Slashdot Mirror
Google Attack On the Mobile Market Rumored
xchg writes in with a somewhat speculative, though plausible, piece from WiseAndroid claiming that Google is gearing up for an all-out assault on the mobile-phone market that will include a new, Google-branded handset and the first comprehensive Google phone service with unlimited free calls. "The real breakthrough, however, will come with the marriage of the Googlephone to Google Voice, the Californian company’s high-tech phone service. Google Voice gives US users a free phone number and allows unlimited free calls to any phone in the country — landline or mobile. International calls start from... just over a penny a minute. Google Voice also uses sophisticated voice recognition to turn voicemails into emails, can block telemarketing calls automatically and offers free text messaging. Google sounded its intentions two weeks ago when it purchased a small company called Gizmo5... [E]xperts are predicting that the Googlephone will be launched in the US early next year."
... of a large industry, telecoms... but that is progress!
Impossible. Google can't show me enough ads to pay for the nominal 12 cents/minute that we pay for cell phone service.
Hey look it's a troll!
*snaps picture*
This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.
This should prove to be an interesting battle as google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
wouldn't this, if true, lead to a pretty massive shakeup in the telcom industry? i would imagine at the very least the pricing of plans would have to change drastically
or wait a few years and a conglomerate will privatize the government.
Why does the 3D-rendered "Googlephone" in TFA appear to be running Windows Mobile?
This is a fun rumor, but I don't really get much of a sense of its veracity from this article.
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.
and in contrast to all the phone carriers, a large percentage of people like, or at least respect the company. I can pretty much only see some good coming out of this.
This is all very interesting but Google Voice barely functions when calling internationally. And I've had horrible luck with it domestically too.
I've been trying to use this service for a while now and it consistently connects me to random numbers in the country I'm calling (yes, I'm dialing the right number and I'm dialing correctly). When I actually do connect to some random person, they can't hear me 4 out of 5 times (and that's being generous).
When calling domestically, I get connected to who I'm calling, but 50% of the time one of us can't hear the other. Very irritating.
So, until they can actually guarantee that their service, you know, WORKS, this isn't something I'm remotely interested in. Google Voice isn't even close to ready for anything beyond a fun little service to play with.
find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
[Bender Bending Rodriguez]Neat![/Bender Bending Rodriguez]
find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
I hope something like this comes to Canada. I would love to see Google wipe the floor with Rogers, Bell, & Telus (a.k.a. The Three Stooges).
What the hell? "Troll?" I'm stating my personal experience with a service and I get branded a "troll." Nice.
find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
Google called it Android because the planet from where they all come from has lots of Androids. And Oprah, Laura Bush, as well as Michelle Obama are secretly having babies from the top guys of Google.
I think that should cover all the conspiracies.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
How are they monopolists of information? In fact, have you seen them ILLEGALLY enforce their natural monopoly? Have you seen them do illegal actions to take over markets? If so, please provide the proof of that. Otherwise, Cayate la boca, chica.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
He did his 8 years already. He is LONG GONE.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Remember when web mail providers were giving like 4Mb of mailbox capacity, and then Google came with 2Gb (oh, yes, and a spam filter that actually worked)? Most providers didnt vanished, just had to adapt and still are here, giving a better service to their costumer. For cellphone industry that is something very needed, someone that come with a disruptive idea and weight enough behind to actually push it. Wont kill all companies, but to survive they will have to improve, not just giving the latest gizmo and charging you a lot.
What the hell? "Troll?" I'm stating my personal experience with a service and I get branded a "troll." Nice.
I find that by doing what the psychologists call "desensitization" I can relax a bit more. So, you need to desensitize. I haven't done it in a day or two, so I'll show you:
Slashdot, gives the ignorant dumb fuckers mod points. I think they have a script that checks to see how ignorant and stupid your posts are and if you meet a certain benchmark, then they give you mod points.
See? I'll get a minus one some fucking thing and you know what? Not a goddamn fucking thing will happen. I'll go on tomorrow doing whatever what I'm doing. The mods will feel all rough and tough for upholding the community standards or some such nonsense, so they'll feel good. I feel good for explaining desensitization. And you'll see someone who gave it back to the dumbasses who modded you down.
It's a win/win/win!
Fukitol! The answer to all of life's problems.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Here's another data point for a random end-user: I've used Google Voice to the tune of approximately 1200 minutes per month for the last four months and haven't experienced service issues with receiving calls or placing calls. I've made very few international calls, however.
I haven't used it for outbound calls, but I quite enjoy the many calls from far away numbers that I receive badly transcribed in my inbox from people quitting their jobs, or going on vacation, or trying to find out why their girlfriend hasn't called them back. It's a form of entertainment.
Sorry, must be this new Google Auto-moderation software.
google telco overlords!
I can't wait for Google to record all of our conversations, run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with "targeted" advertisements.
Can the quality of service of a US company be the envy of Europe, instead of the other way around?
My webcomic
4G is IP only - it *only* carries data. Perhaps Googles adoption of voice over the current 3G system will speed up 4G developments.
Right now their services work only internet connections. As the article said they will have an awful hard time getting onto cellular 3G networks to have access anywhere. phones over wifi is not enough for many customers!
The local service for land lines still is owned by the Telcos so Google will have to pay for that, access is granted by law but whoever owns the line can ask for reimbursement fees. . If they don't own the towers and the network infrastructure to carry calls then how will they offer service unless they piggyback on an existing service? Will a Google Phone work on every carrier and for free? Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network. This is all pretty far fetched speculation that it will be free. I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback. Owning a cell network and being #4 or #5 in the market and having to displace major competitors who are well entrenched is not Google's style. High barriers to entry, low margins and high investments doesn't sound like a good market to be in.
At first I thought, whoa, the google phone company, then I broke down and RTFA....You still need a "plan" of some sort from a carrier unless you are using this google phone at some free leeched wifi spot or at home on your network. If you are at home..no need for a special phone, just use your headset and the software like you are now.
If this takes off and people drop voice and go to data only plans, the carriers will just restrict the heck out of them, maybe even dropping the caps from five gigs to one gig, then a hundred bucks a gig after that, whatever they say, or stop offering data only plans, etc. In other words, they aren't going to get "cut out", you will still be horking over ca$h to attverizonsprint whatever.
I am digging on much better quality phones though..eventually I think the mobile phone will more or less be your computer, and at home you'll just have a wireless connected screen and keyboard and mouse, etc with some NAS action.
Maybe they should focus on fixing the devices they already have on the market rather than bringing out whole new things?
.9 level rather than ready for prime time.
The Android is an interesting device but Exchange-Calendar sync is broken (even my iPod Touch does it better), the camera is mediocre and a lot of features just feel like they're
-B-
They might not be a monopoly, but having acquired Grand Central and now the Gizmo project, they've pretty much tied up all the innovative SIP systems. If they bought up pulver.com (FreeWebDialup) as well, that'd give them pretty much a monopoly in the public SIP market, competing against private interests such as Cisco & eBay.
The Google fan crowd are as bad as the Microsofties and Apple polishers together.
To them, Google can do no wrong. Sure, you sacrifice privacy, but "LOOK AT THE SHINY!"
I for one don't want an advertising company (which is what Google is) listening in on my phone calls. They would be pissed if their cell phone company sold their call information to advertisers - but Google can listne in - they're not evil.
The days of Google not doing evil are long gone.
The article says
For the first time, a single company will control everything from the software in users’ phones to the services they use to make calls and surf the web.
But wait, every phone I've ever had the hardware, software, and services were controlled 100% by my phone carrier. So in that way, the Google phone would be the same.
To me, the difference is that I trust the hardware, software, and services from Google, but I don't for a second trust AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon. They have proven that they refuse to provide products and services that I want, but Google has proven that they very much understand and want to provide the products and services that I want. I share the privacy concerns about Google, but at this point I'm just being vigilant, watching for Google to violate my trust. So far so good.
Google! Please put the dinosaurs out of business! I want to stop giving them my money! I want to give you my money for better services!
How is Google making money on this and is this going to annoy me enough to stick with what I have?
First, I HOPE that they buy pulver. They quit doing the free stuff long ago. It was nice having a global hook-up with them.
Second, Cisco sells hardware, not software. And they work with the telcos and ISP. Google would have a HECK of a hard time competing against them. And e-bay does skype. NOT SIP, though there are gateways. And it is starting to die down on its own.
Basically, Google is NOT a threat against the telcos. And to be honest, I wish they were.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And while it is clear to everyone with a clue that this represents a "win" for the consumer, it will be shot down in a matter of months by the Telcos.
America does not know how to "do" creative destruction. We save the auto industry. We save the energy industry. And we will save the technologically and financially backwards telecom industry when the time comes.
The Google Phone will be aborted and the consumer (and America) will lose again.
Bla one of googles stated goals is collect and distribute all the information in the world. To be the next great library of the world.... As we can see with current state of the search engine market. The information market as a whole is more or less a natural monopoly. You make some weird and seemingly uniformed statement about google not trying to "illegally enforce" their monopoly. There are two things off with that statement. First it implies there is a way to "legally enforce" a monopoly.... THERE IS NOT. Secondly that statement also implies that you need to use your monopolistic powers in order to be a monopoly. This is simply factually in correct. Personally i like google. Their motto of "do no evil" I like. I also will probably switch to google if they do enter the phone business. The problem is, google is becoming very very very powerful. Right now they are seemingly acting morally. There is however no guarantee that this will continue.
I assume Google will beta test a phone like this in-house. I will be watching for Google employees carrying something unusual as they walk across the street on the Santa Clara campus.
-Todd
Omne ignotum pro magnifico.
Well google, despite how impressive this phone may be, still owns 0 towers AFAIK. Telecos will just bend them over on the rates to use their towers. Now, I am no expert in telecom law, so if there are limits or something that I am completely overlooking, please correct me.
RTFA, folks. Google is far, far from posing a threat to the wireless carriers. VOIP over Wi-Fi is one thing, but VOIP over 3G wireless (or whatever) is something else entirely, something that the actual carriers have the means, and certainly the motivation, to fuck with at will (as we have already seen). Unless/until Google starts putting up their own towers, there is nothing new here, at least nothing revolutionary or "game changing".
...that is, if there is a battle at all. When google feigned a bid for the wireless spectrum freed up by the digital TV conversion, I had high hopes they had big plans to launch a new network and re-make the wireless market in America. They didn't. Is it even possible now for a new competitor to come in, acquire spectrum, create a nationwide network, and compete with the incumbents? I don't see how, so I don't dare get my hopes up. The ownership of spectrum, in particular, seems like an impassable limitation; those who own it now aren't giving it up, and you simply can't compete on equal terms without it.
Why things like this only happens in USA?
Why don't they just come here in Brazil, and offers also this kind of services to us...
It's a shame to Brazil, a potential country having to pay about 60U$ (R$ 100) to a damn megabyte internet access..
Pfff...
"High barriers to entry, low margins and high investments doesn't sound like a good market to be in."
Low margins on the cell phone network? Are you crazy? They buy phones that cost them $100 and turn around and sell them for $500. On top of that, they massively oversell the network resources they have available. On top of that, many operate at reduced tax rates for various technology/communications grants. On top of that, most of their employees in the sales sector make minimum wage plus commission. On top of that they sell $5 cords for $50.
High barriers to entry, check, but to say that the cell phone industry has low margins is like saying funeral homes operate on low margins.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network.
Actually, this particular instance is not a case of Sprint rejecting a Ma Bell SIM card, it's a case of two entirely different wireless technologies. AT&T and T-Mobile in the US run on a more globally accepted standard, known as GSM. However, Verizon and Sprint run on a faster, but less accepted, standard known as CDMA. These two are incompatible with each other; your AT&T phone won't work on the Sprint network because it speaks the wrong language.
Now, however, Apple has created a device that is manufactured for the end user, not the network. Verizon, et al has tried to sue to make this not the case, to limit end user choice, but these lawsuits did not stop the change in status. Now we have providers supplying phones for the end user. RIM, Palm, and HTC all have end user centric phones, and each are primarily distributed by one cell carrier.
Google can play this many ways. All Google really cares about is collected data and selling ads. They don't care about code, which is why they release code after the application is public. They don't really worry about moving into other markets, as long as they get the ad revenue.
This is why i think they will play with the cell carriers, just like they do with advertisers, and create the phone, once again, that the carriers want, not that the consumers want. Google will build that the phone the consumer like, but phones that are created to generate revenue for google and the cell carriers. Which is why the cariers will like it. Consumers will like it because it will be cheap.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
OMG, we the people owning we the peo... oh wait
I understand how you feel, but take heart. I used to feel the same way about telephone companies, operating systems, cable companies, network television, and other things. In each case, radical technological changes have taken what seemed like hopeless situations and turned it into something radically different than most people expected. Consider:
Is it possible for a new player to come in and be a major player now? I don't know. But maybe there are ways it can happen in an unexpected way. New wireless or satellite technologies maybe. You could be right, that there's no way. But maybe the unexpected can happen.
No, that "$500" is a "Suggested Retail Price". Very, very few people actually pay that: they get it at a profoundly "reduced" price as part of a contract for years of cell phone service. The cell phone service may or may not be very profitable, but it's absolutely vital for the careers of the investors and VP's at the cell phone companies to grow, no matter what the rest of the market does, preferably faster than other carriers. So they commit unsustainable economic foolishness to make this quarter's growth figures, and completely ignore the fallacies of projecting an exponential growth curve in a crowded environment past even one order of magnitude.
Actually, Android is open source. They give it away; they don't sell it. They make money off ad revenue. How that all works out is a little mysterious to me, I'll admit... But Android's Gmail integration is better than what you get on iPhone. And the Google navigation app is better than what's available on iPhone. I can see how things like that lead to more ad revenue for Google indirectly. Still, though, it's a fairly mind blowing approach.
Perhaps Google could pick up Sprint (whose market cap is hovering just over 10B right now), and in one fell swoop own a decent 3G network to launch their telecom domination plans. That way they wouldn't have to build from the ground up (in the U.S. at least)
The Property of One's : "The Oneitude is directly proportional to the Colditude of the one." - S.B.
This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.
This is why the providers were so upset that Google got up in the spectrum auction and forced the open access provision - they can't prevent it legally. If they try to tie Google up in court they may find themselves Garmin'd. The auction didn't sell off the last national spectrum license, and Google has enough money to buy it and build their own wireless network.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Well, in the immortal words of one of my friends in IT, "it must be something wrong with your setup, because it works fine on mine." Perhaps it depends on where you call internationally. I call Austria, Germany, and Belgium regularly without trouble. Also never had a domestic call not work unless I was out of 3G range (Google Voice is integrated with my G2 cell phone). Maybe it's just localized sunspots in your area, or swamp gas, or a weather balloon, or the phase of the moon.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
It works for me. Dozens of calls to the UK in the past couple of months with no problems. Domestic incoming and outgoing are similarly reliable. Maybe your cell phone provider is the problem ?
I imagine the FCC will do most of the fighting for them.
I call shens on this article though. Smells of hype. No substance.
Related: I used to be able to call my Google Voice number with Skype-- but I can't anymore. I even have logs that show making and holding a connection for 35 seconds or so while I tested the forwarding. Not anymore. "Invalid number".
Ebay/Skype/PayPal-- can't stand them.
Yes, I remember that, but I am also thinking of these things called towers. They ain't cheap and you need thousands and thousands of them along with all the cellular electronic radio doo dads (hi tech speak there). I mean, maybe google could pull it off, but it would take all their spare cash, then some to do it.
The majors let the smaller guys in on the action, but they charge them well, all the pre paid guys, but if google was cutting into their voice plan cash...I doubt they would lease space to them.
Either way though I want to see much better and cheaper phones, and google and android and linux will help push it..
Most of the problems I've had have been with international calls. That's the only time I've had it randomly connect to people I don't know. As amusing as that has been, I don't really want to be making international prank calls...
But the not being able to hear others problem consistently shows up. I've poked around a bit on the official help forums and it seems like other people have had this problem for a while now too. It's very bizarre.
Google has been absolutely worthless when it comes to helping resolve this issue. They just keep giving me credit back. While that's great, it doesn't really solve anything.
find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
Verizon Wireless has always been extremely reliable in the past for me. But I suppose it's possible. That said, Skype To Go (seems to have a lot in common with Google Voice) works brilliantly for me when making international calls. So I strongly suspect the problem is on Google's end.
find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
I was thinking it may actually be an issue with certain area codes. They just recently (by "recently" I mean the past few months) started making numbers available in my state. Maybe something isn't configured quite right for those numbers. But the location called may be the issue too. Whatever the case, it just isn't usable for me in its current form, which sucks. I like the concept of the service.
find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
Google phones use wifi or existing 3g network? Their basically selling voip phones and...you still need 3G access (IE expensive wireless data plan) to make calls on the road. Except now your cellular voice calls will sound even crappier than they normally do with much more lag to boot. 3G **best case** still has ~200 ms latency associated with it.
Whats the point in using google phone when I'm still going to have to pay a real cellular phone company for an expensive data plan? It would be cheaper in many markets to have a reasonable minutes plan and text messaging than pay for data as well even if the google service is 100% free and they don't bug you (advertising) ... which seems unsubstainable and unrealistic to say nothing about zero probability of carriers just sitting idly by and taking it from a marketing company (Google) that isn't actually producing anything or operating a mobile network of its own.
I don't like the fact that with Google, you have to agree to give up personal information. Ok, here's one for you tin-foil hat types. Google gets their way, and a lot of people flock to their phone. Google gives a back door to the government, making all you calls, emails etc available to the government. Google allows the government to push email, news to your phone (propaganda) and block those emails or news or phone calls it thinks are bad. (I just love to stir the pudding)
Are you seriously that dense? Your utility company legally enforces its monopoly on utility services. The Federal Reserve legally enforces its monopoly on the money that you use. I could go on...
Hablad correctamente el español. Se dice: "Callate la boca..."
I'm not sure you can blame Google Voice for your problems. From what I read about it (and, yes, I am using it), it isn't providing anything more than a mobile number (and a few extra things). You're still using landlines/towers/etc to actually make and use your calls.
I call shennanigans on your "data."
Correct, phones are a loss leader, and the question is do they make it up with other overpriced services? Hard to say, Sprint is not doing well for sure. You can't keep doing that sort of thing forever and make any money. It's the corp culture these days in any publicly traded company to make this Quarter's numbers regardless of the long term detriment.
Yes I know that, it was a bad analogy but the question remains that whichever tech Google might choses the carrier(s) who use that tech don't have to take a call at thier tower off a phone not on thier customer list. Or do they? I suppose Google could remove this barrier by buying out on of the top tier cell services. Sprint might be a good target.
IOW, you're referencing the Mutt motto: All cellular carriers suck, but, this one (Google) would suck less. --Michael R. Elkins
Well my "data" is based on what I've experienced. I've never claimed anything other than that. I'd love to collect more detailed data on what's going on but I don't exactly have access to Google's servers. Whatever the case, I have read about problems other people are having and the service is far from complete. Believe it or not, but there are actually other people that have run into similar bugs (especially the "can't hear" bug).
Anyway, I can make international calls using my mobile phone without Google Voice and I get connected without trouble. And I can hear the people I call. Connecting to the right person and being able to hear each other are kind of critical for a telephone/VoIP service, by the way.
If Google Voice is merely making use of landlines, towers, etc. then surely it should behave exactly like my mobile phone, right? At the very least people should be able to hear me, yes? I haven't run into either problem with my wireless provider.
Skype works just fine when using my same mobile phone and when calling the exact same international number. So I call shenanigans on your shenanigans.
find . -name "noobs" -print | xargs rm -rf && echo "pwnd."
I've already gotten reports that at&t is blocking some calls from Google Voice. So look for some big court cases to happen. And last I looked, Google has deeper pockets than all the telecoms combined.
Upstart technologies (In this case VoIP) just keep getting cheaper and cheaper and just like long distance calls, they get to the point where they literally costs thousandths of a penny per minute or less.
I've been using it to call Canada from the US for a few months and haven't ever had an issue. I probably call there about once a week, and talk for maybe an hour.
I've done it a few different ways too... Sometimes from my AT&T U-Verse Voice service, sometimes from my Sprint cell phone (by calling my Google Voice number, then entering the number I want to call.. basically using it like a calling card), and also from my Verizon Droid phone via the integrated Google Voice Dialing functionality. I haven't once had it where one party couldn't hear the other, or get a wrong number. I've barely had any incoming calls though, so I can't comment on that at all.
hehehehe. Sí, sé (hace 40 años, mi profesor lo dijo a menudo bastante a un amigo y a mismo). intentdo ser un bozo.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Google makes me nervous as it continues to expand into new markets. I may not like most of the other companies that Google is going up against but they don't bother me. Why not? Because I understand what motivates them: profit and self-interest. That's black and white.
"Don't be evil", though, that's getting a bit subjective. Sure, most everyone will agree that evil is bad, at least in theory, but in practice coming to an agreement on the definition of evil is difficult. If Google wins, they're subjecting me to their definition of good, which I may or may not agree with. I like my bad guys to be bad...I like knowing they're trying to rip me off and take advantage of me. I don't want them doing things because they think it's best for me.
In other words, if I'm going to be screwed I want it to be by someone who knows he's screwing me, not by someone who thinks he's doing me a favor.
Most of the people I know *only* uses Google to search the web. I mean, we use "google" as a verb. How isn't that monopoly? In a way, they do control what people read. I bet that they do have the Gini coefficient necessary in some countries to be classified as such (at least the search engine). I have no data nor research papers to prove it, but, you just need to look at your friends and family to realize it. Do they use another web search engine with, at least, the same frequency they use Google?
And, Google as a natural monopoly? Do you know the definition of "natural monopoly"? I doubt their fixed costs are that big, they do have very little marginal costs but it's not *that* difficult for a new company to enter the market. It *is* a monopolistic competition with product differentiation, but not a natural monopoly. Extracting oil is a natural monopoly. Producing electricity is a natural monopoly. A web search engine is not, dear.
Google's bet has been "Look! We are *marginally* better. But we're not evil! Prefer us!" And it has worked. Now, they are trying to make people realize their opportunity costs and convince them to stay with them in any other service they decide to launch. Because, why should you lose time making another account and setting it up to work with your Google mail, Google docs and Google underware when you can just use the service their provide? And they are not evil! That's their way of enforcing their monopoly, and while it's not illegal, I think there are a lot of things they've done that are morally questionable.
Yes, Google is creepy. Nowadays I think Google knows more about me than my mother does. But most of the services they offer are pretty neat and free, so I can't bring myself to hate them. Nevertheless, I'm a little paranoid.
And, by the way, if you like using Spanish expressions, spell them right. It's "callate" nor "cayate". It looks ugly.
That, or you can create your own network by putting up one cell in a remote location like Montana (can't remember the exact place) and do everything else through roaming agreements. You don't think that Virgin Mobile owns their own network in the U.S., do you?
Yesterday it worked; today it is not working; Windows is like that...
Si puedes poner acentos deberías escribir "cállate". Si no piensas usar el español correctamente, no lo uses. Una cosa es que tengas errores (que todos los tenemos, sea nuestro idioma o no) y otra que sea a propósito. No es gracioso.
i would definetely say the google phone is the best on the market have a look at t has all the info about the g1. http://www.wellnessstarts.com/paraslim-force-review.html
Google's Android is a huge let down, mostly because of Google's policy of rolling over and allowing us to get fucked by the other supposedly more traditional corporations. Apple says "please don't do multi-touch", they take it out (and fuck us), T-Mobile says "we don't want our customers to tethering" and so Google make it so no-one can tether (and fuck us - I am not even a US customer - how is this happening). Fuck Google and their phones (I have a HTC magic which I will need to hack to get it to do what Rogers told me it could before I bought it - i.e. tether - Rogers don't understand this either). I am saving my pennies and waiting for a Nokia (and maybe the next iteration which will hopefully be lighter). I was always a big fan of Google but they are too big and too much like every other corporation.
The obvious question raised in comments/op is carrier network access. How much does a network go for these days? GOOG had $15Billion cash on hand as of March (8th among non-financial firms). If they were really worried about not getting a reasonable deal on network access for their phone, could they just buy a wireless network infrastructure? Google already has significant assets in the form of fiber, why not wireless towers as well?
All I can say is that this article was well-described as being speculative.
Why?
The article could be accurate in saying that Google is planning an 'attack', but probably only by offering Google Voice on a much broader range of mobiles than it currently is.
Also, I would like to clarify that any data is not the same as any other data. "Real-time" video or voice data certainly has different statistical / spectral / max-latency characteristics as, for example, email, web-browsing, or file downloading (including youtube), and that is the case regardless of whether or not its being pushed through the telephone system (circuit switching) or through a packet-switching network as IP data. In the latter case, however, latency usually becomes somewhat noticeable, so the compromise between price and latency (i.e. quality) is ultimately at the discretion of the end-user.
You have the choice not to use it, so stop whining.
If Goolge were to release this in my country I'd be more than happy to use it! I know our government is now also tapping everything and ISPs are forced to back up all their traffic (yes, you read that correctly!) so another party monitoring my calls won't make a difference for me anyway since privacy is a thing of the past already.
There. Is. No. Privacy. In. Any. Way. Anymore. Anyway.
Now hurry up Google, me wants free calls, yesh ^^,
Here be signatures
As far as I understand GSM, a key stored on SIM is used to log in onto the network. Invalid login data == no access.
The emphasis in on “attempt”. I think they will fail. this is Google after all.
If I were Google, I’d simply create some strange little errors in the search engine for everybody using those carriers, in a way that it will be blamed on them. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
> Also, it's entirely possible to not care about your credit score.
> It only matters if you want to take on debt all the time.
Unfortunately, that's not true anymore. Insurance companies can use your credit score as part of your "insurance score" and raise your rates if you have bad credit. It can also be used by landlords, employers, and (back on topic) the mobile phone providers. If you have no credit or bad credit, you can now expect to have a tough time of it for things other than loans. Thanks consumerism and our culture of entitlement!
I knew that about the towers as well (looked into buying a large one a few years ago as an investment), but it is still expensive to do on a national scale even just renting space. It would cost them some serious coinage and they would have to charge for service, it wouldn't be free. However, if they had a no BS service, where all packets are created equal, tethered or not, data or voice, etc and their phones were nice, they *could* do it and would get a ton of customers.
With Google's arrogance and ignorance on privacy, shipping applications that "auto update" non critical, free junk every 2 hours resulted in ban of Google software on large company networks, they don't need high end/complex campaigns.
Google started to look like an unstoppable data monster in average users eyes too. Signs are everywhere, like the flames directed to end user friendly RSS reader to switch "free" to Google reader powered news reading.
If Google doesn't wake up from their "but we aren't evil" dream and start acting like a privacy respecting, seriously managed company, at least attempt to do it, their glory days will be remembered soon.
I can setup a SEO hacked site right now distributing malware and rely the entire business to Google's services like not controlled adwords, somehow "top of the list" Google blog services and the Adwords _inside_ my scam operation.
It really seems Google trusts to ignorance of end user Joe Sixpack. They want all the planet's data and keep it. Now it is "voice", it was "free maps!" (but send your loc. to us), google mail (but we will analyze your private mails), office (but we keep your docs)...
I just want to hear A WORD from those privacy freaks posting "spyware! spyware!" when the software _they paid for, using cc!_ checks for updates.
http://www.fon.com/en/
Maybe google should buy them out and start with that network
You know, they asked you to give up a right which you naturally had on those "old fashion" services. In fact, if you were a friend of mine and I mailed my secrets to you, I would lose that right too, just like whoever mails you without knowing how Google mail can offer 4GB for free.
When someone gives you something sounds amazingly cheap, unbelievably free, always read between the lines. And no, you don't become a Google sized company by not being evil.
You can keep your "4GB" or whatever now sized non private, machine analyze for junk ads mail, I keep a real mail (you know, with its real purpose) and I will use technologies like WebDAV or (s)FTP to share 10 MB files.
Just tomorrow, some genius kid from a unheard country can setup something like "betterengine.sourceforge.net" search engine project page, some high end developers would see something unique in it like the Google engine compared to others back in 1990s, pay some "large money" and setup their "zongle.com".
This has happened in some similar form and made Google the Google of today... In a very short time. We would see what happens to that huge looking market cap in 1 year.
Check finance.yahoo.com and check AOL historical prices, Yahoo historical prices and even, Enron.
In some parallel universe, Gmail could be a big success but IMHO they really lost the sense of privacy right when Google mail shipped.
Also Yahoo mail has some 250 million users, AOL started to wake up from dead once more (Joe Sixpack doesn't give a shit to their image), MS really started to figure they run live.com, not windows.com and started to run a real dotcom style business...
One question: How many active users of gmail? Not in Nerddom, in real World.
Nokia E71 here, upgraded from E65 (to get rid of ipod touch).
Nokia phones now have "app store" you know, I joked with it a lot (and don't like the idea) but that "app store", run by Nokia shows the entire difference betweeen Nokia and Apple in 1 line.
In "Nokia staff picks", there is "tethering" application which allows you to use your Nokia as a wireless router to the internet. Nokia execs, personnel, whoever in Nokia picked it. That single application being a staff pick shows why Nokia (and entire Symbian) must live. Remember the soap opera when one dared to ship it to Apple iPhone?
Oh I got the E71 somehow free (like American system but cheaper). If it was a "free Google phone", I would know I would trade my privacy, my contacts privacy, my data privacy for $30 a month so I would do everything to inform OTHERS just by asking "Is your life worth $30?".
See the scoop? It has "advanced voice recognition to render voice mails to e-mails".... What a great invention, just like Echelon...
At least Apple, Nokia, Microsoft purpose is clear. They want to sell you a device for maximum possible profit or at least brand recognition for future generations. MS sounds more like "Oh we can do a mobile OS too" since first Win MO. It is not like they care about your private data/voice data and in fact, they do everything possible to keep it secure. E.g. Symbian Signed programme is another reason why Nokia doesn't have 100.000 apps in store right now besides their weird C.
I lost my trust to EFF long time ago when they put "Google search" to their front page like no other open source, free engine exists. Now, I just wonder what will California do when Google offers free phone to teenagers in trade for their privacy... You know, your Californian rights... The stupid "I am 13 or older" forms... Will the the Arnold stand up?
Yes, I see your point. And it's a valid one at that, because (at least in the US) I don't know of any wireless carriers that are of common-carrier status. Google will have trouble, with whichever technology they choose for the job. Which also leaves one to ponder, that other than the battery life issues of running two different radios: why not use both?
At least that is what the picture in the article shows if you RTFA. Oh but wait, this is slashdot, I apologize...
AT&T market cap: 159.27 billion USD
Verizon market cap: 89.85 billion USD
T-Mobile market cap: 42.96 billion Euro (64.25 billion USD)
Sprint market cap: 10.79 billion USD
You assume that the carriers would grant Google a roaming agreement. I highly doubt that they would let the camel get it's nose in the tent.
IIRC there are some phones that operate on all three technologies (CDMA, TDMA, GSM) but that would add costs.
Is it that the phone has all the radios in it, or is it that the manufacturer makes different models of the same phone with different radios in it? I know the Motorola RAZR was one that came out on all the networks, but each phone was still tied to the radio in it, as there weren't any multi-radio phones available from the carriers.
Virgin Mobile is wholly owned by Sprint at this point (Sprint had already owned part of the company and bought out Virgin earlier this year, part of the sale was the right to use the name).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
To be fair, the ways in which there are no privacy just shift around really. Have been forever, along with how people do keep stuff private.
Aren't we, the general public, still paying for these services? We just pay indirectly by buying products from the companies that advertise on Google. The downside is, the power of your voting $$ is diminished, because you no longer pay directly for the services you want. You pay for products from companies who pay Google who chooses the one-size-fits-all free services it finds advantageous to offer. It seems like a non-optimal but maybe benign arrangement.
Potentially less benign is the growing capability to capture, store, and process massive amounts of public and private data. People who wish to operate outside of the totally-connected all-information-flows-through-Google environment may find it increasingly expensive to do so, making it increasingly difficult to compete in the business world. It scares me that growing numbers of corporate businessmen may be composing company private communications in airports on netbooks using Google's OS or on Google's phones. Couldn't Google use this information, even aggregated "anonymously", to determine when a business was ripe for takeover?
If I were Google, I'd simply create some strange little errors in the search engine for everybody using those carriers, in a way that it will be blamed on them.
Then eventually people would find out, and BURN google. The thing about google is that they keep their lawyers in the basement where they belong. First come the top guys, then PR, then engineers, then the chefs, then the massage parlor people, then the lawyers. In other companies, lawyers overrule PR, that's why we have the weekly slashdot streisand effect. Jesus, Sergey and Brin actually included "Don't be evil" in their IPO filings! The lawyers were effing nuts about that one. It would be like Obama saying "OMG ponies!" in his inauguration; or something to the effect.