Google Hopes to Disaggregate Carriers with gPhone

Hugh Pickens writes "The New York Times has a look at Google's plan to loosen the carriers' control over their mobile phone networks in an effort to bring the dynamics of the PC-oriented Internet to the mobile Internet hoping that it can beat competitors in an open environment. The Google Phone or gPhone which is expected to be unveiled later this year will not compete with the iPhone but will help Google distribute their online services. Google intends to provide software that will be built into phones sold by many manufacturers and, unlike Microsoft's Windows Mobile, Google is not expected to charge phone makers a licensing fee for their software. Google will make its money brokering ads on the mobile phones and even envisions a free phone service one day supported entirely through ad revenue."

Comments

It's cool that Google won't be charging for it

[Anonymous Crowhead]

Because I'm sure the manufacturers will pass the savings on directly to you and me.

Single Page

[TubeSteak]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/business/media/08googlephone.html?pagewanted=all

My basic issue is this: How much cheaper is an ad-subsidized gPhone going to be in comparison to some relatively nice pre-paid phone?

But if Google-powered phones prove to be a hit with consumers, other carriers may feel pressure to follow suit, said Richard Doherty, director for the Envisioneering Group, a consulting firm. Why? You could replace "Google-powered" with just about anything and the statement would hold true.

Other than a low(er) price... a Google Phone isn't magically going to bring the internet to the masses. Are Google ads going to subsidize a 3G network? Even the iPhone isn't anything special unless you're within range of a wifi network and/or are paying AT&T $2,000 for their service plan over the next two years.

As far as I noticed, TFA never comes out and says what a gPhone is going to bring to the market that will win over consumers. Brand name? Features? Function?

Re:Single Page

[Shakrai]

As far as I noticed, TFA never comes out and says what a gPhone is going to bring to the market that will win over consumers. Brand name? Features? Function?

I don't know about TFA, because like most people around here I didn't bother to read it, but I do have a bit of a background in the wireless industry. And ANYTHING that ANYBODY can do to loosen the tight grip that the carriers have on our collective balls is a good thing.

Right now the carriers control what types of phones you can use on their networks. They want to lock out anything that might compete with their own content offerings. It's bad enough that Microsoft can make all their own services (MSN Search and IE come to mind) the default in Windows. Now imagine if they made it outright impossible to install other software or content that didn't come from them. Because that's what the cellular carriers do!

There is no reason that there shouldn't be a wireless version of carterfone. This document provides an interesting read into the current state of affairs. Consumers on Verizon and Sprint are screwed. AT&T and T-Mobile customers fare a little better, since they always have the option of buying unbranded/unlocked GSM phones. But even at that the carriers are attempting to impose artificial limitations -- like T-Mobile's claim (false, but they still sell this to the unwashed masses) that MyFaves won't work on a non-MyFaves phone.

All the power to Google if they can open up this market just a little bit. I won't ever be owning an ad-sponsored phone. But maybe they will bring something similar to carterfone to the market. They certainly have nothing to fear from the carriers, unlike the equipment makers (Mororola, Nokia, etc) that are afraid to speak up for fear of losing that carriers business.

And

[einhverfr]

Mnay people, like myself, don't want ad-supported cell service. I want my money to be what controls the services, no the advertisers' money.

Re:And

[dwater]

I was thinking the same thing, yet here I am using free Slashdot (I am fairly sure I've seen notices that I can pay for it if I want - does that get rid of the ads?).

However, I have nothing against an ad supported network, so long as I can still choose to pay (instead of ads) if I want to.

Re:And

[einhverfr]

Yes, it does make a difference. If T-Mobile meets my needs better, am I going to go with them or with AT&T? What about Verizon? Yes, these companies have to compete for our money, so yes, it does make a difference. That was the whole reason for number portability.

Re:And

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does make a difference. If T-Mobile meets my needs better, am I going to go with them or with AT&T? What about Verizon? Yes, these companies have to compete for our money, so yes, it does make a difference. That was the whole reason for number portability. Not quote. For prepaid you have a point, but you still have to keep in mind the cost of the phones as most are locked to a certain carrier. For service plan, most require a multi-year contract which really takes competition out of the equation.

If phones were not tied to providers, providers didn't require contracts, and everything wasn't controlled by a handful of companies, I'd completely agree with you about letting competition sort it out.

Re:And

[ceejayoz]

Compete?

There are a couple vendors. They all charge roughly the same prices, offer roughly the same services, probably share customer support reps in some developing nation, own the same Congressmen, they're all charging us the 'regulatory fee reclamation' shit, etc.

I've had four different cell phone providers. There's little difference.

Google may make their money off advertisers, but they've proven themselves far more responsible, ethically minded, and consumer responsive than any of the cell phone companies. Sure, the advertisers pay their bills, but those advertisers won't exist without us consumers using their products and thus providing advertisers with eyeballs to purchase.

Will not compete?

[flaming error]

> The Google Phone ... will not compete with the iPhone

I don't really think they expect me to carry a gPhone in one pocket and an iPhone in another.

Re:ads

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like Google's vision of a world paid for by Ads either. Because we'll end up paying for services one way or another, through the marketing budgets of the products we buy if not directly. The other consequence of this is that we never feel ownership of anything because we don't pay for it and we get a 'well you can have a refund, what do you want for nothing' if we complain about the quality of a service. Ads are damned intrusive (by their design), annoying and ugly!

I don't see this happening in the US

[doit3d]

I really do not think their apps will be integrated into phones sold in the US for the major carriers. The manufacturers will have it in the original OS install of the phone probably, but let us not forget that when US carriers purchase the phones to sell for their network, they tend to heavily modify the phones OS. Generally all useful features installed on a phone that are free to use are disabled, or erased (Motorola phones, and Verizon policies come to mind). The US carriers want you to pay them more money, when it comes to having something useful (fully functional Bluetooth, easy transfer of files, ect). They like playing the "nickel and dime you to death" game. This is why phone modding is so popular. People want the functionality back in the phones, that the carriers removed.

In European markets, as well as others outside of North America, however, might see a great benefit here.

Finally a competitor in a non-competative market

[Klowner]

Considering I pay over $55/mo for my blackberry with an unlimited data connection, and I can't even tether to my laptop (use as a modem) via bluetooth or USB (at least in Linux), anything that allows more connectivity and openness is sure to be a hit with more technical users. I couldn't give half a hoot about being able to buy annoying ringtones, it's the connectivity that I want.

So, hurry up google, I need you.

Re:ads

[moosesocks]

You're right. Ads suck. I'll agree with that.

However, AT&T and Verizon's wireless arm sit somewhere among the RIAA, MPAA, and the guy who designed the packaging on jewel cases in terms of the amount of respect/patience I have for them.

If we can get a carrier that doesn't treat its customers like dirt, I think the ads are a decent tradeoff. Even better, if the carriers are indeed disaggregated, we'll wind up with a system like Europe, where the cost of the handset is often *completely* separated from the plan. The Mobile networks provide the airspace and the bandwidth -- that's it. Pricing schemes tend to be mostly straightforward.

I pay 10p ($0.20 USD) GBP per minute outgoing, and 5p ($0.10 USD) per SMS outgoing on my UK mobile. No monthly fees or bizarre restrictions like you see on US prepay carriers. If you're a heavy user, a prepay scheme might cost you a bit more money, but for someone like myself who rarely gabs on for more than a minute or two, it's much cheaper than what I used to pay in the US. (OT: This is more or less the *only* instance under which something is cheaper in the UK than the US. This graph should scare the pants off of you if you're an American.)

I didn't mind paying for my handset either. I needed a basic but durable handset, and the fine forces of capitalism indeed produced such a device at a reasonable cost. I'm pretty sure that all Verizon users can testify that their entire line of devices is absolute garbage.

So... bring it on. I welcome some 'real' competition in the industry.

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[davester666]

How exactly will this loosen carriers control? Carriers in the US already dictate the features for each phone it offers [which are the majority of cell phones sold in the US]. Just look on the latest KRAZR, it's advertised by MOTO has being this fabulous phone, but each of the 4 major carriers sell it with a significantly different feature set. And just offering the OS for free doesn't make a difference to manufacturers as some cell phones already run Linux...

And it's a non-starter for Canada, given the outrageous data fees...

Re:Just curious

[GlassHeart]

They'll need more than the rights to the spectrum. They'll need to set up antennas everywhere, which includes both the broadcast equipment, tower, as well as renting/buying the space occupied by the towers. If memory serves, an unobstructed GSM tower covers about a 2-mi radius (say, 12.5 sq mi), so covering the most populous tenth of the (nearly 3 million sq mi total) lower 48 states would involve 24,000 towers. CDMA can be configured to cover a wider area, but this should give you an idea of the scope of the project.

I hate carriers at least as much as anybody else, but after Google makes that kind of investment they may find it hard not to be Evil with their pricing.

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[smilindog2000]

Exactly. I did a lot of searching, and it seems that OpenMmoko is the only current significant effort at open-phone development. Apple and the rest run on *nix, but close up the phone so you can't do dick with it. Openmoko has some promise, but without wireless or a cell carrier in the US on-board, I'm not read to start hacking it. Ubuntu Mobile has potential, but the screen size currently has to be 4.8", and it looks more like a tablet PC OS at the moment than smartphone software.

There's some ultra-smart dudes at Google, at this point. The next major shift in computing will be smartphones. Only an open system with an excellent SDK for 3rd party applications has much chance of dominating, so the current players seem to be Google and Microsoft. I personally have disliked every version of Windows CE I've ever seen, though I hear good things about the latest version. Based on open-source GNU/Linux, Google's got a real shot at the largest new market on the horizon, IMO.