically get the same ad-less interfaces with other mobile applications such too. And let's face it--most folks looking for convenience in the mobile arena see "convenience" as being able to get to easily post to their social networking sites, or locate a trendy cafe, or upload a 5-second old photo.
