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

Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[r_jensen11]

In order to have any service, you have to be in a gSpot.

But the cell companies like control

[morgan_greywolf]

They like control because it provides them a way to sell additional software and services for the phones. They don't want companies like Google stepping in and selling ads. Even on smart phones, Windows Mobile is customized for that purpose. Will Google allow that level of control to the cell companies? I'm guessing no more than they allow other third parties to control their content on the Web.

Re:But the cell companies like control

[davidsyes]

Hopefully DO NO evil will translate into UNDO evil.

If Google charges reasonable or no fees to the carriers, but then allows the carriers to still make a living with reasonable caps, then the carriers should shut the hell up, since it appears Google won't be charging them a fee, unlike mshaft. Afterall, they, like the smaller of us, have an OPPORTUNITY, not a RIGHT to do business. They need to update their aging business models.

Meanwhile, Chinese on the mainland (and possibly in Japan, Korea, and a few other places, customers replace their cell phones every 3 or 4 months to the tune of $300 to $400 a pop so as to not look behind the times.) Here, I pick a phone that is not FUGLY, one that I can live with for 2 or even 4 years and not get screwed upgrading a phone which I didn't like in the first place. (I recognized that not ALL upgraders get screwed, or pay a ton to upgrade the phone-- well unless they do it too soon or are trying to upgrade to too expensive a handset.)

Re:But the cell companies like control

[cuby]

In Europe the majority of phones can be found unlocked, but they are also more expensive that way. Operators don't seem to care if a phone is unlocked and used in another operator. I don't remember to hear someone complaining about bricked phones... In the end is all about the price of the services they provide, not the devices.

The companies have the power given by the market regulator.
I think all consumers should complain more about the market regulator and less about the companies. They always try to maximise their profit. Its their obligation.

Re:But the cell companies like control

[ColdWetDog]

Meanwhile, Chinese on the mainland (and possibly in Japan, Korea, and a few other places, customers replace their cell phones every 3 or 4 months to the tune of $300 to $400 a pop so as to not look behind the times.)

Wow, I feel old and dumb. It takes me 3 months just to figure out where all the stupid functions are on these UI-from-Hell cell phones (I'm looking at YOU Motorola...). Maybe they just hang them on a cord or something and have them bleep randomly. Maybe the Oriental mind can fathom the bizarre, convoluted thinking that goes into the menu structure of modern phones. Maybe I should get new glasses.

(Goes back to reading his email).

Um, okay

[jtroutman]

FTFA: Industry analysts say that Google, which has little experience with complex hardware, faces significant challenges. I'd have to disagree. Now, I'm not saying that the two technologies have any overlap, but that the statement that Google "has little experience with complex hardware" seems a little disingenuous.

Re:Um, okay

[pedantic bore]

There's a big difference between putting a bunch of beige boxes into a rack and designing a piece of hardware. Google has experience with using hardware that was designed and built by other folks, but they don't do hardware.

Re:Um, okay

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a huge difference between designing a network topology (even with the impressive performance and scalability that Google has achieved) and designing the actual devices used. One of the most impressive parts of what Google has done is that they've managed to put together quite possibly the most scalable network topology ever using predominantly commodity hardware.

That said, from the description of this project, it sounds like they don't intend to design and build their own phone. It sounds like they simply want to work with existing phone manufacturers and only plan on writing the software that will run on the phones produced by those manufacturers. That should be well within their core competency.

ads

[McGiraf]

Ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, and ads.

And then some ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, and aslo ads and ads.

I think there is enough ads already, I'm starting to hate Google.

look an ad in my sig!

heurg!

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!

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.

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.

Just curious

[jtroutman]

What is the possibility that Google gets the 700MHz spectrum and then uses it for their own phone service? I have no idea if that's even feasible, but if so, it would bypass any problem they may have with the current carriers not using their software because they see them as competition for advertising dollars.

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.

obligatory

[User 956]

The New York Times has a look at Google's plan to loosen the carriers' control over their mobile phone networks

ph0wned!

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that gets funnier every time someone posts it.

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

[tomhudson]

Hello, 911

"... one moment please. You have dialed 911. gPhone will place your call shortly. Please listen to these 3 contextual ads."

"Hi, need a lawyer? Call 1-900-SUX-2-B-U!"

"Need an ambulance in a hurry? Call 123-456-7890"

"Remember Forest Lawn - when it comes time to go to that big sleep."

"Thak you for waiting. gPhone will now connect you to 911"

"This is 911 emergency services. Your call is important to us. In the meantime, plase listen to these contextual ads ..."

Re:And

[ceejayoz]

And are you under the impression that your money has the slightest effect on the way the cell phone companies operate?

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

[Lumpy]

but why?

"hey dave! let's go get some burgers!" ... bennegans has the best burgers in town and just around the corner....

"Holy crap what was that?" ... feeling down, the holy saviour church can help you.....

"Sorry, I get free cellphone through google, it plays ad's based on keywords from the last thing you said" ... verizon cellphones dont annoy you with advertisments every 12 seconds try one today....

"this sucks!" ... lonely? looking for a good time? www.sexpots.com is your source for low prices in companionship...

Oh yeah, I can see an ad supported free cellphone working just fine.

Re:And

[JimDaGeek]

I want my money to be what controls the services

But that is not often the case when a few large companies control everything. I recently got a mobile phone for my wife and I. After much searching, there was not much that differentiates the different companies. You will get basically the same features (depending on what you spend) and you will pay similar prices. All the big carriers I went to wanted to lock me in to a 2 year contract. All of them had annoying sales people that tried to sell me the latest whizz-bang phone. And all of them are way over priced IMO. The only thing I found my money could give me a choice over was if I wanted to pay a lot of cash for a phone to take crappy pictures or to listen to some songs, or maybe look at a web page in a crappy browser.

In looking at options to get the lowest monthly cost, well there just weren't many options to be truthful. One option was 700 shared family minutes for $79 USD/month or 1,400 shared family minutes for $89 USD/month. WTF? If I can get 1,400 minutes for $90/month, why can't I get 700 minutes for $45/month?

When it comes to the mobile market, my money doesn't seem to control much of anything.

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

[Constantine XVI]

"Did you see those people around the Goat Sea earlier?"
...
"MY EARS!"

Re:And

[omeomi]

All the big carriers I went to wanted to lock me in to a 2 year contract.

Technically speaking, you can usually choose to buy the phone outright (rather than at a huge discount) and forgo the contract. Have to agree that cell service is overpriced, though.

Re:And

[Torontoman]

Funny though how people think this will flop when in reality Google seems to make gold out of anything and do it in a 'non invasive' way. Gmail is great and google is the leading search engine. Sure there are a few people freaking about rights and whatnot but they search about those rights violations on google.

I'm betting they'll do this, do it right, and revolutionize the cell phone - putting the crap old guard out of business or at least change them into something better. I for one would welcome free calls on my cell phone if they did it in such a non invasive way - so that it was as nice to use as Gmail.

Torontoman.

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:Will not compete?

[andrewcharles420]

> 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.

I'm sure they'll keep this in mind when designing the new combination giPhone... now where should one put that? ;)

Re:Will not compete?

[Belacgod]

I'm sure they'll keep this in mind when designing the new combination giPhone... now where should one put that? ;)

Iraq?

Not Competition?

[nurb432]

How do they figure that?

its a phone, it has applications, it has internet access.. Of course its competition..

Google's Experience

[jeremiahbell]

From Article - "Running a Web site and a search engine is one thing," said Mr. Weide of IDC. "But developing a phone is a whole different game. It will not be easy for them."

They claim that Google will have hard time because it doesn't have the experience dealing with complex hardware. Sure, maintaining what is probably the world's largest search engine isn't complex. And as far as the handset hardware goes they won't be the first to port the kernel to a mobile platform, and someone else may have already done the work for them. Communication is Google's business, and they have spent a ton of R&D time and money to prepare and launch their product. I bet they are further along than IDC thinks.

Not just ads. Ads tailored to your conversation

[Animats]

"Hey, let's have dinner tonight"

(Robotic Google voice) "May we suggest ... Chez Panisse ... which is 2.4 miles from your present location, Bill, and 1.3 miles from your present location, Karen. Reservations are available at 7:30 and 7:45 PM. A reservation has been made for you at 7:30. Bill, please turn right on Western. Karen, go 1 mile straight ahead to Central, then turn left on Western. Chez Panisse is at 1540 Western. Have a nice dinner, and thank you for choosing Google for your phone service."

Re:Not just ads. Ads tailored to your conversation

[davidsyes]

And then someone hacks, umm, cracks the database and steers them both to Chez Poosay, right in the middle of a police raid on massage parlors...

Re:Not just ads. Ads tailored to your conversation

[lelitsch]

If the GPhone can get a same day reservation for Chez Panisse, I am so buying it.

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.

Re:I don't see this happening in the US

[Crazy Man on Fire]

I hate to tell you this, but they're not in the search business they're in the advertising business.

Let me be the first to say...

[michaelmalak]

"Google's agenda is to disaggregate carriers," said Dan Olschwang, the chief executive of JumpTap, a start-up that provides search and advertising services to several mobile phone operators.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Why Would Google Tip its Hand?

[CodeBuster]

It occurs to me that it is not in the best interest of Google to tip its hand prematurely on this announcement, before the spectrum auction of 700 MHz, in which Google is a bidder, is complete. If this is true then Verizon, Sprint/Nextel, and AT&T will know that Google represents a serious competitive threat and must therefore be outbid in the spectrum auction at any price so that Google can be denied the spectrum that it needs to roll out the competing services. It should be abundantly clear to everyone that the type of services that Google wants to offer in the mobile space are anathema to the entrenched providers who are used to the revenue stream from nickle and dimming practices that are enabled by absolute control of their networks. The existing carriers will certainly not offer the Google mobile OS on terms that Google would accept (Google wants freedom whereas the telcos want lock-in). This upcoming spectrum auction may prove to be very interesting indeed.

Re:Why Would Google Tip its Hand?

[tomhudson]

You're assuming google actually wants to acquire the spectrum, rather than make the carriers do a repeat of the dark fibre build-out.

1. get competing cell-phone carriers to overbid on spectrum
2. now that carrier has spectrum, they build out the infrastructure at great expense
3. oops - not enough revenue coming in - google buys out their infrastructure and license for cents on the dollar

Re:Why Would Google Tip its Hand?

[kcbrown]

You're assuming google actually wants to acquire the spectrum, rather than make the carriers do a repeat of the dark fibre build-out.

1. get competing cell-phone carriers to overbid on spectrum
2. now that carrier has spectrum, they build out the infrastructure at great expense
3. oops - not enough revenue coming in - google buys out their infrastructure and license for cents on the dollar

Uh, your item number 2 is suspect. Who says the carriers are actually going to build out anything? And even if they do, what makes you think they'll do it at their expense rather than getting government "incentives" to do so (not that getting incentives has anything to do with actually building the infrastructure).

What's most likely, I think, is that one of the major carriers will acquire the spectrum and then they'll either sit on it or they'll gradually use it for their own purposes. What they won't do is any sort of massive, expensive build-out.

Oh, they're "contractually obligated" to build infrastructure around the auctioned spectrum? How naive. Such contracts are only as good as the enforcement, and trust me -- the government has no intention of enforcing such a contract on the telcos. The telcos pay them too well for that.

There is precedent for this: their handling of the internet infrastructure (particularly the last mile), where they got lots of government "incentives" and wound up doing...well, nothing.

In other words, you can expect the phone suckage to continue without end. It's in the telcos best interests, after all, and that's all that really matters, right? This is the US, where the individual customer is the least important entity in the "business" relationship.

Someday...

[ChangeOnInstall]

Someday, when Google takes over the world, everything will be ad-supported, and everything will be free. My cell phone will be free and display ads to get a free ad-supported car. The car, in turn, will be painted with an ad for a free ad-supported house. The house will be totally free as well, but be plastered in advertising for free ad-supported cell phones.

in the year 2050...

[Seismologist]

I will be driving in my Gmobile supported entirely by add revenue and the occasional mandatory detours to "suggested vendors" while en route to my destination, using of course, Gmaps. But on the way there, I need to fuel my Gmobile with some environmentally friendly and sustainable/renewable Gfuel, which is supported solely from advertising revenues which I'm forced to watch at the pump station. But before I leave the pump station, I plan to make a visit with my Gdoctor of course which the appointment has already been setup for me through Google calendar as Google knows my schedule by now anyway. I didn't need to confirm this, nor even ask for the appoint thanks to Gpsychic. The Gdoctor knows all my medical needs thanks to Grecords, all of which is sponsored by tailored advertising supported by the drug manufacturing consortium. I'm even planning on selling my Ghouse next week, to by a bigger house, for which G mortgage will help me out on the loan....

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.

Forcing the Airwaves Open

[Doc Ruby]

Google and others like it should force open the airwaves for mobile telecom. Telcos like AT&T, Sprint and Verizon have fled to their mobile divisions because it's still much more regulated against competition, though without the "common carrier" regulations that forced competition in landlines, and cable, and carried over into Internet. Even though radio phones are the least reliable, and often the most urgently needed, the redundancy that any phone connecting to any network available at the time/place is still out of reach. Except at outrageous roaming rates. Including the charges for text and other async messaging.

Google tried to force the 700MHz band open to any terminal device, unbundling the network from the dialtone. It didn't work. But there are other ways, and Google is persistent. Google bought lots of fiber and built lots of datacenters, so it can mount its own competitive telco. But Google's model calls for everyone to have unfettered access to all content and people on all the networks, so Google can help everyone navigate everyone else's content (and each other). They'll get there. And the incumbent telcos (and cablecos which keep their own bundled monopolies, though they just got the cableboxes unbundled from them this year) can't compete with Google. It's too rich, too popular, too smart. Unfolding history is on Google's side. I just wish it would all happen a lot faster.

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:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[overtoperative]

and how many /.ers will be able to find these gSpots?

Easy way to save a ton of money on a mobile phone

[Optic7]

Use a third party reseller. They will have many more phones for free than the mobile provider will, and on some models they will even pay you to take them. I used letstalk.com and and got two motorola phones from T-mobile and they actually paid me $200! $100 came from letstalk, and the other $100 was the mail-in rebate from t-mobile itself. The price of the plans is the same, so there was no downside in my experience. I was actually even past the deadline on sending in some of the rebates and they still paid me. I know there are other companies that basically do the same thing as letstalk.com but they're the ones I used and can recommend. They also resell for all the major US carriers (verizon, sprint, cingular/AT&T, t-mobile). Good luck.

Re:Dammit!

[v01d]

I can't draw a map, but that's fine. All the fun is in the search anyway.

Re:The users will pay

[Paul_Hindt]

Uh...you pay to see ads every time you watch cable or satellite television...maybe you never thought about that.

VOIP

[Paul_Hindt]

I can't believe how out of whack the telco and data services industries are in the United States (I don't know how they fare elsewhere). Its seriously about time we have a big push for fiber-to-the-premises, and extended WIFI coverage for rural areas. You would think that the U.S. would be able to get something like this going by now. Yes I know that Verizon and ATT have their limited coverage fiber services out now, but there is still a loooong way to go. Once we have a large-scale broadband network in place, we can do ALL of our communicating over it...VOIP, videoconferencing, VR marketplaces, whatever...If we actually spent time putting together a solid digital communications backbone, I believe customers would be much happier with their service and the possibilities it offers. Of course someone better pinch me, I'm probably dreaming.

Re:Finally a competitor in a non-competative marke

[middlemen]

Get a used Treo 650 that works with Sprint. .... It doesn't run Linux,


As an owner of a Treo 650 and a tester for Linux4palm, it is my duty to direct you to hackndev where they have been successful in running Linux on a Treo 650 and I have tested it myself.

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[adolf]

It will help loosen carriers' control by forcing them to accept Google's software in its entirety.

I mean, one can only assume that Google would require the carriers to offer either all of the features of their application suite, or none at all. And once one or two national carriers (or a handful of regional ones) start adopting this software, the rest will be compelled to make a decision:

Play ball with Google and adjust business models accordingly. This is obviously a somewhat frightening concept for companies like Verizon which are deeply entrenched in selling individual services for exorbitant sums, and it will likely be an expensive task to perform.

or...

Distance themselves from the household name of Google, stubbornly maintain the status quo, and fade into obscurity as an increasingly-clued consumer populace flocks toward their Google-embracing competition. And where the former choice was merely frightening and expensive, this one will be downright terrifying and death-bringing.

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[davotoula]

I don't see how this strategy will work for Google in Europe. You see here each country has a handful of operators (2-4) and a part of their revenue is bastardising the mobile phones they offer in as many ways as possible. I am afraid it will be all too easy for the handful of operators operating in a country to choose not to allow Google in and be certain that the other operator(s) will do the same.

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.

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[RevWhite]

Well played, sir. . .well played.

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[MenTaLguY]

The carriers don't need to be on-board with OpenMoko. It's just an unlocked GSM phone, which you can put a carrier's SIM card in. The only limitation in terms of carrier compatibiliy is the dialing software (gsmd), which doesn't cover enough to work automatically with all of the GSM carriers yet. But that's being worked on.

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[smilindog2000]

Yes, I take it back. In fact, I've just purchased the OpenMoko Neo1973, and hope to be of some assistance in the open-source development community, which so far seems vibrant and friendlier than most :-)

Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch...

[Bibz]

and how many /.ers will have the chance to try to find these gSpots?