Slashdot Mirror


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."

25 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... by r_jensen11 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. But the cell companies like control by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  3. Um, okay by jtroutman · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    I stole this sig from a more creative user.
  4. It's cool that Google won't be charging for it by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  5. Just curious by jtroutman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I stole this sig from a more creative user.
    1. Re:Just curious by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  6. obligatory by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    ph0wned!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  7. And by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:And by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

      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 ..."

    2. Re:And by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    3. Re:And by dwater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Max.
    4. Re:And by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny


      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.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:And by JimDaGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
    6. Re:And by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    7. Re:And by Constantine+XVI · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      "I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
    8. Re:And by ceejayoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  8. Re:ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  9. Not just ads. Ads tailored to your conversation by Animats · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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."

  10. I don't see this happening in the US by doit3d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "This is America... where the will of the few outweigh the outrage of the many..." - Unknown
  11. Re:Why Would Google Tip its Hand? by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  12. Re:Single Page by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  13. Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... by overtoperative · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  14. Re:Dammit! by v01d · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  15. Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... by adolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... by smilindog2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.