Slashdot Mirror
"Nexus One" Is Google's Android Phone
xchg writes "It's still not called the 'Google Phone,' but the Nexus One — to be made by HTC — is as close as I think we're going to get. The WSJ cites sources familiar with Google's plans and says that Google has designed this handset and plans to sell it directly to consumers, unlocked."
Good news, if you need some +5 comments for this article, you can find them here! The dupe system in action.
...I design your camera! Isn't it bad luck to name any advanced electronic device after a renegade robot from a work of science fiction? I wouldn't shave with an ED-209, or drive a Lexus Bolo.
After reading through all the tech blog posts about this phone I fail to see what makes it such a big deal. It runs stock Android, so on the software side there's nothing that actually sets it apart from any other Android handset on the market. It's got some nice, next-gen hardware specs, but then again so does every other Android handset slated for a 2010 release. Snapdragon CPUs and AMOLED displays aren't exactly proprietary technology. In fact, the only thing about this phone that really seems to differentiate it from every other one of the dozens of Android handsets launching in 2010 is that it potentially will be branded as a Google device (oh, and the possibility that it may actually just be a dev phone and never make it to market anyways). So can some please explain to me why exactly everyone is getting their panties in a bunch over this?
disclaimer: I despise verizon with a passion, and I also hate ETF's..
BUT.. I do not really see an issue with verizon upping the ETF on certain phones. Lets look at your droid for example (other then the fact that Verizon chose to brand it in such a way as to confuse people who do not know the difference between the android OS from google which runs on multiple phones, and is not a particular phone for verizon, my wife, who is somewhat technically savvy got caught in this particular branding trap).
If you buy the GSM version of the Droid, called the Sholes/Milestone unlocked at retail, it runs around $600 to $900 depending on where you buy it. Assuming bulk purchasing that carriers have, they probably get the phone for around $300 to $500 (total guess on my part). Unlocked non subsidized phones are expensive, even cheap freebies you get on contract can run $200 to $300 unlocked and non subsidized.
They are subsidizing the cost of the phone early and make up the difference and profit in service, but if you cancel early, they have the potential to take a large loss on the device, hence the ETF, so in the Droids case, $350 ETF may or may not make up the amount they are subsidizing, since you only paid $199 up front, or less in some places (I vaguely remember seeing the Droid for $99, at some point).
Now the bigger issue I have is with ATT, who while also subsidizes the phones, absolutely refuses to provide the unlock code to remove the simlock in place on their phones, even after you have completed your 2 year contractual obligation.. so if I want to switch to tmobile, I have to buy a new phone, that is absolutely bogus, and needs to be fixed, granted I have unlocked every phone I have every had, and for the most part I pay more for some unlocked devices, but thats not th epoint.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
Then how come my bill doesn't go down when I'm done paying off the phone?
If there's one thing that is certain in the world along with death and taxes, it's that people just don't know how to use apostrophes any more.
In 2050, I fully expect the English language to have a rule that states the apostrophe is required to be placed before any trailing s, regardless of the sentence. Word will autocorrect glass to glas's and so on and you won't be able to turn the feature off.
Only in the US is the Droid a CDMA phone (see my previous comment further up about the Droid name.. it annoys me). The phone is however available in Europe in a GSM variant known as the Motorola Sholes/Milestone. The currently frequency bands though means it is relegated to edge speeds in the US as neither ATT nor Tmobile use the 900/2100 for 3g (UMTS/HSPA) that the phone has.
However if you go peruse the canadian motorola site, the Canadian version of the Sholes/Milestone uses 850/1900 for 3g, which is what ATT uses.... but its not available yet :(
Tmobile gets screwed either way as they use 1700 for 3G.. so unless the phone was made specifically for Tmo US, you will not get 3G speeds.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
I have seen those China iPhone clones which have all of the hardware functionality of the iPhone (with lousy software) for $100 so the hardware can't cost much. The software can't cost much when amortized over millions of phones. Seems like there is a lot of profit in phones.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The problem is that about 70% of American's are perpetually without any lump sum of money and so look at a "payment plan" as a way to get what they otherwise couldn't afford...all that without realizing that the hundreds of other items they have purchased in the past on credit is why they don't have any money...We have an interesting economy without a doubt.
Why?
Agreed. I've always just gone out, bought a new phone outright, and whacked my existing SIM card in it when I got home. None of this contract crap. But from what I can tell it is very hard/impossible to do that in the US?
The carriers with better U.S.-wide coverage[1] use Qualcomm's CDMA2000 protocol stack.[2] Unlike GSM and UMTS phones, all of which store the service info on a UICC,[3] CDMA2000 phones are less likely to store the service info on a UICC.
[1] Not to be confused with international coverage, which isn't useful to people who never travel outside the United States. AT&T has advertised better coverage than competing carriers that operate in the United States, with the fine print stating "worldwide". But in the States, there's a map for that.
[2] Not to be confused with CDMA modulation, which is also used by UMTS, the 3G successor to GSM.
[3] A removable smart card that holds mobile phone service information. It's commonly called a "SIM", "USIM", or "CSIM" card if it holds service info for GSM, UMTS, or CDMA2000 respectively.
My bill does. I call the carrier and haggle them down on the price after the contract is up, since I can leave and it's cheaper for them to discount the service than to acquire a customer from scratch.
What will really be big news is when someone (probably Google or Apple) introduces a phone with something like the Gobi chip, now being used in some netbooks. It's a "carrier-neutral" chip, so you can activate the device on whatever carrier you like - GSM or CDMA.
The only reason people buy phones from carriers is to get financing (which is what carriers' phone subsidies really are - rolling the payments into your plan and sneakily continuing them forever). If people are willing to pay up front, or if the manufacturer will finance the handset, you can buy a phone and pick your own carrier, or even activate the same device on multiple carriers. This would be a real game-changer, and would push the carriers further towards being dumb pipes.
I think this would be ideal: make carriers compete on network quality alone, and make handset makers compete cross-carrier on handset quality alone.
I actually bought Skype minutes because of the N900. And I have a Gizmo5 account that I just entered the details of into the N900's built in SIP stack. So when I want to make a call, I get to choose from GSM, Skype, Gizmo5. Also, when I am online, and some one with Google Talk or Skype wants to call me from their computer, it just rings and acts like is was any other cell call. There is so so so much more.
I can see US carriers shaking with rage over people's abilities to buy an N900, then go to T-Mobile and get an unlimited voice, text, data plan with no contract for 80 bux a month.
The N900 only works with T-Mobiles 3G system in the US. 2G from anyone.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Americans aren't stupid, but you apparently are, since you just supported the argument made by the parent post while attempting to be contrary. After the obligatory contract period is complete (which is the exchange for getting the discounted phone), why doesn't the monthly bill "strictly cover the monthly usage of the service" instead of remaining at the same level it was while "paying for the free or discounted phone"?
My answer is that the contract period isn't really paying for the phone, it's providing a guaranteed revenue stream for the company for a specified period of time. A steady, guaranteed revenue stream is very important for a business, since it makes things a bit more predictable.