Slashdot Mirror
Ads To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone?
CWmike writes "Google isn't talking publicly about reported plans to sell a powerful Android-based smartphone called the Nexus One directly to consumers next year, but the idea is already raising eyebrows with analysts. The chief concern is that selling an unlocked phone directly to consumers, probably online, could be twice as expensive as buying one through a carrier. The unlocked approach has largely failed in the US, with the world's biggest phone manufacturer, Nokia, doing poorly with the concept. Nokia recently announced that its two direct-sales stores in Chicago and New York will close early next year, while online sales of unlocked devices will continue. Conceivably, Google could offer its phone at a price comparable to a subsidized phone from a carrier — as long as customers agree to receive mobile ads on the devices. Since advertising is central to Google's revenue model, that approach might make some sense, analysts said. 'Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads,' said Kevin Burden, an analyst at ABI Research. In one mobile advertising model being tested in Germany, users agree to receive a certain number of ads on their phones to reduce their monthly cellular and texting rates, although reducing the up-front cost of the actual device is relatively novel. Reinforcing the idea of using mobile advertising with direct sales of unlocked phones, Google bought AdMob in November."
I am sick of everything trying to sell me things all the fucking time. STOP!
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
I'll just continue to buy locked phones, and then drop 10 or 20 whole dollars to get them unlocked at the local electronics mall.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
I can only see this approach working if Google gives buyers a choice. Pay full retail for the phone, or pay the reduced price in exchange for having ads sent to it. However, even that will only work if the ads are unobtrusive, and in no way interfere with normal operation of the device. That means NO having to click through a banner ad to make a call or send a text, NO interstitial ads between pages while browsing, NO watermarking of pictures sent via MMS, etc. A banner along the top I could deal with and ignore easily enough.
That being said, I would still choose to pay full retail for the phone so I don't have to see the ads at all.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Really? Don't they realize it will annoy people? I think it would hurt the N.O.'s sales.
Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads.
This is just my guess, and I'm not highly paid analyst, but isn't it possible that Google understands that it is in their best interests to have a more open cell phone market. I thought from the start that it was obvious that that was the purpose; originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they weren't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves. Now they've moved on to working within the system, opening what is arguably one of the best mobile OS's to any manufacturer that wants it, provided they play by certain rules including a minumum level of openness.
I think it unlikely that Google would use on-device ads to help phone costs: their traditional strategy has been to use ads to monetize core offerings, not ancillary ones. Ancillary offerings bring you back to the core offerings, where ads are effectively placed.
There's so much speculation right now on the market, but I think that it's clear that Google could do something really interesting without the use of on-device monetization right now, e.g. the $199 unlocked super-phone that's being discussed in the more rumor-mill-ish blogs right now. If they could be cash-neutral doing that, and simultaneously disintermediate wireless carriers (a side-goal they've had for some time now), AND double Android's market share in the US, the mobile device group will be getting large bonuses, mark my words.
A totally new business model which likely reduces the amount of uptake from consumers: not so likely right now; Google has lots of cash and wants lots of market share. It's not a time to futz around with stuff like this: consumers would generally LOVE an iphone-a-like which costs $30 a month for unlimited calling and only costs $199. If Google can get that out the door, they'll have done plenty already in the last eighteen months.
As it stands in the US, there are two well entrenched market niches for smartphones. The first of which are the unlocked phones (or the phones one pays full retail price for from a provider.) This is about $400-$600. The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract. The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $200.
The ads wouldn't be welcomed in the unlocked phone arena. If I pay the premium price tag for an unlocked phone, I won't be buying one that slings ads at me. If the contract changes while I have the phone, I'll be rooting the device and yanking that "functionality" out, or not accepting the changes in my contract and will toss the phone in the garbage. Then I will go with a provider who wouldn't pull that on me.
If I were paying for a phone subsidized over 2 years, ads are not welcome here either. If my phone gets an OTA update to become an ad vomiter, that is a change in my contract that I do not have to accept, and I will trash the phone and change providers.
So, where would the ad-supported device model come to play? I see only one place, and that is the low end market, such as the prepaid phones one sees for sale for $15-$30, or the "free" phones that come with a 1-2 year contract. Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for, where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $20.
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone. I know we are in a recession and all, but an ad-supported phone seems going a bit far.
If after a year I want a new phone I will sell the unlocked phone for significantly more than an identical phone that is locked, but given that the 'average Joe' would rather pay 50 a month for 2 years than 500 upfront I will be one of the few, which is unfortunately making it harder for me to source my unlocked phones
The whole point of having a phone that runs Linux is the freedom of being able to customise and 'hack' it, not have it make sure I'm looking at the required number of ads. Far too often these days a Linux-based device only runs Linux because it saves the manufacturer the trouble of licensing a kernel or writing their own.
AFAIK (in the UK at least), with a contract, you're paying x per month, and you're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months. That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone. For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone. Or am I missing something that's US-specific?
Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
1. most android devices are tightly coupled with google services. if you get someone using google mail, calendar, etc on the phone, of course they will use the web interface at some point and be subjected to ads.
2. many android apps already make use of admob for the "free" version.
i doubt google would make adds an inherent part of the phone experience.
Why are analysts always so effin' dense? Google is in the "no one gets between us and our ad-clicking users" business. They're one of the largest collections of smart people on the planet. They wanted in the mobile phone business, so they got in the mobile phone business. They own an ass-ton of fiber and manipulated the wireless auctions in their favor. They're not just an advertising company, they're the "we're the god damn Internet" company.
No one bought unlocked Nokia smartphones because nobody in America wants Nokia smartphones, subsidized or otherwise.
No newcomer on any marked really understand (without experience) the price tag for playing as a part of the game. Google is a giant, but not in every area, Nokia is a giant too, but as google..not in every area, they're both players in their own area of expertise - and the price for entering into each others pissing fields - could be very expensive, such as . eg. Microsoft experienced when they ventured into the area of console gaming.
(read between the lines, before you reply!)
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Aren't unlocked phones more expensive? Shouldn't our monthly rate be cheaper if we pay full cost for the phone, since the cost of the phone is not hidden in the service fees?
My question is where Google will put the ads so that they are actually seen. If they build it into software, it's only a matter of time before the phone is rooted/jailbroken/HardSPL'd and ad-free firmware ends up on Rapidshare. Then it's just a matter of simplifying the process down to making it feasible for anyone sick enough of the ads to make the gamble of performing a warranty-voiding process on their phone, and unless ads live unobtrusively in the browser, Google will end up right next to the iPhone, silently fighting the gPhone Dev Team.
I look at telecom subsidation of phone costs as a small loan. Can't/won't buy the phone with your own cash up-front? We'll loan you that money, and you pay it back a little bit every month on your bill. This breaks down because if you buy a plan without getting subsidized, you pay a higher price per month for your phone service (ie, the same monthly payment, but with none of it going to a loan repayment).
The workaround for this: If I sign up for a 3-year contract, you can either give me a cheaper monthly rate, OR give me a phone-up front, OR give me a cash bonus upfront, approximately the same amount the subsidy would cost. That way I can take that cash and buy whatever I want with it (if it happens to be a smart phone, awesome).
THIS breaks down because the telecom wants to have absolute control over what I can and can't do on their network, and won't budge to give up any leeway there. I don't have a workaround for that one yet :)
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system. Within a year, I predict that you'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you're having while you're still having it. "It's been ages since I've had good sushi!" -> ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Presumably Google will implement something like Apple originally planned, wherein they simply buy time in an auction from carriers. Apple had elaborateplans for a real time auction system, even letting consumers do it automaticallys (i.e. by apple) or choose a carrier to prefer.
If they do that competitivley presumably their rateplans will be less because they are not subsidizing the phone. If they can reduce the cost further with ads then their rate plan is going to beat everyone elses.
Guess what happens then? Well if my contract with XYZ-mobile is up, and I can move my existing phone over to the google network, then googles rates are going to be much more attractive than staying with XYZ mobile since there is no subsidy.
I note that recently T-mobile has new plans out for the Bring-your-own-phone crowd. They are slightly cheaper and offer more minutes that the "free-phone" plans.
On top of that, for people who do buy a google phone, then since they shelled out the cash already, they are going to stick with the unsubsidized google phone rate plan rather than sign up with a company offering "free" phones and pay a hidden subsidy they will never use? Thus this builds loyalty to google like airline miles do.
Finally there will be corporate fleets. If the google phone lets these corporations buy phones in bulk then it's going to be cheaper in the long ruin for these companies to go with unsubisdized google rates. on top of that if google lets in third party service providers (blackberry like enterprises) then these will be attractive to corprorate fleets who want to be in charge of their own network.
That all assumes google is buying at competitive rates on the open market from carriers.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
the price of an unlocked phone always seemed wrong to me. these are cheap, mass produced, underpowered devices using yesterday's technology for the most part. why do they cost $600?
It's unlocked. How soon to Ad-Block for Android comes out?
He didn't say the iPhone was the best thing ever. He did state a fact though. No smartphone that's been released since the iPhone (from what I've seen) has had a subsidized price of anything over $200. Largely due to the fact that the masses would see "iPhone for $200, or something else for more.. why?".
So.. you can shut your pie hole and learn not to assume. Straw man fallacy, look it up.
If this was truly an "unlocked" phone, especially if it's meant to be a developer-friendly phone, I don't see how they could add on-device ads that I couldn't remove.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Right now I dual-wield. I have a Tracfone & iPod Touch. I don't talk or text a lot. I spend $6 per month for 60 minutes. I got an LG600G, which is pretty plain-vanilla. I'd be willing to pay a few hundred for an iPhone or Android Phone that just let me pre-pay for talk time & texting & web access. There's plenty of prepaid feature phones available, but their rates are ridiculous compared to Tracfone's. I can't imagine buying the phone, pay for a contract with somebody AND having to view ads (even if they're only text).
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
This will take phone sex to a whole other level!
I could see this being useful, depending on how the ads get activated. Personally, I'd like to find a cheap (and I mean in the price range of the old Zire 71) replacement for my PalmOS devices. Smartphones are *WAY* too expensive, regardless of whether you look at the price full up-front, or if it instead gets screwed out of you on a monthly basis for 2 years. So here you might be able to get a GooglePhone on the cheap, and then never activate it with a wireless carrier, using it only locally, perhaps with your WiFi router at home at most. If you never activated it with a carrier, how would they send ads to you?
Is there any bit more official or trusted source that is actually confirming that google is bringing out its own phone?
Eldar Murtazin which I would consider a moderately trustworthy source regarding mobiles says that he has talked about it with a google employee and it's a fake.
So many news and comments that seem to think this is real that I can't really form an opinion myself. If google does do this, it is a bit of a slap on the face for it's Android allies. Google is suddenly a competitor with a clear advantage.
about 20 years ago.
I was discussing the problems of getting phone service to people with little or no income, and the political difficulties of cutting peoples phone service.
I suggested they give people the option of getting advertising in exchange for free or discounted service.
Like after being on the phone for 30 seconds you would hear a one time ad like "Drink Coca-cola" or some such.
I wish I could remember the CEOs exact quote. It was something like "small ads in a lot of place will never generate income".
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Try these emergency medicine doctors in your area today...
or
Going to be in the hospital for months?... Subscribe to these magazine NOW ....
or
Got pain? Try these prescription pharmaceuticals from your local drug-pushing A.M.A.-endorsed "DOCTOR"...
What's so special about the world's biggest ad agency known as Google? Would someone please take away their business.
Yours In Riga,
K.T.
This is precisely why Apple filed for a patent on this recently.
It's a way for them to block potential ad revenues from Android, protecting the high price of their iPhone.
So Nokia's little Apple-wannabe store(s) somewhere near er... Chicago, or something, falls flat and that means no one wants unlocked phones? Whatever.
If you would like to participate in the failing unlocked phone market don't lament the poor performance of Nokia's fail brick-and-mortar outlets. Just head over here and buy a perfectly good unlocked Nokia 5530 GSM or any one of 105 other unlocked phones of all levels of capability. Need a cheap unlocked phone that works well with no monthly bill? Buy a RAZR V3 for $80, get some minutes from T-Mobile and forget about it. It works fine.
Bundling is a racket. Don't support it.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
these are cheap, mass produced, underpowered devices using yesterday's technology for the most part. why do they cost $600?
Because even "yesterdays technology" costs a lot to produce when you have to shrink it by a factor of 10 and at the same time make it use far less power.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Isn't a major problem with unlocked in the U.S. the fact that you're tied to the phones radio type? I'm not educated on the matter so maybe I'm mistaken. I wouldn't mind buying a n900 but it doesn't work with my carrier and I've had pretty decent service from them despite their poor reputation.
If the pundits could predict what Google was doing, they'd be rich corporate heads, not writers trying to guess what's going on.
I personally think that just maybe Google is going to offer a "free" phone.. not free as in beer, free as in speech.. where it costs more than a "subscriber sponsored" phone, maybe more than the iPhone, but which users will buy if it's not insanely expensive simply to get a "free" device... one not locked to a carrier with features turned off because the carrier wants to protect its business model.
One with a standard design and API that permits software to be developed with more than generic features, like the iPhone. But one that's not locked to Apple's corporate policies and whims, like the iPhone.
One that will set a standard for a new type of wireless phone system that is "the way it ought to be" with users owning their full featured phones and having the freedom to buy minutes from whichever carrier they like on a day to day basis, or to buy none at all but to use the ubiquitous wireless hotspots and networks to make calls.
Google may be using its corporate muscle to break the wireless carriers' hold on the market, a hold which has ensured them profits but which has stymied development of truly next generation wireless connectivity, which itself would drive a major change in society. Remember what internet access was like before wireless? Imagine that kind of change if the wireless carriers loosen their government ensured grip on the market.
Data and voice for everyone, "the way it ought to be". And it may start with a free phone.
Erik
If you think a deep further, with a LOT of imagination, one could envision another scenario:
It's possible Google is preparing for a non net-neutrality world, in which it would have to pay for the vast amount of bandwidth that it's clients use. Actually, Google is one of the first targets of those who wish to double-charge for bandwith (charge for users and providers at the same time).
In this world, a sensible way out of that cash-hole is for Google to be an ISP on its own. For that purpose, it could acquire dark fiber and try to acquire wireless spectrum (or lobby the FCC to make some unlicensed spectrum bands). With those at hand, it could make devices which are capable of forming mesh networks (if Android support that in the future, which is not unlikely). Those networks would then be connected by fiber over long distances. As such, how to get enough coverage to have a reliable mesh network? One answer it to make available a Google Phone which would have a great appeal if it could make free calls through Google Voice. That would ensure quite good acceptance from users.
That's it. A simple scenario. Seems quite possible to me, though I'm not an expert on the economics required to make it a reality (though if there's one company with enough resources to make it happen, that company is Google).
Note: the words marked with bold indicate topics which were discussed at a number of times right here on Slashdot.
maybe they won't sell millions of phones (or maybe they will) here in mexico buying the phones as stand alones (pre paids) its more popular, and selling the phones not attached to a specific carrier would make wonders in theyr selling numbers.
thats my 2 cents.
Will Goolge pay the data bill for the adds as with out a plan the cost is very high even more so if you go out side of the usa. Canada is about $71 for 35meg.
It doesn't have a keyboard. No thanks.
As "Aids To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone?".
More the sort of thing certain people would endure to get an iPhone cheaply, I suppose.
there is a company selling data only/VOIP cell phones through AT&T and there was a rumor that Google was going to sell a data only cell phone for $20 a month through AT&T. abovethecrowd.com had a nice post about Google's business model and how they share add revenues.
I bet this phone will be data only and use Google Voice for everything. AT&T doesn't care since they want to be a dumb pipe. Google will make money because everything you do on the internet will be logged in their servers and they will sell the data to everyone
What I am most interested about regarding this phone was the article I read that said you could use the phone carrier-free over existing WiFi networks. Combined with a Google Voice phone #, you could use this phone without having a carrier at all. Of course you would need WiFi to use it this way, so you may not always have coverage, but for city dwellers, this is an interesting option. Add to the fact that you could primarily use the phone this way, and carry a pre-paid SIM with you for the times you need to use the phone but there is no WiFi available, and you could put together a very low cost phone solution. Even if the phone was several hundred dollars more initially to buy without a contract, you could recover any extra money spent very quickly by not having a monthly fee.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I don't have a contract with T-Mobile, but I have a month to month unlimited voice, text, and data plan for $85/month.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Not sure if this is so obvious it's not worth mentioning, but given the geo-aware capabilities of smart phone, Google looks poised to bring advertisements to your phone, where you are. 'Sponsored Links' for your augmented reality browser.
for anyone who's willing to do some basic math (which may or may not describe the "average" American.) Verizon has a low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data plan for $100 a month. T-Mobile has the "Even More Plus" plan with low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data for $60 a month. Over the course of a year you'll have saved $480 with a T-Mobile phone (like the Nexus One, supposedly) vs a Verizon Phone (like the Droid.) I expect that's more than the discount you'd be getting from Verizon in exchange for a _two_ year contract. No ads required.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
If I remember correct, isn't the iPhone BOM somewhere around $180-200. I would bet Google probably can build the Nexus for a similar price. Assuming the decide to sell it at cost of build they could be in a great position to "kill 2 birds with 1 stone". They would have both a iPhone competitor and a phone that sent a lot more eyes to their ad based services (which makes them the magical PROFIT).
I can whip up apps in a few minutes and do things the guys with iPhones only wish they could.
Can your apps do stuff with the actual phone traffic or are they in a separate apps sandbox? e.g. I want to have a filter eat nagios messages and kill ones when a CRITICAL and a RECOVERY come in within a minute of each other during certain hours of the night.
The programming is trivial, but finding a platform that permits it isn't.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Just like the people who used to buy those ultra-cheap/free PCs from those shady startups that inundated them with ads, then complained that they were getting spammed.
First data mining...now constant ads. You have to also take into account that various apps are also ad supported as well. That's ads on top of ads...and that's part of the reason those shady startups didn't go on to profit like they thought they would.
Sure, wait for the phone to come out and THEN review the security policy. I get the feeling it'll be a little disappointing, though...this is Google, after all. The motto "do no evil" has long since been superseded by "do not speak about our evil". Wonder how Motorola and HTC are feeling about their decision to sink so much marketing dough into Droid and the Hero, only to have the OS vendor basically stick them right in their backs like this. If Microsoft had released a "free" WinMob phone a few years back, the carriers and hardware vendors would have sued the heck out of them. But because it's Google, they get a free pass for screwing their vendors because "after all, they do no evil, and Android is kinda/sorta an open technology".
Few buy unlocked phones because the unwashed masses, for the most part, don't know any better.
I have long been of the opinion that it should be unlawful for a cellular company to bundle phones with plans, and tie them to their network.
If people were forced to buy their own cell phone, and have companies forced to service it (I said service, not support) it would solve a lot of problems including:
In other words, this article is based on an idea that amounts to ignorant nonsense.
I'm not sure if this is still the case but last time I lived in the US you had to pay to receive a call which is a scam in itself. But seems in most cases you're tied to a 2 year contract, you still often have to pay something for the phone and then at least sometimes the cost of data, calling and texting is separated. That would be fine if it could work out cheaper but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
Take the very popular iPhone.
For 2 years, I could get a 16gig iPhone 3Gs with 1200 minutes, 500 texts and unlimited data. The phone is free and per month I'm paying £44.05.
AT&T offer an 8gig iphone for $99.00. You have to take the $30 per month unlimited data plan. For 900 minutes per month (closest offer without going over) is $60.00 with apparently a one-time set-up fee of $36.00 and then add $5.00 on top for 200 texts per month.
That's $104.94 (calculated with PA 6% sales tax) for the phone and $94.99. That's £58.37 per month which makes it more expensive than the UK despite our higher tax rates.
Then compare that to what T-mobile gave me - a free G1 for 24 months, unlimited texts, unlimited data and 800 free minutes for £25. I'll be able to get my phone unlocked for free and take it to any other network at the end for a sim-only package that will be cheaper.
The only reason I can think of it being this way is because Americans think it's acceptable to get shafted by mobile phone providers.
I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone.
That's the way it works in most of the rest of the world :
- You can either buy any phone for it's listing price in any electronics shop.
If you sign a contract, or extend a previous, the service provider simply gives you the equivalent of a virtual "cheque" that you can use to buy any phone of your choosing in the same electronics shop where you signed for said contract. The phone is not locked and it's entirely up to you, the end user, to decide whether to use this contract SIM in this phone, or give the phone away. As long as you pay your monthly fee, the provider doesn't give a damn what you do with the phone or the SIM card.
Nokia's "failed in the USA" business model works 100% well in lots of European countries. And could work too for Google.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Instead of thinking advertising, how about this? Revenue is generated by capturing call termination fees (on both ends with Google voice) - but that's nothing compared to the big payoff, mobile payments through Google Checkout. So, Google gets to pillage and plunder both the telephone companies and the credit card companies, making them the hero of this generation and the next. And then there is the possibility of selling the mobile media data (a la Nielsen/Arbitron) for extra cash, if they feel they need it.
I just got a Rogers HTC Magic unlocked to run on AT&T in the US for about $450 US. I rooted it and now I get google navigation, 3G, etc, etc. This is a deal when you consider I do not need a PDA plan ($20/mo medianet unlimited) or renew to a 2 year contract. An unlocked iphone that was comparable was $600-$800 range.
I just bought a unlocked blackberry clone for 100. Id say that was cheaper for me then getting one subsided thru a carrier, and be locked into them forever.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Nexus one is most likely the ADP 3. IE the third generation developer phone. IE Purchasable on Google's developer site. IE Not marketed to fucking consumers.
What makes me think this is that Google has given out the ADP1 at their Christmas party last year, the ADP2 at IO, and the Nexus-One (presumed ADP3) at their Christmas party this year.
There is no more or less magic to this.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
the okay, so verizon eats $400+ every time they offer a discounted phone for $99?
Yes, absolutely. That's why they do multi-year contracts and you get a phone cheaper. Look up the word "subsidized".
And Verizon is not "eating" anything, except money from you. They make far more over the life of the contract than the $400 they "ate". If you want to look with suspicion at costs devices are the wrong place to start, instead try looking at the cost of maintaining a network compared to how much they charge customers...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How many models of any phone, even the blockbusters do they sell? How much human labor goes into creating, developing, testing, marketing, shipping, supporting that device.
Compare that to PC volumes.
When Google isn't making money by brining more people to ads, they're making money by increasing the value to advertisers of the people they do bring to ads.
This platform will allow Google to directly collect data about where you live, travel, work, eat, and shop.
It will allow Google to sell time and location sensitive ads, e.g. it will allow Google to sell ads for the deli on 34th street when you're within a quarter mile of 34th street.
And if Google decides to do it, it won't be an option. When Google advertises, they advertise in a way that is unobtrusive to most consumers. Advertising is a value add. If you buy a Google phone, you're buying the Google philosophy, and the data indicates that most consumers have no problem with it.
it's my /etc/hosts file that disagrees.
I recommend everyone start calling this thing the GooPh.
How about sell me the phone for a fair price, I buy cell service at a fair price? Why is this so hard?
Ads work by hundreds of thousands of people seeing them, and a small percentage clicking. The cost of delivery is almost nil. With a phone like the HTC Passion (which is what the Nexus is) the manufacturing/retail costs will be in the hundreds of dollars (£500+). Even if Google showed me ads for 2 hours a day, every day, and I clicked on every one and purchased through one of them every week, there would never be enough revenue to subsidise the cost of the handset to anything like what I'd want to pay (i.e., Free, like my current HTC Magic, on a £35/month tariff... with effectively unlimited minutes, data and SMS).
I just wanted to note that the model of selling unlocked phones works fine in other parts of the world such as Europe and that most people here buy unlocked phones rather than getting one through their carrier. I would argue that even while doing so most people spend less in total cost as the rates that carriers charge are pretty low here.
Just because selling the phones will be a new profit engine all by itself, they won't want to outrage users by bombarding them with Google Ads. Stop the nonsense.