Slashdot Mirror
Google Shows Off Ad-Supported Cell Phone
taoman1 writes "Today Google showed off a ad-supported cellphone that the company plans to offer for free to interested parties. The product could reach the marketplace within a year, and will offer Google search, email, and a web browser. 'The move would echo another recent product launched by a phone industry outsider, Apple Inc.'s iPhone. But Google's product would draw its revenue from a sharply different source, relying on commercial advertising dollars instead of the sticker price of at least US$499 for an iPhone and $60 per month for the AT&T Inc. service plan. Negotiating the fairest way to split those advertising revenues with service providers could be a big hurdle for Google, one analyst said. Another problem is the potential that consumers could be scared off by the prospect of listening to advertisements before being able to make phone calls, said Jeff Kagan, a wireless and telecommunications industry analyst in Atlanta.'"
I can't imagine ANYONE using a phone as their main phone if they had to listen to ads before every call-- unless they couldn't afford a cell phone in the first place, inwhich case I doubt those ads would attract many buyers. :)
I have rare uses for a cell phone, I can either be reached at home or at work, or I'm with my wife with her cell phone. I can't be reached for the 10 minute commute from home to work and if you can't handle that it's not my problem. The biggest thing preventing me from getting a cell phone is cost, I can't justify paying for something I'll rarely use. This would work perfect for me, the few times a month I need to call someone I can wait through an add.
The only drawback I can see is if your trying to make a 911 call and have to wait through a minute and a half of dice.com adds only to panic and hit 991 and have to do it all over again.
If they do this I'd probably pick one up as probably one of the 2% of Americans that don't currently have a cell phone.
This could really strike a blow to the prepaid carriers in the U.S. like Virgin Mobile and Trac unless they hop onto the Google bandwagon themselves. Virgin has had a limited "listen to ads for free stuff" program at one point, but I don't know how successful the program was. The rate structures for these companies vary, but certainly a free as in beer plan might appeal to some of the markets these companies are already tapping into (read: lower-class, (pre)teens, and the socially withdrawn).
You're only as smart as your brain.
The sound of the phone ringing. So long as I'm not /delayed/ by the ads, I don't care.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Indeed. The suggestion that users will have to "listen to ads before placing a call" is wild speculation. Moreover, it's rather inconsistent with Google's usual methods. Of all the advertising sources I can think of, Google is the only one that does ads in a reasonable, elegant, and even useful way. They don't do popups and annoying flashing graphics. They tend towards text ads and high relevancy.
My guess would be that a Google-phone would have text ads put into it based on emails you're reading (just like Gmail), or things you are searching. When you're not receiving a call, it would maybe display text ads for nearby events or businesses (with location determined from cell tower or maybe just based on your registered home address). Alot of people use their cellphone to check the time, so they would see these ads. Such ads would be relatively non-intrusive. You could look at them if you wanted to, and ignore them otherwise.
I think actually quite a few people would be willing to get such a phone. The article speculates that only teenagers and others without enough money will be interested in an ad-supported phone. I think the demographic is larger than that. A certain fraction of the population can afford, but cannot justify the expense. (E.g. they make enough money, but don't really ~need~ a cellphone or wireless email.) For this demographic, an ad-supported phone would be very attractive. ("$60/month to check my email when I'm on the train? No way!.... Read a few ads while checking my email? Sure, why not!") Plus, plenty of people who now pay for cellphones think they are getting ripped off, and would be more than happy to have one less bill per month, even if it meant having ads on the phone.
The demographic exists, and there is a way to insert ads that will not be obnoxious. The part I'm not so sure about is whether people casually looking at ads is sufficiently valuable for advertisers to pay the usual network connection fees.
When certain key words are found, Google flags your phone to download certain advertisements to say, your background image.
...and also intriguing is that Google engineers may be analyzing the 1-800-GOOG-411 service for popular
voice keywords and search topics while mobile.
Areas of possible analysis:
--The voice data recorded is being analyzed to train their system to recognize popular search items, i.e., "where's a pizza place?" in a call. The voice recognition training would then be applied to the Google Cell service triggering an uninvasive, but welcomed, advertisement.
--The requests being made on 800-GOOG-411 are aggregated into marketing data that shows what's popular to look for on landlines or on the move. If the NPA-NXX is generally for a cell phone, Google can say that X block of numbers during Y time tends to make requests for Z. Add GPS capabilities to that, and you've now got many dimensions to add to a model that determines which ads would be the most successful.
FYI, Google is not to first company that tried to put an ad sponsored cell phone on the market:
4 194714-1.html/
http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/
I worked for Esp Media as a consultant, in 2000. Located in Montreal, we built the company with 7 software writers in about 6 months (there was more staff for administration and marketing though). Technically, it worked great. But the sales were lousy and Esp Media lost its funding with the dot com bubble burst. Still, one of my best work experience ever.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
The thing that confuses me about an advertising phone based model is, how does anyone capitalize on the ads?
On the web, it's easy enough to be diverted by a good ad to quickly visit somewhere and perhaps buy something. But on a phone, you not only have the problem that the user might want to do something right then (make a call) that they are not willing to divert from, but also have the issue of how to you enable the user to actually make a purchase. I guess perhaps you have a credit card registered with the phone provider and you just click "buy now" when an appealing ad comes up?
Even local ads, where you get ads for businesses around you that you show the business for a discount sounds kind of iffy.
If anyone can figure out how to squeeze money out of that model though, I guess it will be Google!
I wonder if they'll require a certain level of usage each month to keep up service? Otherwise I can see people just getting one for free and throwing it in the car for emergencies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Oh come on.... this doesn't prove they are evil. And I think people missing a possibilty. Instead of hearing ring tones while you are waiting for someone to pick-up you you might hear 2-3 second Ad. you know... " This call brought to you by so and so" then boom the callee picks up. And the same when someone calls you. Plus this would not interfere with 911 calls. It is possible to do Ads without being invasive. If done right I think this would be a great phone to have. Plus even if someone linux hacked it... the ring tone Ads might still be under Googles control making Google happy and giving the hackers some fun. =)
As in most religions, it's the followers that turn people off to the religion. And Mac users are the worst.
That's because Works is a shitty product, offering little, with a viable (superior) free replacement.
A free phone is more useful, even if it is ad supported. Add to that a browser and the Google touch and it's OK.
As I said earlier, I would use this, while in the case of Works I'll stick with notepad.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Totally off-track, DogDude.
One is brand recognition. Yes, people love to be associated with certain brands, due to the image those brands have created for themselves. But having a brand symbol on your jacket or shirt is not the same as having a full-page advertisement printed on it.
People are grudgingly accepting the ads before the movies. What I see are people talking to each other, waiting for the movie to start, people interested in the trailers, and some ads that are at least funny. But people are clearly there for the movie, not the ads, and are happy when the ads are over.
Regular people are fed up with advertising, but they don't express it, they accept it. But open your eyes and you'll see. Walk down your street and look on the mailboxes. In my street, at least two out of every three mailboxes carry a "no advertisement, please" label.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There was also an ad-supported text pager that I believe went belly-up.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
Sorry for feeding the troll but...
Google isn't just "selling ads" they're monitoring people habits. They can monitor what words people talk and with who. They provide a hardware based ID so any services used trough the cell phone can not be anonymized. In the end they can use all that info to "sell ads" and "index the world", two of the Google mantras.
Google marketing is to charge everyone 10% while advertising the 90% discount. People are so prone to technology that they don't care what they're giving back.
Hey dude that's actually a good idea ..all phones should have that .. if the phone/service carried out your instructions/commands or search query only if prepended by a trigger word instead of butting in when unnecessary that is. The trigger word should be pretty unlikely to say in a conversation and/or something user configurable. To find the pizza or whatever you would have to say "Google Searcher, where can I find a restaurant (where I am)?" Since you didnt specify a location, like you said it'll figure out where you are by using the built in GPS or triangulation and the come back with "There is a Domino's 2 miles from you, should I dial it or place it in a file and/or display the number amnd map, company logo etc. in your phone?" (assuming u didnt preconfigure it to do a default o something). Then you can answer it or ask for more places. That's a cool feature to have.
.. cause otherwise it would be plain creepy.
It would be like 411 and a personal assistant rolled into one. I would hope all that the actual voice/conversation analysis stuff happens locally on the phone instead of on a server
This is still different from the MS "monopoly" because with Windows there's some sort of lock-in, a reason you would need to use Windows over any other operating system, and that is compatibility. That means competition isn't totally fair because someone could have a better product, but since most programs are written for Windows a lot of people won't be able to switch to the better OS. This sort of lock-in wouldn't be the case with a Google phone, unless they did something ridiculous like only let people call Google phones with a Google phone. Which they won't. So it's not even a "monopoly" in the MS pseudo-monopoly sense.
So what if a bunch of anecdotal Mexicans can make ends meet. You are making presumtions from the wrong point of view.
The immigrants share housing and eschew luxuries
So all of a sudden living in a basement with 20 others and luxuries such as "food" or "" becomes the defacto acceptable minimum standard of living?
Stop saying stupid such as telling it that it should "OK" for people in a western world to live in a situation like a fucking "Favela".
The United States should be ashamed for the low standard of living for some of it's citizens.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
I'm wondering when the advertising bubble will burst. When will people become so fed up of advertising everywhere that it becomes almost worthless? TV has almost reached that point, with Nelson not counting DVR ratings (my fiend just did a Nelson survey, and they discounted everything watched on DVR) because everyone just bypasses the commercials. Jericho and a few other shows are good examples of where shows have been canceled because people watch them on DVR and online instead of at the regular time and miss all the commercials, thus being worthless to advertisers.