Slashdot Mirror
The Google Phone?
VE3OGG writes "There has been ample hype over the last several years that Apple's iPhone was just around the corner. (Though a product named iPhone was just recently released by Cisco / Linksys.) Well, while Apple fans continue to salivate at the thought of a phone powered by the company-of-cool, the index-everything-while-doing-no-evil company may be setting itself up to produce their own Google phone in partnership with Orange."
Footer Ads.
Type in 'pizza' and press "I'm Feeling Lucky".
So, an internet-enabled phone that isn't total rubbish at it? Sounds good to me.
I wonder exactly how much of the software Google will be writing, because as more mobiles become internet-capable it seems to me that making viruses for them can start to make sense. I don't think most mobile software is all that secure, but I'm thinking if Google has a stake in it, it will at least be secure *enough.*
I like basketball!!1!
All kidding aside, it's going to be interesting to see what Google eventually does with all this stored information.
Since when is a corporation cool - since forever, that's when. It's called brand image. It is such a significant part of most purchasing decisions that companies will spend huge parts of their advertising budgets enhancing it. Indeed, most ads are selling a lifestyle aspiration, not functionality. i.e. 'drive a MyCarName because it's cool, not 'drive a MyCarName because it gets good gas milage'.
/.ers are far too Intelligent to fall for this sort of thing and always make purchasing decisions based on rational argement. And if you'll believe that....
We
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
I move that it be called the Gone. Which gives ample opportunity to display context-sensitive Gone-Ads. At least it would if I didn't have this dang restraining order...
One is a VOIP phone (released by Cisco/Linksys) ... the other is a cellphone/iPod hybrid ... I honestly think Apple could say that is enough of a differentiation for patent trademark disputes. The main thing to note is that the rumor mill is the one calling it the "iPhone" ... not Apple ... evnthough Apple owns the trademark internationally and owns the domain iPhone.org. Also, this pretty credible storyboard was published yesterday noting the name "iPhone".
iPhone Storyboard or Ad Design?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
though I wonder why company and government officials always decline confirming or denying so called rumors
Well, among things, a company like Google is actually owned by its investors, and shares are publicly traded. The SEC gets very, very testy (as do litigious shareholders and their parasitic lawyers) when a publicly traded company does anything that can be construed as falsely painting a picture of business prospects that might impact the value of a share in the company.
In short, regulations and lawsuits have trained companies to opt for silence, rather than risk being called deceptive - even if they don't start the rumor they're not commenting on. And if someone who works there starts the rumor (or can be said to have leaked something), all sorts of insider-trading ugliness can get bandied about. You get what you reward, and you suppress what you punish.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
But then again, I think they do like rumors getting out, at least ones that are false, as it keeps their competition guessing, and may get them to sink money into areas Google isn't going to compete with them in. Disinformation can be mighty useful in the corporate world.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
People buy on emotion, and justify on fact.
Pre-purchase: "Drinking that beer will get me laid."
Post-purchase: "I like this beer because it has high alcohol content."
An ex-boss of mine used to tell me that even our (then-current) customers bought based on "how will this product help get me laid?" - and we weren't even selling a sexy product.
I'm running a pirated copy of Linux.
The collaboration between two of the most powerful brands in technology is seen as a potential catalyst...
Who the hell is Orange? OK, I looked them up -- they're a big company, and maybe they're known more outside the US, but that brand is hardly on the same level as Google when it comes to world-wide recognition.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
True, but there is the downside of customers or potential customers getting excited about false rumors. Most of the time products that actually come to fruition are no match for the fantastic rumors that fly wildly. Apple has this problem quite a bit.
You are all a bunch of idots.
I better go trademarkthese names then eh?
iYack.
iChattyCathy.
iMultiMediaDevice.
iVoice.
iCell.
iCall.
iTalk.
iTunesTalk.
iTele.
iTelephone.
iAnnoyance.
iBrick.
iPea, which of course goes right along with iPod.
iFone, duh?
iExpensive.
They Live, We Sleep
I don't think Google is doing this for the purpose of enabling fancy feature X or getting its hands in TV/radio/whatever distribution.
The real killer is that right now the vast majority of Google's users are able to use Google's service thanks to the Microsoft monopoly providing said user with an OS and/or browser. If I were Google, (secret) priority #1 would be to sidestep Microsoft as soon as possible.
If Google can give people usable cell phone based interfaces to its services, then all Google has to worry about is providing quality services that people want to use, which they seem to be able to with little effort.
The only middleman then is the cell phone providers, which Google can sidestep by rolling out its own wireless network, probably similar to what Sanswire wants to do (or Google will buy Sanswire) with cheap blimps, then Google can have a way to sell ads to people 24/7 with a device that effectively costs Google $0 because people will be paying to make wireless VoIP calls using the same device.
This is all hypothetical of course, but its exactly what I would suggest if I worked at Google.
They'll release it when they can get a cellphone chipset in quantity for less than their profit margin on iPods at the time (after the costs of their components have come down over the course of a product cycle). Then they decide that what they'll announce as the difference between iPod generations is that the new ones are incidentally unlocked GSM cell phones.
Alternatively, if they decide people want them enough, they do a generation where the storage difference between the $350 and $250 iPods is less, but the $350 one is a cell phone.
In any case, I bet that Apple will never release a device marketted as a cell phone, because people expect cell phones to be locked, and sold cheap by carriers, and Apple isn't going to want to play that game for a variety of reasons. Nobody's going to pay $350 for an Apple cell phone that plays music, but they'll buy a $350 iPod that makes phone calls, even though these are logically the same device at the same price.
...Google is racing ahead.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Google madly searching for a way to generate revenue before their stockholders regain consciousness...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
So the best thing to do is start rumors about things you have no interest in whatsoever, to have no chance or intent of competing with your own hype.
So, Google Automotive-- what's the word?
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.