Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Might Deliver Google Phone
MrCrassic writes "There are talks floating around surrounding Google's possible talks with Verizon and possibly T-Mobile to establish an agreement for the carrier to deliver phones carrying Google's speculated mobile operating system.
According to the article, one of the main hurdles slowing down the product are concerns about user privacy and advertising, one of Google's well-renowned strengths. With over 6 million customers potentially at their disposal, could this be "the deal" that establishes Google's hegemony in the internet sphere?"
Are these two concepts even remotely compatible?
In any event, I look forward to seeing this mobile OS from google, and I do hope they don't get too tightly wrapped in all that is evil about mobile phones.
What's taking so long? Google and Verizon please hurry up and introduce a sleek new phone to compete with the iPhone so my wife will stop nagging me to pay the early termination fee on her verizon contract. It's in all our best interests a true win/win/win.
Reading the article, all accounts have it that Google has been in talks with T-Mobile for some time and now is in talks with both Verizon and Sprint. If it can net all three carriers to leverage phones with the Google OS, that would be far more than 6 million customers.
Based on Google's public stance on information, I would guess that Verizon might be the first, but not the _only_ cell provider that provides Google-centered telephony. If you watch their lectures and listen to what their spokesmen say, you'll see that Google's interests are in having ubiquitous access to the 'cloud' (their term), meaning that the lines between being online and offline blur to invisibility.
Locking in w/ one carrier doesn't match that goal, especially when you consider their interest in the 700mhz band.
My guess is that if Google makes their break for ubiquity, it will be viral. They'll release a 'Killer setup' on, say, a Verizon phone. Then a few months later, it'll be on a GSM phone, and a few months later, maybe on Some New Thing that hasn't been revealed yet. It'll be a useful set of apps/tools that's "just too useful" for the cell providers to ignore, while so cheap that they can't rationalize building competitive software.
..."Damn, we missed out on the iPhone because we were stupid. Let's get on the Google bandwagon instead!" Whether a *good* product will get delivered or not is anyone's guess. Personally, I'm not holding my breath given Google's relatively poor performance in the market as of late.
I'm also wondering how Verizon's not unlimited data plan will affect this. Their already going to be streaming a boat-load of ads to your phone. Will there be integration with Google Youtube? (Violation of service.) Songs to download? (Violation of service.) Radio to listen to? (Violation of service.) Just about any real access to the internet? (Probably a violation of service.)
Meh. Love 'em or hate 'em, I'll stick with AT&T for now.
"talks floating around" "possible talks" "possibly" "speculated" "potentially".
Wow. Do the authors of the article actually know anything for sure?
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
I do not understand really what google is proposing : are they bringing a phone (the gphone?) or only designing a new OS for mobile devices? In the second case, how thoses OS are installed? By phone compagnies? Or is it possible for an user to replace his phone OS?
I hope there's a stack of OSs (or at least microkernels) in the OS ... one for the radio, one for the display, one to manage data, one for voice, one to drive the (add-on) FPGA-ish hardware that lets this be more than "just" a phone, etcetera. I mean, I know it's asking for a lot (and it's pretty vague, at that!), but if we're going to speculate on a "perfect handheld computer/phone", why not go all the way down to our architectural assumptions? :-D
.f00Dave
I don't get it - isn't the killer phone one that's sufficiently cool like ye olde iPhone yet goes with any carrier? Wouldn't a go-anywhere phone be a better move? I won't get any fancy phone that leaves me stuck with one carrier. It's enough that my freebie phone only works with who gave it to me but if I were to pay for one, I'd want it to go anywhere. Bad car analogy: My Honda isn't restricted to only Honda gas or only Honda streets. Whereas all the people who bought locomotives can only go where B&O lays tracks.
I finally broke with Verizon and switched to T-Mobile, partly because the Verizon phones are impossible to hack without breaking through the wall of Get It Now. Verizon's entire business model would seem to be antithetical to Google's stated desire (with $billions behind it) to open up the wireless spectrum to any device, and to put the device owner in control.
In fact, it's not surprising that the article notes that "Google had already made significant progress in recent months with" T-Mobile. While not perfect (my daughter's phone won't let her use anything but $2 downloads for ringtones), T-Mobile is at least based on a more open technology (from what I understand). The surprise is that Verizon would even talk to Google at all. Maybe they aren't -- the article is based on "people familiar with the matter". Those "people" could be from Google, trying to kick-start talks with Verizon by putting the news on the CEO's front porch via the WSJ.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Yahoo! reports it's down to Verizon and Sprint. I'm hoping Sprint! :)
It won't be evil if they sell phones like they sell computers. I should be able to put any software I want on the phone. I should be able to contract a service provider to connect me to the cell/phone/internet network using unencumbered protocols.
Holy carp, I hope not. Verizon's data service to their cell phones at the moment is so far behind the times it's painful. Locked down phones with horrible proprietary browsers may be able to be resolved by Google's phone, but the absurd price scheme they use for data packages and constant disconnects from the wireless data network can't be fixed with just a new phone. Even when I am in a large city I cant get my Verizon based phone to stay connected with their crappy AIM client for more than 15 or 20 minutes.
adventure-today.com
"...could this be "the deal" that establishes Google's hegemony in the internet sphere."
Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but haven't they already established their leadership roll on the internet? Really, is there a company out there more influential than Google when it comes to the internet?
First, I was under the impression that Google would make a physical iPhone competitor as well as its own OS/Software. This OS/Software would also be open to 3rd Parties to create apps/additional tools for it.
Second, I was hoping it would be open to any carrier. Obviously, some tools might only be usable on some networks as maybe not all carriers support a particular technology. Perhaps you would have to search for the carrier that best suited your wishes for your phone functionality.
Verizon... Unfortunately, I had the displeasure of working for a particular customer that had a lot of Fractional T1's that were supported by Verizon, at least at the LEC level. Now, I don't know what the rest of you know, but working with them on a Business to Business level was absolutely HORRIBLE.
Here is a particular scenario that would play out ALL the time (This is a little Off Topic, but I just want to color the picture as to why I hate Verizon).
One of my Frac T1's would go down. ATT would determine that there was a problem in the LEC network, maybe a bad Demarc, something in their C.O., etc. AT&T would load a ticket to them for Dispatch to troubleshoot. Verizon would reply with "Pending Tech Pickup" (basically meaning they were waiting for a tech to answer the page to accept the job). The ticket would get stuck in this state all day until end of business. At this point, Verizon would push the ticket back to AT&T as "This will have to go out 1st AM as it is now End-of-Business". The next day the process would repeat. Sometimes for 2 to 3 days in a row.
Now I remind you this was how they treated BUSINESS service.
I've also heard that customer service, end users, non-business users, actually LIKE them and find them friendly and helpful. But I don't know why this is? Seperate business units with seperate management? They just hate other businesses? I'm not sure. But I simply can't STAND Verizon after banging my head against the wall trying to get them to fix a damn fractional T1 for a business.
Remember, GSM is the global standard, and unlocked 4-band GSM phones are the only ones compatible with GSM in all areas.
"GSM is used by over 2 billion people across more than 212 countries and territories." If you go to another country, you can get a local phone number merely by purchasing a SIM card. A local number is excellent because then new acquaintances can always reach you if they want to talk or invite you somewhere.
Remember also that the business model of cellular phone companies has been that they deliberately won't handle surges in traffic, but will simply drop or distort calls.
I can't imagine that Verizon would carry the Google phone. They cripple every phone they sell and put their won nasty UI on them.
TMoble and Sprint tend to not cripple their phones and Sprint is pretty open with theirs. The problem is that Sprint is CDMA and TMobel is GSM!
So they are two very different networks.
I really hope Sprint does get the Google phone it is all that and a bag of chips.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I would tend to believe that verizon can find a large correlation between the users who utilize their higher end services (data, web, extremely high minutes usage) and the front end on those phones. I have a feeling that this is not the normal "I use this phone because it was the free" type user, but rather the users who spring for the higher end phones (Q, Q9, Treo etc.. all of which aren't crippled by the standard verizon OS). It seems like for awhile verizon has gotten away with their crippled front end because they placed it on a trendy form factor, namely the razor and all of it's iterations. I would assume they have realized for awhile that the market has been saturated with stylish form factor phones and they going to have to step up their front end soon if they want to keep the users satisfied enough to not migrate to one of the other companies.
If my gross assumptions are on the mark, I bet the people at verizon think it would be a pretty sweet deal to get a company that is inherently trusted by the average consumer to do the redesign that they so desperately need.
Almost every cell phone has some rudimentary web ability but the phones that affect a real computer browser web experience are EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and all rebated according to the size of the DATA plan you buy not the phone plan. An iPhone, Nokia N95, HTC Active or Mogul, a Cingular 8225 - these are all $400-500-600 devices.
So either Google figures those customers are price insensitive or, they figure that the phone companies will do this for free to cannibalize their own incredibly profitable network services. I mean why offer picture mail at those inflated prices when anyone can post up something in Picasa?
No I think this will be ANOTHER service cost addr to the service you get. Which I guess is ok for some people. But I already bleed enough money to the phone company.
And oh - GSM means no Sprint.
I won't.
Verizon and Google--unstoppable force meets immovable object. I think Google will lose here, simply because Verizon locks their phones down too tightly. (A lot of Verizon RAZR owners flash with AllTel firmware just to get their phone in an "unbrokeass" state.)
Kudos to Google for trying to force open the tight walled gardens that the US Mobile Carriers have built, but they will most likely fail.
I think I'll stick with the OpenMoko on a regional carrier, or maybe Helios or T-Mobile--that seems to be the most Open option for those of us who care about such things. I haven't fully researched the best carrier.
Google is possibly in talks regarding phones using an OS speculated to exist?
Does Google need this kind of slashvertisement, or is it just a slow news day?
Great. Now Google will not only know what I search for but also who I talk to on the phone....
The weird and scary part about this is the number of slashdotters who can't wait for this to happen.
So let me get this straight. AT&T as a communication monopoly is bad. Microsoft as a operating systems monopoly is bad. Google as a monopoly on all things data is good? Let me clarify: Google as an all knowing overseer of all things being communicated is good??
We worry about the government tracking us, but not a corporation that derives it's income from targeted ads??
Where can I get some of this google kool-aid?
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Different companies.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I find it very funny that a release of a piece hardware is licensed to a broadband and telecommunications company. It should be free and not locked to just one provider.
Google's alliance with Verizon will give them time to seed the market and build mind share while they build their own infrastructure if this comes to fruition. I think the cell phone carrier is foolish to give them time to do this.
For this to work Google and the carrier need to make money. The carrier currently charges based on my transfer amounts and I'm unlikely to want to pay so I can allow Google to show me ads or prefetch my gmail. Which means Google will have to reduce my payment. I know they have turned pay software free before but I'm not sure they can cut my cellphone bill enough to make me get wireless internet. I'm not going to pay for such a service but if it is free I would but that means Google will need to make enough to pay the carrier and themselves, and at $40 a person that's a lot to make from ads.
"Do no evil" is not Google's motto. That's a good thing too, because "Do no evil" is outright impossible.
One can occasionally do evil (perhaps by accident) and still not be considered to "be" evil (were reparations made? Is ongoing effort to avoid it in the future being made)?
So, "don't be evil" is much easier to live up to, though still just as much of a morally relativistic judgment call.
It would seem strange for Verizon to do this deal. Verizon tries to keep pretty tight control on their network, phones, applications and the like. They use BREW which is a very closed platform. They take 40+% of revenue from the applications they do allow on their network. In the recent stir about the FCC auction Verizon and Google were on opposite sides and Verizon was against any device/any application rules. Worse, GOOG411 is aimed squarely at one of Verizon's most profitable businesses.
Why would Verizon want to help Google, unless Google agrees to pay upfront and has some other restrictions. I guess perhaps Google might pay the phone subsidies, but these help Verizon lock folks into 2 years plans. Maybe Google will pay and Verizon will still insist on 2 years, a la Apple and AT&T. And, is the Google phone really any better/different than anything else out there?
Of course, Verizon does have on set of phones that are open and allow downloading any application - the Windows mobile phones.
Verizon's entire business model would seem to be antithetical to Google's stated desire (with $billions behind it) to open up the wireless spectrum to any device, and to put the device owner in control.
Actually, I don't see how Google could possibly cooperate with ANY cellular provider in the USA without going against this idea of putting the device owner in control, as EVERY provider has a business model based on keeping their phones locked up so the user's options are limited, and they're forced to buy extra things from the provider for inflated prices.
Unless Google thinks it can strong-arm one or more of the carriers into going along with its plans somehow, they should either simply buy out an existing carrier and its infrastructure, or abandon the USA market altogether.
From what I've read both Verizon and Google are polar opposites on open access. Google has admitted to making plans to deploy their own Network. It only makes sense that they are negotiating an access/right-of-way across these competitors networks and not jumping on-board with a hardware OEM/Telco relationship.
...due to the hope it would provide an open alternative. But "open" and "Verizon"? Yeah, right...
Seriously, why would Google work with any CDMA network company? At least with GSM, you can pop the SIM card out and use any phone with any GSM service (as long as they use the same frequency.) This would be more in the spirit of what their demands are for the 700MHz band. Plus, if they are officially "supported" by T-Mobile, then they also have a relatively easy in to the European markets.
Of course, if Google could have their phones sold by all carriers, that would maximize their profits. But then they might be venturing into doing "evil." I personally think they should just work with the phone manufacturers and try to influence the service companies to provide better data plans.
But not you, google. Stop watching my moves!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think Verizon's willing to talk because they know now they blew the iPhone deal. They had the opportunity to be the sole provider of the hottest phone in forever and couldn't close the deal, so I imagine there's no way they're going to let a Google Phone slip through their fingers, even if they can't be the sole carrier.
I will first off say I know little about this topic overall, but hope that maybe the plot behind this is simple one. If your not in a WIFI Zone then you are on the regular cell waves and your pay for a monthly amount for that. When your not you would be using some sort of customized VOIP Phone, which is where I can see advertisements being feasible in any way.