Verizon Embraces Google's Android

An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek has up an article on Verizon's decision to fully support Android. After passing on the iPhone, the company says they're going to open their network to more devices, move their network to GSM-based radio technology (LTE), and now support Android. 'In an open-access model, though, Verizon Wireless won't offer the same level of customer service as it does for the roughly 50 phone models featured in its handset lineup. Though the company will insist on testing all phones developed to run on its network in the open-access program, Verizon plans only to ensure the wireless connection is working for customers who buy those devices.'"

Comments

I Feel A Sudden Pain

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

In all of the diodes down my left side.

Re:I Feel A Sudden Pain

[nacturation]

In all of the diodes down my left side. That's the crushing effect of Verizon embracing your android too tightly.

wary

[pwnies]

I feel like when it comes to open networks, Verizon has always been that evil master that enslaves you and hits you with a rolled up magazine. It makes me wary that it's now trying to give us this treat of promises of open networks...
Something tells me they're just trying to lure us in so they can get a better swing with their magazine.

Re:wary

[AmaDaden]

Speaking as someone who is stuck on the Verizon network I say THANK GOD. My biggest complaint with Verizon is their OS. They have it on every phone and it's an unwieldy piece of crap. They might be a corporate super giant but they seem to be realizing that people don't like being fucked with. At first we just wanted good service, this is now their advertising corner stone. Then we had to teach that when you say unlimited you have to mean it. So they might be looking at things like Android and seriously consider it. A better OS for their phones that other people will take care of for them? Sounds like a good deal. I just hope to see something good from them soon because their iPhone want-a-be is the best they have and it still sucks

Re:wary

[davester666]

Except they already sell phones with capabilities you want today. Well, the phones could have those capabilities, as the phone manufacturer already developed the hardware [the phone] and the software for those capabilities, but Verizon made them scrap that software AFTER it was developed and QA'ed, and forced them to develop new software without those capabilities you want.

This is just PR, as they don't want to publicly admit you could already have access to phones TODAY [as Verizon has already certified them for use on their networks] with the features you want [well, more of them, anyway] except Verizon has intentionally crippled them, just by saying, wait a year, and we'll certify new advanced phones with more features [implying no such phones exist today].

This is good news

[squiggleslash]

LTE is especially good news. It's an open standard, it similar underlying technologies to WiMAX and like WiMAX is all-IP - you can run any protocol over it you can run over the Internet, because your LTE device is an Internet connected terminal. Unlike WiMAX various protocols are standardized on top of it, so an LTE "phone" is still charge up, and plug in the SIM card, and go in much the same way as a GSM phone is today.

It's going to be hard for me to shake my impression of Verizon as a bunch of psychotic control freaks: maybe the Vodafone influence is finally having an affect. It'll be nice to have a third national operator with a genuinely open network that's worth considering. Being stuck with two GSM operators, one stuck with poor spectrum, the other barely giving a rats-ass about quality of service, sucks.

Re:This is good news

[yurik]

Am I correct that with Verizon, being one of the few remaining non-GSM providers, CDMA is scheduled to disappear from North America? Does it still mean the multiple frequencies will remain, thus EU-GSM will stay on separate frequencies with US-GSM ?

Re:This is good news

[squiggleslash]

It's hard to tell what the long term future of IS-95/CDMA2000 (TIA standards) is. The 4G road map is a technology called Ultra Mobile Broadband, this is the TIA world's equivalent of LTE, but nobody has, thus far, expressed any interest in it.

Sprint is dabbling in WiMAX, though its deprecated its projects in that area of late. It did, at one point, experiment with a version of UMTS (GSM) called UMTS-TDD but ultimately rejected it in favor of WiMAX, so they're open-minded enough to consider things that fall outside of the narrow TIA systems.

Alltel, I believe, hasn't made any decisions or said anything about 4G. Between them, Alltel, Verizon, and Sprint are the three major CDMA2000 operators. As long as one of those operators remains tied to CDMA2000, it's unlikely the system will die completely.

Frequencies is an issue of local legislation and doesn't have much to do with standards. It's going to get worse in Europe too, as phones currently support GSM on 1800 and 900, and UMTS on 2100/1900, and are now going to have to support GSM on 450MHz and UMTS on 900 and 1800. As time goes by, the number of frequencies every handset supports is just going to go through the roof, even if the phone is only supposed to work in one region.

I think this is going to end up being a fight between WiMAX and LTE, with UMB getting relatively little support. While WiMAX is better known to geeks, it's no more open nor more efficient than LTE. LTE is arguably slightly better in supporting SIM cards, so ultimately if I had a choice, I'd prefer the latter to "win". But both are likely to have wide support across the world, it's unlikely that the same ideological differences that caused the CDMA vs GSM thing to be a mess will happen this time.

Verizon Embraces Google's Android

[Seumas]

Verizon Embraces Google's Android

Too bad androids are only able to return the gesture of affection with a cold, dead indifference.

A Java-ish success?

[caywen]

I wonder if Verizon's support for Android devices is indirectly due to Java's general acceptance as a mobile platform (J2ME), and their confidence that a whole OS based on it will be solid enough to provide predictable support for it. We're beginning to see Windows Mobile devices diverging in basic functionality as the T-Mobile Shadow, HTC Touch, and AT&T Tilt all have different interfaces. This likely makes it hell for Verizon to provide open access for WM. If Android can remain consistent in functionality, robustness, and usability, as well as maintain a relatively small footprint, I don't see why Sprint and T-Mobile wouldn't follow suit eventually. OTOH, AT&T may continue to drink Apple's koolaid and be the closed, leading edge, stylish carrier.

Re:A Java-ish success?

[Constantine XVI]

Um, Sprint and T-Mobile were two of the founding members of the OHA/Android.

Re:A Java-ish success?

[Metaphorically]

I wonder if Verizon's support for Android devices is indirectly due to Java's general acceptance as a mobile platform (J2ME) Android uses Java Standard Edition, not Micro. And I don't see much foundation for that speculation: Android is built on Java not the other way around.

their confidence that a whole OS based on it will be solid enough to provide predictable support for it. There's no OS built on Java here. The emulator runs a custom JVM on top of Linux.

I don't see why Sprint and T-Mobile wouldn't follow suit eventually. Sprint and T-Mobile are already members (as I think other comments have pointed out).

Ok, I get it now...

[Crazy Taco]

Ok, I get it now. I've been trying to figure out why a company that is so closed and so anti-consumer most of the time (I happen to be a current subscriber and hate them, especially after they automatically extended my contract when I got married and wanted to consolidate cell phone plans with my wife, who was also a Verizon customer) would be suddenly opening up their network, not restricting software, etc. After reading these quotes from the article, though, I do get it now.

When Verizon Wireless was founded in 2000, it ran 27 call centers to provide customer service. The company cut back to as few as 17 centers at one point, but the count is now back to 25, each with about a thousand employees. The company's 2,300 stores, staffed by 20,000 employees, are also costly. While workers in those stores used to spend nearly the entire day signing up new customers, now only a tenth of their time is consumed by new subscribers. Instead, the bulk of their energy goes to helping current subscribers with questions and problems. McAdam & Co. decided the business model was not sustainable. "If we get to 150 million customers, boy, that's a lot of overhead," says McAdam.

In an open-access model, though, Verizon Wireless won't offer the same level of customer service as it does for the roughly 50 phone models featured in its handset lineup. Though the company will insist on testing all phones developed to run on its network in the open-access program, Verizon plans only to ensure the wireless connection is working for customers who buy those devices. "They have to talk to their handset provider or their application provider if they have particular issues," McAdam says.

Reading between the lines, you can tell they don't like the fact that they have to support their customers. Things were great when they were just signing up customers right and left and didn't have to do much support, but now that they have to actually support their subscribers they don't like it. So basically, this "opening" is just a way for them to support their customers even less, and dump as much of the support on the handset providers as possible. The company strategy is still about helping the consumer as little as possible and screwing them over as much as possible; it just happens that that is now most easily done with an open network.

Re:Ok, I get it now...

[kidgenius]

And you know what? I can't really blame them. Handset support should fall to Motorola/Samsung/Apple. If something like a calendar application on your phone is buggy, why should Verizon be trying to deal with it. The handset makers made it, have them fix it. I do realize that Verizon has pushed certain things onto the manufacturers like using their UI, etc. But I would much rather see the original software on a phone. So I guess I can't complain to much. By loosening their restrictions, Verizon will actually be saving money AND making their customers happier. And I, as a Verizon customer am now seriously considering staying with them. I was all amped up to dump them and go with ATT and the iPhone next August, but now I'm thinking of staying on for a bit.

Re:Ok, I get it now...

[hkgroove]

While I understand that Verizon wants to drop overhead, in some way it does make sense. They were the ones crippling their phones at the start and their version of firmware / software changes that is usually the cause of bad phones. Now, if they're not updating the phone at all, why not send support for tech issues to the manufacturer?

I've known many people, including myself, that have had to hard-reset their phones over the last year or two, losing ring tones, games, pictures and contacts. Aside from ring tones and games, the others don't cost money but probably hold great (if not greater value) to the user.

Re:Ok, I get it now...

[Muad'Dave]

Handset support should fall to Motorola/Samsung/Apple. If something like a calendar application on your phone is buggy, why should Verizon be trying to deal with it?

Verizon had to 'deal with it' because they insist on using non-standard firmware to disable features that circumvent their revenue stream model. Why do you think my Razr can't transfer images and ringtones via Bluetooth? Because that would get around their silly "Get It Now" storefront. Same for Java - no free apps; everything must go thru their store.

I don't blame the manufacturers one bit for punishing these clowns for crippling their phones - in fact, I'd love for the manufacturers to forbid resellers from ruining the manufacturers reputation by flashing sketchy custom firmware and still calling it a 'Company X, Brand Y' phone.

Re:Ok, I get it now...

[Red Flayer]

The company strategy is still about helping the consumer as little as possible and screwing them over as much as possible; it just happens that that is now most easily done with an open network

Well, I'm a cynic, but isn't that how it's supposed to work? They act to maximize their profits, you act to maximize the value you get for your hard-earned $$.

You can always go to another provider... competition should cause the value you get to increase.

The problem isn't Verizon... the problem is the oligarchy of cell phone providers. With too few participants on their side of the market, they do not face enough competitive pressure to make your cell phone experience better. The answer is to either regulate them better, or to open up the market to more competitors (which probably wouldn't work, due to high barriers to entry).

Re:Ok, I get it now...

[Toonol]

Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

That applies the other way around, too. I heard a fellow just yesterday mention the heavy metal band "Queen-Sryche"

Re:Ok, I get it now...

[kharchenko]

Bull .. they load their own software on the phones, screw up the menus, put up locks, restrictions, etc. They better answer support calls. Of course I would switch to an open platform phone and dump their "support" in a second if there was a choice.

Re:Ok, I get it now...

[hax0r_this]

If something like a calendar application on your phone is buggy, why should Verizon be trying to deal with it. Thats a good one. Have you ever used a Verizon phone? At least on my KRZR there is no Calendar application, unless you buy it from Verizon. Verizon installs their own firmware so that about all that still works is syncing contacts.

And worst of all, its ugly. Who the hell makes an OS with a bright-red themed GUI?

You know what's a better way to get me to sign up?

[joe_cot]

Stop charging my first born for service.
Verizon's Data-Plan is 80 per month base (with no option for not buying voice time), versus T Mobile's 40 a month (with no Voice plan). That doesn't include the use of wifi spots, which comes standard for t-mobile but is extra on Verizon. I'm an open-source guy, but I'll take a locked proprietary phone that works as a bluetooth modem for my (soon to own, hopefully) Nokia n810 over a google android phone on an open network any day of the week, when it's going to cost me 40 less a month.

Ingenious corporate spin

[irishdaze]

Afte reading the article, this is what grabs my eye:

. . . Verizon Wireless won't offer the same level of customer service as it does for the roughly 50 phone models featured in its handset lineup . . . Verizon plans only to ensure the wireless connection is working for customers who buy those devices. "They have to talk to their handset provider or their application provider if they have particular issues," McAdam says.

So, who's to say if "the wirelss connection is working" - The customer? Verizon? The device itself? Application support? What kind of sense does THAT make? I can't hold a call for 5 blocks in a downtown urban area, but because my 'phone provider says the coverage maps report solid coverage, the problem of course must be my handset -- which of course they can replace with a "newer, better model" for just $199.95.

Add to that their sudden outbreak of common sense regarding their business model, in that

. . . the bulk of their energy goes to helping current subscribers with questions and problems. McAdam & Co. decided the business model was not sustainable."

What a great opportunity for Verizon to reduce their already phenomenally bad customer service and imply that it's not their fault that they must do.

That might be the most ingenious corporate spin I've ever heard. Seriously.

Re:Ingenious corporate spin

[enjahova]

So, who's to say if "the wirelss connection is working" - The customer? Verizon? The device itself? Application support? What kind of sense does THAT make? I can't hold a call for 5 blocks in a downtown urban area, but because my 'phone provider says the coverage maps report solid coverage, the problem of course must be my handset -- which of course they can replace with a "newer, better model" for just $199.95.

Let's look at this model applied to computers and internet access (which is pretty much what a phone is, a small computer connecting to a network)

So, who's to say if "the internet connection is working" - the customer? Comcast? the computer itself? Windows/Linux support? Makes sense to me, we deal with this all the time! Would you rather that ISP's sold rigorously tested locked down PCs that they could give customer support on? Or would you rather that connection and your computer remained separate, so you contact them when your internet SERVICE doesn't work, and contact the computer/application developers for support when the device doesn't work.

I think the problem is that people are so used to being fucked by phone companies, its hard to see how things should be. Ideally, service should be completely separate from the device. Yes, you would now have to trust two different entities, the service company for connectivity and the device maker for a robust device, but we seem to do this just fine with TV and computers.

It looks like they are trying to move away from the locked down phones for greedy reasons, but if it works out that way its better for us. If they are actually doing this, I see it as a good thing for competition and the abysmal situation in the US for cell service. Whether or not they actually go through with it only time will tell :)

Re:Relevent and Hip

[geekoid]

I have had nothing but excellent service from Verizon. Including them coming out at checking my inside wiring for no charge.
The one big deal is when putting in their fiber infrastructure they damaged bu sprinklers. It took 1 5 minute phone call at 4PM and they were out the next day and fixed it.
They cut my DSL monthly fee in half, mid contract.

Quite frankly, I don't understand the Verizon hate. Yes they area large company, but overall they seem to play well.

Now that they see that the telecom industry is on the wrong path, changes direction in positive ways and they still get heat.
Of COURSE they change paths from "sure to be outdated method" to "a method with a future" for business. There are many telecoms that still prefer the 'lock down the customer' methodology

Re:Relevent and Hip

[techpawn]

VZW and Verizon Communication (land lines) are part of the same company but are kind of separate entities from each other. Having one does not make you a customer of the other.

I don't doubt their land line service is great. I've gotten excellent service with the cell phone section of the company too. But the moves just seem more marketing driven than market driven.

Is this Vondafone vs Apple?

[piltdownman84]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a big chunk of Verizon owned by Vodafone? Vodafone got a temporary injunction issued against T-Mobile in Germany, and now this. Is Vodafone is going to war?

Re:Is this Vondafone vs Apple?

[Shakrai]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a big chunk of Verizon owned by Vodafone?

A big chunk of Verizon Wireless is owned by them, not Verizon itself.

Wikipedia is your friend: Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.

So yeah, Vodafone owns 45% of it. But Verizon has majority ownership and control. It's a good relationship for Vodafone in that they get dividends from Verizon Wireless. It's a bad relationship in that they are completely at the mercy of Verizon management as to what those dividends are. It also doesn't work out very well for them that Verizon operates CDMA and is thus incompatible with roaming from Vodafones European Customers -- so they wind up paying AT&T and T-Mobile USA for that instead.

Vodafone tried to get out of the relationship by buying the old AT&T Wireless (presumably after getting AT&T Wireless they would have sold their stake in VZW), but was outbid by what was then called Cingular. Verizon has also repeatedly offered to buy Vodafones shares -- but Vodafone has always declined to sell them (and has even offered to buy out Verizon's shares).

Re:Relevent and Hip

[plague3106]

Verizon != Verizon Wireless. They are two seperate companies.

Re:As a Verizon Customer...

[goofballs]

My son downloaded a stupid game the first dat he had it because he thought it was free and we found out last month that we have been charged for it for a year. Screw that! sorry dude, but your son bamboozled you, and you fell for it. the 'get it now' apps are VERY clear that they cost money- in fact, that's the FIRST thing you see when you select one of them. :P

CDMA and GSM protocol support

[NynexNinja]

They say they are going to switch from CDMA to GSM, but why do they have to alienate all their existing customers by switching protocols? The network should support both CDMA and GSM simultaneously. That should be their goal, to support as many different devices as possible, instead of just particular phones.

Re:CDMA and GSM protocol support

[squiggleslash]

UMTS has caught on with most GSM operators - their major issue isn't any "forklift" upgrade (I think you're saying a switch to an entirely unrelated technology, but that's not the case, the upper levels of GSMv2 and UMTS are very similar) but the spectrum issues it has coupled with regulatory challenges. W-CDMA and TD-CDMA, the two major UMTS air interfaces, require 5 MHz of spectrum in either direction to work properly which has been a problem for US operators as many only have 5MHz of spectrum in various markets. Of the two major US operators, AT&T is in the process of rolling it out anyway as AT&T has huge amounts of spectrum in most markets; and T-Mobile is waiting on the FCC to hand over the AWS (2100/1700MHz) spectrum it won last year. Outside of the US, most operators aren't allowed to run UMTS on anything but 3G spectrum. Most have bid on 3G spectrum and won some, and have rolled out UMTS networks.

CDMA2000 to LTE will be a major change, but no more a major change than AMPS/D-AMPS to GSM, something AT&T Wireless and Cingular did at the beginning of the decade - in fact, it's an extremely similar switch over, from 1G versions of the TIA standards to 2G GSM for Cingular; from 2-3G versions of the TIA standards to 4G GSM for Verizon. It'll probably work better for Verizon than it did Cingular because OFDMA and CDMA have similar characteristics when it comes to spectrum usage and cell size/location requirements, something that wasn't true of D-AMPS vs GSM.

somebody had to

[Atilla]

I, for one, fully support our android overlords.

Re:not yet an iphone killer...

[Metaphorically]

Not sure where you got that idea from. Android Media APIs and MotionEvent for handling "movement (mouse, pen, finger) events."

Embrace!?

[enomar]

I'll believe it when I see it. All they've done so far is make a couple vague statements to BusinessWeek.

All this talk of Verizon "openness" is just talk. Right in time for all the publicity around the 700MHz auction.

I have no idea what their strategy is, but I can assure you being more open is not their goal.

Fully Functional

[kilo_foxtrot84]

Tasha Yar begs to differ.

Android:Cellphones :: Firefox:Browsers

[jimforcy]

Opening their network and letting an open source community develop software for them is a positive step for Verizon. Currently they have some of the worst client side software available on their phones. Why not let users develop the software they like and go back to being just a service provider? They won't have to reduce their prices because current Verizon customers (myself included), have already accepted that we will pay an arm and a leg for cell data service. Android won't make Verizon phone plans cheaper, and might even make them more expensive at the start (due to the higher quality hardware needed to run Android). That being said, at least I'll have a real choice on what software I want on my phone, which is more than can be said for the iPhone and the morons over at AT&T, or Cincular, or wait, AT&T.