No Verizon Partnership For Google's Nexus One

Open? by Slash.Poop · 2010-04-26 08:18 · Score: 1

"We won't be selling a Nexus One with Verizon and this is a reflection of the amazing innovation happening across the open Android ecosystem.

But not TOO open apparently.

--
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good

Re:Open? by WrongSizeGlass · 2010-04-26 08:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's keep in mind that Google is pushing the Android platform. The Nexus One phones are just a part of that push. Of course they want to sell a lot of Nexus One's (and reap the cash rewards of that success), but they'd rather see a Verizon Moto Droid be sold than an iPhone.
Re:Open? by contrapunctus · 2010-04-26 10:00 · Score: 1

I wonder how much of this is Apple telling Verizon that if they ever want the iPhone, they can't support the Nexus One, just to stick it to Google... (pure speculation)
Re:Open? by hedwards · 2010-04-26 10:22 · Score: 1

Verizon controls their network and since they don't use SIM cards in their phones, there isn't really a whole lot that Google can do about getting their Nexus one onto the network. Which is a shame because it's a good phone, but Verizon was kind of dickish about how it handled the Droid.
Re:Open? by zuperduperman · 2010-04-26 11:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

> Of course they want to sell a lot of Nexus One's (and reap the cash rewards of that success)
Actually, I've come to the conclusion that they want Nexus one to fill a specific niche and to set a bar for the quality of what they expect out of other manufacturers, but they are not trying to actually take over the world or to really make a lot of money with it. The whole point of it is to inspire HTC and other vendors to come out with *better* phones than the N1 which sell *more* and therefore raise the quality of the whole ecosystem. If the N1 turns out to be just a minority player because all the other android phones are better then I think Google will consider it a success.
Re:Open? by Lehk228 · 2010-04-26 11:53 · Score: 3, Informative

if apple told verizon that, they would tell apple where they can shove their iPhone. Verizon didn't spend all that money on ads attacking the iPhone just to look like a bunch of stooges a few months later.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Open? by eyrieowl · 2010-04-26 15:16 · Score: 1

Verizon's management would have to be monumentally incompetent to not be willing to get in bed with Apple. Especially if the cost of it is merely to not carry one not-very-high-selling phone. Now, Apple and Verizon both would have to be pretty stupid to make it an explicit quid pro quo, but I don't believe for a second that Verizon wouldn't make that call if they thought it would score them the iPhone. I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Apple, but there's personal preference, and then there's business.

A big flop by calibre-not-output · 2010-04-26 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market. The phone is just too expensive up front to compare with carrier-sponsored models that get their price dilluted into your monthly service payments.

--
Nothing lasts forever but the certainty of change.

Re:A big flop by JAlexoi · 2010-04-26 08:41 · Score: 1

That is why they should have started selling it in Europe first!
Re:A big flop by TemporalBeing · 2010-04-26 08:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market. The phone is just too expensive up front to compare with carrier-sponsored models that get their price dilluted into your monthly service payments.
Their price isn't really that diluted. AT&T for example requires all phones with a full keyboard or that are otherwise considered a smart phone (e.g. iPhone, NexusOne, etc.) to have a data plan. You may be paying $199 for that iPhone up front, but you'll also be paying $30/month for 2 years. Now some phones you can cancel the data plan, but when varies from phone to phone. iPhone requires it at all times (so 2 years, 3 * 24 - $720 later). Some may be as little as 6 months, and may only require the $5/month texting plan (still a minimum of $30) but they're not going to nicely tell you or document your options on that front.

That said, I just ordered my Nexus One at full price ($529), and don't plan on adding any data plan whatsoever. AT&T will be not be informed I have a smart phone, and I have no intention of using the cell service for Internet. Wi-fi is good enough for me.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:A big flop by digitalunity · 2010-04-26 08:48 · Score: 1

The whole practice of tying phone subsidies to service contracts needs to end. It should be illegal across the board. It gives far too much control over the network and innovation to a few very large companies and really makes it a lot more difficult for new handset manufacturers to enter the market.
From a consumer fairness perspective, it's a win here also. Right now, carriers do not give you a discount if you provide the handset. They charge the same, whether they give you a branded phone for $30 or you provide your own $500 phone.
If carriers were required to offer discounts for providing your own phone at least, you'd see some quick changes in the way they sell them.

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Re:A big flop by shimage · 2010-04-26 08:50 · Score: 1

Google's idea is stupid because the costs aren't just up front. If you buy the AT&T Nexus One, then you will pay the same service rates as everyone else. Basically, you will be subsidizing everyone else's phones. If you must have a Nexus One, that is fine, but I myself find it difficult to justify the astronomical cost compared to similar devices. If the service plans sans contract were less, then I'd have some incentive to buy the Nexus One, or even to hold onto my old phone. But since I'm going to end up paying the same amount anyway, I sign the contract and get a new phone for free every 2 years instead.
Re:A big flop by Atmchicago · 2010-04-26 08:52 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm not sure it was a flop. Did Google make money on it? Did they get new customers onto the Android bandwagon?
Then, there's the other perspective. I just got one, my dad got one, and my brother is considering one too. It's cheaper over the lifetime of a 2-year contract than a subsidized phone. I'm not tied into a contract with T-mobile, and the price is reasonable. The phone works well and synchs with my google contacts, mail, calendar... And if I want, I can change phones whenever I feel like upgrading. Heck, it even plays Ogg Vorbis! For me, at least, it's a great success.

--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
Re:A big flop by Some1too · 2010-04-26 08:55 · Score: 1

Not sure how you're defining a big flop. Just by having google and android hand in hand the branding is getting out there. HTC devices are now known to be reliable by the consumer. For the record I own one and bought it new with an extra battery (you can't go wrong for 25$). I bought it when it was still unavailable in my country of origin. I don't use a dataplan but connect via wifi. I'd rather know the cost of my device upfront and have the ability to change carriers whenever I feel like it rather than being locked into one carrier for two to three years. Until our carriers monthly service plans fall to a resonable monthly cost (under 30$ a month) i will not support them any more than I need to. Android, HTC, google, the open source movement and the consumer are all winning with this thing. Not really understanding how this is a loss or flop. S.
Re:A big flop by astrashe · 2010-04-26 08:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is that you don't get the advantage of having an unlocked phone, which ought to be portability.
The ideal situation for me would be a world in which I buy my phone, and sign up for monthly service with my carrier. If the carrier sucks, I can cancel my service and go to another one without paying any penalties.
That doesn't work for lots of reasons. Some of those reasons seem to be policies that deliberately create lock-in (termination fees, even if you buy a phone for $579!), and other reasons seem to be reasonable technical realities (T-Mobile and Sprint use different kinds of networks).
The government has imposed number portability on the carriers, and that works well when your contract is up. But we still live in this 2 year contract/carrier subsidized phones/early termination fees universe.
I get dropped calls on my iPhone every day, too. And it would cost me a fortune to leave.
Re:A big flop by Enderandrew · 2010-04-26 08:57 · Score: 1

It should be illegal?
I'd rather the government not control business that much.
Google and T-Mobile are offering an altnerative model here where you pay full price for the phone, and then get a discount on your phone plan since you're not paying to subsidize the cost of the phone. If T-Mobile's network didn't suck so much, I'd be interested.
Verizon is passing on the Nexus, not because it is a bad phone, but rather because they don't want to open the door to this new business model. For instance, what happens to every customer (like my parents for example) that keep their phones longer than 2 years. Would their plans suddenly have to come down in price once they were no longer subdizing the cost of a phone?
Verizon wants no part of that. I can understand why consumers are upset. But let consumers vote with their wallets rather that over-regulate with Congress.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Re:A big flop by Enderandrew · 2010-04-26 08:58 · Score: 3, Informative

That's not Google's idea. That is AT&T's idea.
If you buy a Nexus One and sign up with T-Mobile, you get a discount on your monthly rate since you're not subsidizing a phone.

--
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Re:A big flop by Silentknyght · 2010-04-26 08:59 · Score: 1

A real-world example to support your "a big flop" argument:
My wife & I were shopping for smartphones and it came down to the Nexus One vs. the Motorola Droid. We already had T-Mobile service. Using the discount for new members and the cheapest two-year data+phone contract T-Mobile offered, the total two-year amount was cheaper than if I had purchased the unlocked phones and used T-Mobile's month-to-month plan for 2 years. Of course, we were ineligible for the new customer price, and T-Mobile could/would do nothing for us since it was partnered with Google (or, at least, that was the direction of the finger-pointing). There was no impetus to stay with T-Mobile. (We were able to get the Motorola Droid as a buy-one-get-one deal with Verizon). If you can't recoup the value of an unlocked phone in 2 years, then I fail to see the reason to get one: you can port your number to a new carrier, get a new phone, and pay less all at the same time.
Some other considerations regarding unlocked phones on the US carrier-controlled network with the Nexus one: I have read that while T-Mobile is 3G, it's not the same frequency as other 3G. This, as I was told, meant that an unlocked Nexus One for T-Mobile would not be able to use 3G for other carriers. Of course, the Motorola Droid was similarly "locked-in" with CDMA, but that factoid really undermined what I understood to be a significant advantage of the "unlocked phone".
Re:A big flop by sznupi · 2010-04-26 09:14 · Score: 1

Don't you mean "The ideal situation for me would be a country in which I ... But we still live in this 2 year contract/carrier subsidized phones/early termination fees country."?

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:A big flop by corexian · 2010-04-26 09:39 · Score: 1

The real benefit with an unlocked phone is not having to startup a new contract just because you want another phone. If you're already paying for the smart phone plan, you should be able to pick up whatever phone you want as long as it works with that network. Freeing the device from the carrier would probably be one of the best things for the market and for customers as it promotes consumer freedom and market innovation, competition, and hopefully standards.

--
So much room for sigs, so few sigs worthy of it.
Re:A big flop by tepples · 2010-04-26 09:50 · Score: 1

Verizon wants no part of [service plan discounts for bringing your own phone]. I can understand why consumers are upset. But let consumers vote with their wallets rather that over-regulate with Congress.
Congress is already regulating by allocating spectrum through the FCC.
Re:A big flop by shimage · 2010-04-26 09:52 · Score: 1

It was Google's idea to release the Nexus One, and that idea is stupid because only T-Mobile discounts rates.
Re:A big flop by mspohr · 2010-04-26 09:56 · Score: 1

Yes, you're right. Google should have done something like partner with a carrier such as T-Mobile to offer a subsidized phone for $179 along with a two year contract at a high enough price to recoup the subsidy for the phone... oh wait!... you mean that they did do this?

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:A big flop by rsborg · 2010-04-26 09:57 · Score: 1

It should be illegal? I'd rather the government not control business that much.
Sure, you'd rather the unelected, rapacious telecom giants collude and control your experience (and wallet) instead. I love you libertarians, who would rather the fascist corporate control over the government boogeyman.
Yay for freedom! (offer valid only for large corporations)

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:A big flop by mspohr · 2010-04-26 10:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I took the opposite path. I ordered a Nexus One a full price and plan on getting the T-Mobile data only plan ($39/month). No phone service at all. I can then use VOIP for phone calls and have data services too.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Re:A big flop by shimage · 2010-04-26 10:05 · Score: 1

I guess, if you absolutely cannot wait until your contract is up, then yes, you have to buy an unlocked phone. On the other hand, if you are close enough to the end of your contract, you are generally better off just paying the $75 early upgrade fee and getting a subsidized device.
WRT "freeing the device from the carrier" that is all and well, but you aren't describing the Nexus One. You can buy the T-Mobile one, or you can buy the AT&T one. And then you're stuck with that carrier (as long as you want to keep using your $530 unlocked Nexus One), not to mention that neither of them work on Sprint or Verizon.
So, no. The real benefit of an unlocked phone is that if you travel internationally often, you can buy a prepaid sim card and not have to pay roaming charges.
Re:A big flop by SydShamino · 2010-04-26 10:13 · Score: 1

And how will customers vote with their wallets when the only option, as you say, has a network that "sucks so much"? At this point it's not likely that another company can get into the cell phone business, not with the infrastructure cost that the other providers (yes, built to an extent with government money) have already recovered.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:A big flop by davester666 · 2010-04-26 10:21 · Score: 1

It shouldn't be illegal, but more transparent.
As in, a separate line item on your bill.
Cell Phone payment: $X
You have $Y left to pay on your phone.
Now the carriers (in the US) don't want this, because then people would complain about why their bill doesn't go down once they finish paying off their phone.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:A big flop by hedwards · 2010-04-26 10:23 · Score: 1

Actually, these days, AT&T requires a data plan for all smart phones on their network. In fact if you don't get one, even without a contract, they'll automatically add on to your package. You might be able to get data completely turned off, but typically you do have to pay for the plan like it or not.
Re:A big flop by hedwards · 2010-04-26 10:26 · Score: 1

In general you don't recoup the price, the carriers usually make out like bandits on the deal. Unless you haven't got the cash to pay up front, you shouldn't get the subsidized phone. At very least you have the ability to walk away from the carrier at any point. You might be stuck with edge instead of 3g for the data, but you can take your money elsewhere.
Re:A big flop by fermion · 2010-04-26 10:28 · Score: 1

I don't think there was any good idea in it. They wanted phones to run an OS that would benefit them, but focused on Google instead of the customer. They then did what Apple did and created a phone that was designed for the customer, not the mobile phone carriers, but then told everyone that it was not a Google phone, and we have no support, and, if you don't like it, we will bill you card an exorbitant amount, on top of the exorbitant amount you already paid. And now we learn that they were lying when they said they was a deal with Verizon, which was not wishful thinking but statements from google.
I think google is very good at what it does, but like the mobile carriers the customer they serve is not the end user but the advertisers. We don't need another group of people between us and our telephone. We already have the mobile carriers. Google wants to add itself, the advertisers, and who knows who else. Sure it is an open phone, but open to whom.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:A big flop by isilrion · 2010-04-26 10:37 · Score: 1

Are you saying that it is stupid for X to release product Y, because company Z will not offer you a "discount"?
Re:A big flop by DragonWriter · 2010-04-26 10:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market.

I don't think the success or failure of the effort depends really depends on how many Nexus One phones get sold. Google isn't trying to compete with Apple as a phone manufacturer, they are trying to prevent any one company -- whether its Apple, RIM, or anyone else -- completely dominating the smartphone market, because that's what keeps open, web-based services (like Google's) important for the smartphone platform, whereas if any single proprietary system dominated smartphones, that system's owner would be able to serve as a gatekeeper to services available on the platform, and that is a threat to Google's fundamental business model.
A number of Google offerings (notably, Android, Chrome browser, Chrome OS) aren't intended to dominate markets, they are intended to disrupt and prevent market dominance of closed platforms in their respective market. The Nexus One exists as part of that strategy for Android, and as long as it is drawing attention and serving as a tool to promote Android (even if most of the actual sales end up going to other Android phones), its working.
Re:A big flop by PitaBred · 2010-04-26 11:08 · Score: 1

Make sure you tell AT&T explicitly to disable data service on your line. Otherwise you'll be using a ton of data from day one, and get charged per kB.
And don't forget... you're missing out on a fair bit of functionality. GPS and voice navigation as well as voice searching are all dependent on data access.

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Re:A big flop by visualight · 2010-04-26 12:23 · Score: 1

If google would throw a pile of money at t-mobile's poor 3G coverage I think sales would pick up considerably. I've been with t-mobile for years but I'm thinking of switching to AT&T now -I had to move recently and haven't seen a '3G' on my phone for 6 months. My only hesitation is I like the t-mobile phone lineup (and they're not verizon).

--
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
Re:A big flop by digitalunity · 2010-04-26 13:10 · Score: 1

If the predominant business model here was that handset manufacturers sold directly to consumers, the carriers would no longer have service contracts and lock-in. They much much prefer the way it is, not just because they can charge more for the "service" of financing you a phone(which they conveniently continue to charge you for even after the subsidy is paid), but you're locked into a 2 year contract.
If you break it, even if it's the last month of the contract, you often owe hundreds of dollars(YMMV, judges in some states have tossed these out).
The real reason the carriers don't like the new model is because they lose control. Lock-in brings in a lot more money than just financing handsets.

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Re:A big flop by nine-times · 2010-04-26 13:25 · Score: 1

T-Mobile and Sprint use different kinds of networks
Even T-Mobile and AT&T, which are both GSM, use different frequencies for 3G data. So if you want to buy a Nexus One, you have to buy the AT&T version or the T-Mobile version. You can't just buy one and use it on the other network without penalty.
Re:A big flop by nazsco · 2010-04-26 13:41 · Score: 1

good luck doing that! ...but if you manage to, please to tell me! really.
Re:A big flop by Silentknyght · 2010-04-26 14:24 · Score: 1

You are wrong. T-Mobile's no contract plan is $20/mo CHEAPER than the contract option, in the case of a single line. I haven't looked at the family share plans, but for 500 minutes + text+data, it is $60 vs $80. That would be $480 saved over 2 years. That more than makes up for the extra 150-200 you have to pay for a CLIQ, and it even more than makes up for the extra $350 you would have to pay for a Nexus One.
I dunno what to say, except that I'm most certainly not wrong. My wife and I would have, of course, a family share plan. Purchasing two individual plans would be ridiculous. Run those numbers, as I have already done, and then we can talk apples to apples.
Re:A big flop by isilrion · 2010-04-26 14:50 · Score: 1

Why are you substituting letters for everything?
Easy. Because it doesn't matter who are X, Y and Z, your claim of X's stupidity is based solely on the fact that X has no control over Z, and yet it "dares" to launch a product... the one taxing the Nexus is AT&T, not Google. In your mind, what would be the non-stupid thing google could do? I can only think two options: not producing the nexus, or giving it away and taking a loss for the benefit of AT&T, and IMHO, both options are really stupid.
Re:A big flop by IntlHarvester · 2010-04-26 16:52 · Score: 1

I imagine the target market for the AT&T Nexus One are gadgetophiles or developers who are already locked into a 2 year iPhone contract.
Also, considering the resale value of an iPhone, it might not be so stupid if you really wanted to switch.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:A big flop by Locutus · 2010-04-26 17:32 · Score: 1

except that _if_ they did the Nexus One to step up the level of devices on the market running Android so that others would have to step it up too.... well then it worked IMO. There are other devices now out which are as good or slightly better than the N1. the way I see it, if vendors were left to design and release their own devices, the hardware would be inching its way up and the iPhone would still be leaps and bounds better. Instead, we have a nice competitive device market. the N1 did its job well and its time to let some vendors sell devices at the N1 level because I don't think Google really wants to be selling phones.

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Re:A big flop by shimage · 2010-04-26 18:00 · Score: 1

Now that you mention it, replacing letters makes things so much clearer now! But now I can't tell the difference between companies and products. So actually, no, you're obfuscating things for no gain whatsoever.
The answer to your question is, as you say, "Easy". They shouldn't have had HTC make the phone! But then you clearly think it's better to have made a phone that no one wants than not to have tried at all. The Nexus One is undeniably a mistake, plain and simple; its sales are all the proof one needs. The fact that this outcome was obvious from the beginning is what makes it a stupid mistake. But maybe sales will pick up, given time? I am sure they'll start selling more once the Desire and Incredible hit US markets.
Re:A big flop by SpectreBlofeld · 2010-04-26 20:19 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: I work for Verizon.
Actually, all Verizon phones are unlocked, whether purchased with a contract or at retail cost. They have no reason to subsidy lock their phones. Sprint, US Cellular, and MetroPCS all use CDMA, and of the three, only MetroPCS will activate a phone purchased from another carrier. The reason you can't take an unlocked Verizon phone to Sprint is Sprint's own choice - they choose not to allow it. When I worked in South Texas, I had a regular customer base of users in Mexico (which has CDMA coverage) that purchased equipment from me to use in Mexico, because the carrier there (Usacell) had no compunctions using our equipment.
Therefore, purchasing a Verizon-compatible Nexus One is no different than purchasing an HTC Incredible at retail cost. Both are unlocked, but finding someone to activate either one is the challenge.
Re:A big flop by penguinchris · 2010-04-26 21:58 · Score: 2, Informative

Be careful, I got an unlocked Nexus One (before the AT&T model was available) and used it with my previously existing AT&T plan, and they were able to detect right away that I was using a smartphone and I was informed via SMS that I needed to pay for the data plan.
You may or may not be able to actually stop the phone from trying to access mobile data - there isn't an option in the settings to disable it. I'm sure there is away around that, but it probably won't be simple and probably will require rooting it, not that you won't be doing that anyway (I rooted it, but there still isn't an easy option to disable mobile data as far as I can tell - didn't look too hard, to be fair).
I'm assuming you did your research to determine that this would be possible, but in case you didn't, let me be your warning that you might not be able to get away with it. I'm not a great data point because I was planning on getting the data plan anyway so I didn't try too hard to hide it from AT&T, but I did try to use it for about a day without the data plan, and as I said they detected it right away. Pretty sleazy on their part, I think, especially since I have the non-AT&T (who use 900 Mhz as opposed to everyone else's 850 Mhz) model and so am limited to 2G speed, but what do you expect.
In case you're wondering, though I sort of regret jumping the gun and getting it before the AT&T version was announced, the 850 Mhz frequency is much more useful to me than 900 Mhz if I travel (I'm spending most of the rest of the year in Thailand where 850 Mhz is used for 3G from the provider I already have a number with there), and someone else pays for my AT&T plan ;)
Re:A big flop by FireFury03 · 2010-04-26 23:55 · Score: 1

You may or may not be able to actually stop the phone from trying to access mobile data - there isn't an option in the settings to disable it.
Edit the APN settings and change them to something invalid. No, I don't know why there isn't a button to turn off data entirely, but this method is trivial and doesn't require any rooting.

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:A big flop by FireFury03 · 2010-04-27 00:05 · Score: 1

It should be illegal?
I'd rather the government not control business that much.
All I can say is it works pretty well here in the UK.
If you want a subsidised phone then they are available, if you want to just get a SIM on whatever plan you like then they are available too.
I bought my HTC Dream outright for £140 and put a PAYG SIM in it. Costs me about £5 every 2 or 3 months. Doing the maths, that gives me a TCO of around £170-190 over the first 18 months - a much better deal than a subsidised phone because I get to choose a tariff that fits my usage instead of what the telco wants to sell me.

For instance, what happens to every customer (like my parents for example) that keep their phones longer than 2 years. Would their plans suddenly have to come down in price once they were no longer subdizing the cost of a phone?
This is exactly why the market needs to change - people replace their perfectly good phone every year or two because the telco gives them a "free" upgrade. Most people don't need to replace their phone and would save money if the telco offered them a reduction in the contract price in exchange for not upgrading, but they aren't given this option. And that's before you consider the horrendous environmental impact of everyone throwing out their phones for no good reason.

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:A big flop by TemporalBeing · 2010-04-27 00:59 · Score: 1

Actually, these days, AT&T requires a data plan for all smart phones on their network. In fact if you don't get one, even without a contract, they'll automatically add on to your package. You might be able to get data completely turned off, but typically you do have to pay for the plan like it or not.
Only if AT&T knows you have a smart phone. If their system doesn't know it, then it won't do anything. Further, they can't add it w/o your consent.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:A big flop by TemporalBeing · 2010-04-27 01:12 · Score: 1

Good to know. Thanks.

I do already have the Data stuff completely turned off. AT&T/Cingular's website allows you to disable all that stuff from their end through your on-line account. Keeps us from accidentally loading the web-browser or texting (or receiving texts), etc.

That said, it's a Linux Kernel, and you could probably rebuild it and install NetFilter/Iptables and setup routing rules to keep it from going out on the cell network at the very least.

Ideally I would have liked an OpenMoko 3G phone - but there won't ever be one; I'd have even settled for an OpenMoko 2G phone (A7 model), but they won't be releasing that in the US (though OpenMoko, the only US distributor) for AT&T.

Android was a good compromise for me. All the open source, modifiable stack, etc; and the full functionality. So, it's highly likely that I'll root it and more.

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Re:A big flop by darthflo · 2010-04-27 02:22 · Score: 1

GSM phones transmit their IMEI (jumps directly to the interesting bits) to the network provider during sign-on. This number contains a TAC allowing the provider to identify what model, in some cases what revision of said model you're using.
Whether or not AT&T uses this information, I can't tell you. All I know is several providers do. Call second-level support and ask if they can tell you what kind of handset you're on. If they can (and you didn't buy it in their store), they check. If they can't, they may still check but not expose this info to CSRs.
Re:A big flop by darthflo · 2010-04-27 02:38 · Score: 1

GSM sign-on requires your phone to provide it's (unique) IMEI, containing it's Type Allocation Code, which again is specific to a phone model or revision of a phone model.
As far as I know, the relevant bits you'd need to tamper with in order to avoid detection are quite far below in the phone's baseband, either in true ROM or, at the very least, only delivered in binary form. Faking IMEIs, one could wreak quite a bit of havoc :)
Re:A big flop by darthflo · 2010-04-27 02:59 · Score: 1

why would any company want a market that small?
Google's MO usually doesn't include selling a gadget to a customer in exchange for some money; there's too much labor per-piece, handling of physical objects and dealing with lots of small customers involved.
What they're trying to do, is push the Android platform. Every now and then, they'll throw out a very shiny and rather expensive toy to enthusiasts, developers and the like; to set a bit of a bar and demonstrate their vision of where other manufacturers are to go. A couple of thousand units are sold, HTC quickly whips up their version (with Sense, sans some Google exclusivity) and sells many more at a more attractive price, with more marketing and actually aimed at the general public.
The G1 and N1 owners push sales of the Heroes, Desires (high-end and) and Legends (lower-end N1 alternatives) just by having a shiny exclusive toy. Thanks to a geek-friendly buying process and very limited support, Google doesn't have to deal with Joe Sixpack's questions to tech support, grabs a couple of megabucks towards development of the next model and, most importantly, pushes android. Us geeks get to play with a shiny gadget without the uncoolness of everybody's grandma and their dog getting one (iP*). HTC and relatives sell the bulk of the devices and, having some experiences with Joe & co, can deal with their customers' problems. Everybody wins.
Re:A big flop by IntlHarvester · 2010-04-27 03:06 · Score: 1

No, I'm saying you could buy a $600 Nexus One, and sell your iPhone 3GS for $300, and the "stupid tax" is only about a hundred bucks over a subsidized phone.
Nexus One is promoted via banner ads on slashdot versus television and print ads for other major phones. Its obviously being marketed to developers (who can often write it off as a business expense).

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:A big flop by shimage · 2010-04-27 04:11 · Score: 1

Ok, well then I was confused when you said "switch".
Re:A big flop by Orange+Crush · 2010-04-27 04:20 · Score: 1

The Nexus One has turned out exactly as Google had intended--showcasing what Android is capable of on nice hardware. It was never meant to be sold in huge volumes, it's targeted for developers and enthusiasts.
Re:A big flop by isilrion · 2010-04-27 15:12 · Score: 1

So actually, no, you're obfuscating things for no gain whatsoever.
If you consider that hiding the company names "obfuscates" this argument, clearly the company names have something to do with your position: it may not be because what X did, but because of who X is. Fair enough.
(Luckily, there is at least W != Z where Y works and that, in this particular instance, is not trying to screw up their customers as badly as Z).

They shouldn't have had HTC make the phone! But then you clearly think it's better to have made a phone that no one wants than not to have tried at all.
Clearly, it is a mistake to try to enter the smartphone market. No one should try it, ever, because they would seem stupid if one carrier wants you to pay more.
But... why am I defending Google? I guess I just joined the thread trying to understand the reasons behind blaming the party that has no control over what you don't like, instead of the one that is directly responsible for it (AT&T). I see this trend all too often: like when blaming "Linux" for its lack of driver support, or the customer for the "identity theft".

No shock there... by nweaver · 2010-04-26 08:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

The HTC Droid Incredible has a better reputation anyway: its faster, and has HTC's UI enhancements not present on the HTC Nexus One...

So why should Google put its name directly on an inferior phone through Verizon when there is a better HTC phone available soon on Verizon's network?

--
Test your net with Netalyzr

Re:No shock there... by spikeb · 2010-04-26 08:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

not to mention, there is already a kickass android phone on verizon's network: the motorola droid
Re:No shock there... by ircmaxell · 2010-04-26 08:33 · Score: 1

...and support it for the future with updates.
That's the ticket here. The more manufacturers customize the OS, the slower and harder it will be to update to newer versions. It's a whole other layer that needs to be tested/redesigned. Right now, when the Droid gets updated, the only thing that really needs testing is the drivers. But with the Sense UI, the whole UI layer may break, so it requires significant developer time to adjust to the new OS. What this means for the end users is that instead of getting the latest upgrade 3 to 6 months after release, they'll be getting it 1 to 2 years after release (IF they decide to do it at all)... And people complain about fragmentation...

--
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Re:No shock there... by Colonel+Korn · 2010-04-26 08:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is HTC's UI really a plus? I didn't try it, but I think I trust google more than HTC (or motorola) to design an interface and support it for the future with updates.
HTC's interface is, surprisingly, much more fluid than Google's. A Droid Incredible (in my limited time with one) feels as smooth as an iPhone. The N1 doesn't...DROID DOES>?!

--
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Re:No shock there... by ircmaxell · 2010-04-26 08:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Can you please enlighten me as to the great number of technical ways the Nexus is better? A better screen? Oh wait, no, that goes to the Droid. Better touch screen interface? Nope, the Nexus has be notorious with its issues... A GPU? Oh no, that's the Droid too. Better 3g connectivity? Oh wait, isn't the Nexus 1 having major 3G issues? Better WiFi? Oh wait, no, the Nexus 1 never actually got 802.11n... Battery Life? Kinda, the Nexus has 30 minutes more talk time, but the Droid has 20 hours more standby. Price? Oh no, that's right, you can find the Droid for $99... Oh I know, Android 2.1? Nope...

There are only 2 things that you can argue that the Nexus is better than the Droid at. CPU speed, and Network. In every other realm, they are at best tied and at worst the Droid edges out the winner...

--
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
Re:No shock there... by Skuld-Chan · 2010-04-26 08:45 · Score: 1

I don't think its any faster - its the same exact hardware (different display I'm told).
Re:No shock there... by peragrin · 2010-04-26 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is the single problem with Android phones.
There is no consistent user Interface. HTC has one Interface, motoraola another, Google yet a third. how can droid hope to compete with the iphone if users can't expect the same interface on all models?
let alone some models have horrible interfaces which will put end users off on the entire line. you use a motorola droid and hate it. you will think twice about picking up an HTC android model even though the HTC is superior.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:No shock there... by drachenstern · 2010-04-26 08:54 · Score: 1

Apparently you've not used an HTC (re)designed interface for a mobile phone.
Yeah, they have a concept of what it means to really use a phone, most days.

--
2^3 * 31 * 647
Re:No shock there... by lucian1900 · 2010-04-26 08:56 · Score: 1

Except no one in their right mind wants Sense UI. Pretty much every single other phone (except the CLIQ) has a vanilla Android. Get a Droid.
Re:No shock there... by FlyingBishop · 2010-04-26 08:58 · Score: 1

CPU is questionable given the GPU differences. Nexus may have hopped on the Snapdragon bandwagon a little too soon for it to give a ton of benefit over the Droid.
It's also worth noting the Droid is intentionally underclocked like most of the iPhones. For a mobile device, it seems like the natural state of being is to underclock the processor for battery savings.
Re:No shock there... by JAlexoi · 2010-04-26 08:59 · Score: 1, Interesting

Oh wait, no, the Nexus 1 never actually got 802.11n
Oh, you unenlightened person. N1 actually has the 802.11n chip inside it. It connects to 802.11n routers using 802.11n but only over 2.4GHz frequency. Still mine gets 150mbps router to phone. Was that news for you?

Price? Oh no, that's right, you can find the Droid for $99...
Oh you poor brainwashed person, do you really think that the carriers actually sell it to you at $99? Noooo.... They sell it to you at something over $2000. Once you calculate the TCO of the damn device.
Re:No shock there... by ckaminski · 2010-04-26 09:03 · Score: 1

If the Droid is the best the mobile handset market has to pit against the iPhone, I'm convinced it'll die as soon as Apple dislodges AT&T from it's bloated teat and opens the phone to other networks.

I have a Droid because I need tethering over texting accuracy, and I need service reliability over ease-of-smartphone use. The Droid is good, but it's not polished. Not in a way the iPhone is. And 90% of the Market reviews are spam. Android has potential, but I miss the polish of the iPhone I had for a month, but had to give back because of poor reception.
Re:No shock there... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-26 09:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Oh you poor brainwashed person, do you really think that the carriers actually sell it to you at $99? Noooo.... They sell it to you at something over $2000. Once you calculate the TCO of the damn device.
Please explain to me how the TCO of the Nexus winds up lower when you have a higher initial purchase price for the handheld and pay the same monthly fees as a Droid/Incredible/~insert favorite non-Nexus Android device here~.
Re:No shock there... by Nerdfest · 2010-04-26 09:08 · Score: 1

How the hell will things ever improve if no one does anything different? Standardisation is not the answer to everything. If a company thinks they can change something to improve the interface, I'm all for it. It's software Darwinism, with users playing the part of nature.
Re:No shock there... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-04-26 09:12 · Score: 1

how can droid hope to compete with the iphone if users can't expect the same interface on all models?
Why would users be bothered? It's not like they walk around juggling several phones. You usually have and use one at a time.
Re:No shock there... by moosesocks · 2010-04-26 09:13 · Score: 1

You could have just as easily written that without the snark, especially given that you had a few decent points in there.

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Re:No shock there... by ElectricTurtle · 2010-04-26 09:17 · Score: 1

how can droid hope to compete with the iphone if users can't expect the same interface on all models?
lol, wut? Because people are going to buy and use three phones simultaneously? Having different interfaces is better because it allows people to choose one that they find most comfortable. They're only going to be using that one interface for the entire time they have that phone. I don't see how that's complex. Yeah, went they want a new phone months/years down the line, then they might have to think about a different interface. Big deal.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:No shock there... by peragrin · 2010-04-26 09:19 · Score: 1

then why do so many people switch windows aero interface back to the windows classic? Why do so many people make linux look like windows?
if it isn't a big deal then why go through all that effort?

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Re:No shock there... by AndrewNeo · 2010-04-26 09:23 · Score: 1

Or turn it off, because, you can, you know.
Re:No shock there... by ElectricTurtle · 2010-04-26 09:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

And what you're describing is choice. Some people like classic interfaces, some people like new interfaces, but where Windows and Linux give people varying degrees of control over the interface, Apple gives you practically no control.

What choice do you have with the iPhone? None.
What choice do you get with Android phones? Several different interfaces.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Re:No shock there... by Slashdot+Parent · 2010-04-26 09:25 · Score: 1

I found iPhone 3Gs to be sluggish and painful to use, as compared side-by-side with the Nexus One on the same network. Once iPhone gets multitasking, it'll be a lot better.
No doubt Android needs more polish to get to where iPhone OS and WebOS are, but I'd take a small learning curve over lacking functionality, any day.
Droid is a nice device, but I don't like the keyboard. I have a personal preference for the Pre Plus.
It'll be nice to have some choices when the Incredible and the Evo 4G come out.

--
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Re:No shock there... by larry+bagina · 2010-04-26 09:28 · Score: 1

Even more telling: Old droid was from motorola. New droid is from HTC. Motorola put all their chips on the droid. buh-bye!!!

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:No shock there... by blackraven14250 · 2010-04-26 09:29 · Score: 1

If you drop carriers more than 3 times over the lifetime of the phone, it should start to work out in favor of the Nexus.
Re:No shock there... by Trifthen · 2010-04-26 09:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with having a vendor-added enhancement like SenseUI is that it's vendor added. Any enhancements to Android have to be filtered through the vendor before you'll see the upgrade. Unfortunately, they're always developing new phones, moving on to bigger and better things, and may abandon or at least only pay partial attention to the phone you love. The Incredible is "The Shit" now, but what about when Android 2.2 comes out? What about 2.3? If HTC decides to call it a day, you're stuck with no recourse but to maybe do a firmware hack and hope for the best.
The major benefit in the Nexus One, is that it's just Android, straight from the lion's mouth. Provided Google doesn't get all crazy dropping backwards compatibility, you could keep upgrading the firmware almost indefinitely because you don't have to wait for the manufacturer or vendor to port all of their tweaks to the new version.

--
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
Re:No shock there... by Skuld-Chan · 2010-04-26 09:43 · Score: 1

Its more like a reskinned ui - at least between HTC and Google's stock UI. The both operate very similarly.
Re:No shock there... by talcite · 2010-04-26 10:02 · Score: 1

The biggest technical merit of the Nexus One over the Droid Incredible is the likelihood of continued updates to the android OS.
There's a huge hacker community right now that owns the Nexus One hardware. It's likely that we'll see continued support for a long time on this phone.
Re:No shock there... by Rennt · 2010-04-26 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you are more interested in Android as a platform rather then fixated on handset spec sheets (or engadget 'articles') the Droid is just not better enough to be interesting.
Nexus advantages:
* ROOT ACCESS INCLUDED. Sure, you can hack the Droid - but the manufacturer doesn't want you to own your device.
* The N1 is the current "reference" handset, meaning everything targets the N1 first and is well tested against it.
* You get your updates from Google, not whenever Verizon/Motorola get around to it.
* If you decide to get your updates elsewhere this is cool too, as your reference device will be compatible with any custom ROM you can find.
* It runs vanilla Android. Carrier/manufacturer embellishments are at best pretty; on average are broken; and at worst cause fragmentation.
For these reasons The N1 remains a compelling choice even against the new class of just-announced Android "super phone" devices, and will likely remain the smart choice for quite a while. The Droid is just another android phone.
Re:No shock there... by hedwards · 2010-04-26 10:31 · Score: 1

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where you can buy a non-milestone Droid that's completely unlocked. Because as far as I know you can't do it. Also given the lack of a sim card you're stuck with Verizon service. Something that the Nexus one doesn't do to you. You might have to give up 3g to switch between AT&T and T-Mobile for instance, but the phone still works if with slower data transfer.

As for 802.11n, the Nexus one has the chip, in fact you can enable it if you install a firmware with the driver. Google just hasn't released the driver yet.

Also, I'm not sure what you're implying about Android 2.1, the Nexus one already has that.
Re:No shock there... by hedwards · 2010-04-26 10:32 · Score: 1

Because Aero is wasteful and decadent, a lot of people prefer not to waste the resources on it. I know that's why my Windows XP computer is still running without any of the effects.
Re:No shock there... by DragonWriter · 2010-04-26 10:52 · Score: 1

The Incredible didn't exist at the time that Google puts its name on the Nexus One, so it wasn't really an option.
Re:No shock there... by _Sprocket_ · 2010-04-26 10:55 · Score: 1

Even more telling: Old droid was from motorola. New droid is from HTC. Motorola put all their chips on the droid. buh-bye!!!
Don't read too much in to that. The Droid Eris is HTC as well.
Re:No shock there... by tighr · 2010-04-26 11:58 · Score: 1

I have an unlocked NAM Motorola Milestone, which is essentially the Droid but works on AT&T 3G. It is entirely unbranded except for the firmware version which has the word "Telus" (The Canadian carrier the phone was originally made for), but I haven't updated mine to Android 2.1 yet so maybe that goes away.

Additionally, since AT&T doesn't know I have it, I only pay $15/mo for unlimited data access versus the $30/mo they want. As long as this continues, I see this as my unsubsidized out of contract price.
Re:No shock there... by DrDitto · 2010-04-26 16:15 · Score: 1

Droid has a better screen than the Nexus's OLED display? Are you flipping kidding me?! I own both and the Nexus screen is amazingly better than the Droid and the iPhone.
Re:No shock there... by ircmaxell · 2010-04-27 00:58 · Score: 1

It is? That's against everything I've heard/experienced. The Droid's has 24bit color vs the Nexus's 16bit. The Droid has Gorilla Glass vs regular glass for the Nexus. The Droid has a higher resolution (albeit slightly) at 854x480 vs the Nexus's 800x480. The only real area that I can find that the Nexus is better (in terms of display at least) is in contrast ratio (100,000:1 for the Nexus, and I couldn't find specs for the Droid, but I'm assuming it's significantly lower due to the TFT).

My point wasn't that the Droid kicks the Nexus's ass. My point was that the Nexus doesn't kick the Droid's ass. They are about even. Both have things that they do better than the other (and some MUCH better). But the claim that "The Droid pales in comparison" is pure BS...

--
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good

Re:half a million? by Yvan256 · 2010-04-26 08:31 · Score: 1, Troll

Hey, don't laugh. It took Apple almost 75 minutes to reach the milestone of half a million iPhone users.

Google by C_Kode · 2010-04-26 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

What does Google think the Nexus One is it's version of the iPhone? I own a Nexus One and I love the device, but Google is being morons the way they are holding onto it. I should be able to call my carrier for support, especially since Google is absolutely clueless on how to give customer support.

Re:Google by binarylarry · 2010-04-26 08:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Why for are you beings a so mean?

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:Google by ProdigyPuNk · 2010-04-26 08:42 · Score: 1

What does Google think the Nexus One is it's version of the iPhone? I own a Nexus One and I love the device, but Google is being morons the way they are holding onto it. I should be able to call my carrier for support, especially since Google is absolutely clueless on how to give customer support.
I'm personally glad that Google is "holding onto it" like they are. The sooner we get away from a carrier-controlled phone market the better. Phone prices might go up a little, but we subsidize their purchase through our bills anyway. Good for Google.

Re:half a million? by binarylarry · 2010-04-26 08:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's one out of dozens of Android phones, each model with it's own features and price ranges.

Steve Jobs has been quaking like a motherfucker (and not in the fun way) if the reports of his Google tantrums are true...

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!

Re:half a million? by Bakkster · 2010-04-26 08:41 · Score: 1

Yep, Android has Apple quaking in its boots.

The Nexus one alone might not, but there are multiple other Android phones each with over a million sales. And, since you can get an Android phone for nearly every carrier, Google is capitalizing on a market that Apple is leaving behind.

Apple has (for all intents and purposes) one phone on one carrier. Google has many phones at various price points on many carriers. There's a big Android phone release more frequently than an iPhone release, meaning users are more likely to find one they want. Also, Android (overall) sales may eclipse iPhone in the next 2 years.

Yes, they probably should worry.

--
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

Re:half a million? by gyrogeerloose · 2010-04-26 08:46 · Score: 1, Interesting

Steve Jobs has been quaking like a motherfucker (and not in the fun way) if the reports of his Google tantrums are true...

I don't think it's the competition that caused Jobs's tantrums, it was his feeling of being betrayed by Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, who sat on Apple's board throughout the development of the iPhone then went on to develop an competing device. Being invited to sit on the BoD of any company is a sign of respect and trust; using knowledge gained from the position to turn around and compete with the company who's board you're sitting on is ethically questionable to say the least. Schmidt didn't break any laws, but what he did does somewhat belie Google's "Don't Be Evil" catchphrase.

--
This ain't rocket surgery.

Great! by JAlexoi · 2010-04-26 08:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Great!
Basically they are reaffirming that Android is not to become a "hegemony". Google is there to provide only visionary products to push the manufacturers.

Re:Great! by SpectreBlofeld · 2010-04-26 20:32 · Score: 1

You're absolutely correct. They have prior art with Chrome Browser, which they stated was not an entry to the browser wars, but an effort to drive standards compliance and the state of the art. It's in their own best interests - their revenue is inexorably contingent on the web working as it should! Google is a very forward-thinking company, and they impress me. I'm not easily impressed.

Google's Purpose with the Nexus One by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-26 08:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Nexus One is not intended to be a phone for the masses. It was made as a proof of concept for the Android OS. It's purpose is to act as a standard reference point. Remember how over the last 2 years, every phone has been compared with the iPhone? Google's goal is to get everyone to compare new phones to the Nexus one. It is Google's goal for all Android phones to be AT LEAST AS GOOD as the Nexus One--the idea being that, "since the Nexus One is good, so this new Android phone must be great!" After a year, when all the Android phones get to be a little too good, Google will develop the Nexus Two, or whatever they plan to call it, which will act as the new reference point.

So NO. Verizon will not get the Nexus One. The Droid Incredible is better anyway, and Google is getting their OS out in the wild.

Re:Google's Purpose with the Nexus One by binarylarry · 2010-04-26 09:28 · Score: 1

Yeah well, we'll see if it can put a dent in the iWhore's market share.

--
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Re:Google's Purpose with the Nexus One by LordBmore · 2010-04-26 09:48 · Score: 1

You make an excellent point. HTC manufactured the Nexus One that Google had designed and then just went ahead and improved on that design with the Droid Incredible. Google just wants to build Android market share; they don't really care about the hardware. But I'm not sure this is a wise decision. The Google brand is very powerful and could push alot of phones to the average Verizon customer that doesn't know the difference between Android and any other OS.
Re:Google's Purpose with the Nexus One by SpectreBlofeld · 2010-04-26 20:50 · Score: 1

As someone who works for Verizon, I can assure you that people (outside of the geek network) don't come after these phones because of any sort of Google branding. They come for carrier-sponsored marketing blitzes, online reviews, 'APPS APPS APPS', 'fancy touchscreens', etc. Google hasn't really done any advertising for Android. Nor would they be wise to, really. You know Android isn't 100% Google, right? It's the product of a global consortium, of which Google happens to be the most prominent member. Google's at the forefront but they don't own Android. Google hopes to get revenue from Android owners using Google services on their phones, but any handset manufacturer could choose to strip all of Google's services from their own published 'flavor' of Android, robbing Google of that revenue.
I haven't really figured out how Google actually makes money off Android. I've owned the Motorola Droid since launch day last year, and I use my phone to its extent - it's overclocked to 1.25 ghz (take that, nexus one!), but I really haven't seen anything but extremely unintrusive ads in the most unnoticeable places, and to be honest, it'd be hard to even accidentally click on one. Much less buy a product based on such an ad. But then again... I don't understand the *rest* of Google's business model either, as I can't personally say that I've ever met a single soul that's clicked through a google ad and bought a product.
I hope Google has other sources of revenue than mere ad dollars, because I really do love all the crazy awesome shit they do as a company - free email with vast amounts of storage space, free phone numbers (google voice), youtube (an acquisition, the value of which cannot be justified as anything other than a money hole), maps and street view, mass scanning of literature into electronic format... how do they make noney on text ads alone?

Shhh.....don't look now...... by Darth_brooks · 2010-04-26 08:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

You know, there is another CDMA based major network carrier out there for the nexus one. One that doesn't care about using forcible sodomy to invoke tethering charges. One that could really stand to make a splash in the handset market, since the Palm Pre hasn't exactly set the world on fire.

Can we maybe mention Sprint (and their current begging for a jumpstart stock price as the link shows) as a player? Sure, their network is closer to AT&T's that Verizon's in terms of quality (or lack thereof), but they're still alive and kicking. As a former Sprint customer, I can say with certainty that they're network is utter shit. However, if Verizon gets too complacent, they could well be staring down competition from a company that will gladly whore itself out to any handset maker that can give them back even a sliver of market share.

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.

Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by Tumbleweed · 2010-04-26 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

As a former Sprint customer, I can say with certainty that they're network is utter shit.
You say SAY that all you want, but it just means you don't know what you're talking about. Network quality depends MIGHTILY upon where you are. In some places, Sprint is the best, in some, the worst. The exact same can be said of the other big three in the U.S. I went from Verizon to Sprint and my call quality went up, and I've never had a dropped call since, although that also depends partly on the handset you're using.
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by metamatic · 2010-04-26 09:25 · Score: 1

Sprint's already launching the EVO 4G, which should outdo the Nexus One.

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by Vancorps · 2010-04-26 09:39 · Score: 1

While I think you're right, I've yet to find a location where ATT is the best. Frustrates the hell out of me since my work phone got moved to ATT from Sprint. So I keep my personal cell with Sprint and everywhere I go I can make calls reliably. Sure data services aren't as good but I handle that with wifi in most places and Sprint's data has improved dramatically over the last couple of years. I can't stand ATT, I should at least be able to complete a call but I drop everyday with them. To be specific, I use ATT regularly in Vermont, Florida, Arizona, and California as I spend roughly a month in each place every year.
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by Tumbleweed · 2010-04-26 09:43 · Score: 1

>> In some places, Sprint is the best, in some, the worst. The exact same can be said of the other big three in the U.S.
> While I think you're right, I've yet to find a location where ATT is the best.
Okay, AT&T may be the exception. :)
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by SydShamino · 2010-04-26 10:19 · Score: 1

I've been a Virgin Mobile customer for five-six years, and have been very happy with Sprint's network. Were I to buy a smart phone, I'd either settle on an iPhone and piggy back on my wife's AT&T account or I'd buy an Android phone and go with Sprint.
Now that my iPod Touch is too old to get new firmware updates, I'm thinking about it...

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by amiga3D · 2010-04-26 10:51 · Score: 1

I've found a lot of locations where my AT&T phone worked and my daughters verizon phone didn't. I found a few places where neither worked and exactly none where Verizon worked and AT&T didn't. Verizon rules 3G coverage but in voice coverage AT&T works almost everywhere.
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by Darth_brooks · 2010-04-26 12:08 · Score: 1

Where I was was...everywhere. My Razr (and yeah, you could plug one of those into the Space Needle and still drop a call.) and my wife's generic handset were useless pretty much anywhere we needed to use one in SE Michigan. Mine had 4 bars at work, and that was it. At home we dropped calls like mad, and usually didn't have enough signal to make outgoing calls. Switched to verizon and now it's three bars of 3g.
Everyone I knew that in this area that had Sprint has gone running to Verizon. Hell, even AT&T has better coverage around here. This isn't out in the sticks either, we're in between Ann Arbor and Detroit, withing shouting distance of an interstate.

--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by Tumbleweed · 2010-04-26 12:16 · Score: 1

Do you mean 'pretty much everywhere', or 'pretty much everywhere in Michigan'? Big difference.
I'm in the Seattle area, and I've been on either Sprint or Verizon for the past 10 years or so (I've been on Sprint for the last 2+ years for their fantastic data plan pricing). I've had no problems at all, even driving across Lake Washington while on a call. I had a dropped call with Verizon every now and then, but not many (and certainly *nothing* like I had with AT&T/Cingular), and zero with Sprint in the last 2+ years.
Re:Shhh.....don't look now...... by jherubin · 2010-04-27 00:37 · Score: 1

Weird. My experiences are the total opposite of yours. I have had Sprint in the Metro Detroit area for the last 15 years and I have had nothing but a positive experience. I don't drop calls and have great data speeds. I had the Razr at one point, moved on to some other dumb phones, had a slew of Palm devices, and now have a Hero. With each phone I have been completely satisfied in Metro Detroit and while traveling throughout the US.

Re:half a million? by jabithew · 2010-04-26 08:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apple has (for all intents and purposes) one phone on one carrier.

Some of us live in Europe, you insensitive clod!

--
All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.

Re:half a million? by kg8484 · 2010-04-26 08:58 · Score: 1

Schmidt was forced out due to antitrust concerns.

This is why.... by lord_mike · 2010-04-26 08:58 · Score: 3, Informative

...the iPhone is still not on Verizon, nor is it likely to be in the near future. Verizon, like Apple, is all about control. Verizon didn't like that Google wanted too much control over the Nexus One, so they canned it. Verizon initially didn't like Apple's terms for the iPhone, so they nixed that. Their position is unlikely to change anytime soon. Apple is going to want a king's ransom for the iPhone to be on Verizon, and Verizon will simply point to their increasingly successful Android lineup and tell Apple to try again next time.

This is a PR blow for Google, but a small one. Verizon is the leading carrier for Android phones, and the Droid Incridible is quite an impressive flagship device, just as the Motorola Droid was last year. Since HTC manufactures both the Nexus One and the Incredible, the deal failing is no skin off their back. Either way google wins, 'cos more Android smartphones will be sold either way.

Re:This is why.... by toriver · 2010-04-26 09:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, because AT&T is not at all about control. A phone is as open as the phone company lets it be.
Re:This is why.... by SideshowBob · 2010-04-26 09:28 · Score: 1

"Either way google wins, 'cos more Android smartphones will be sold either way."
What does Google "win" from this?
I don't mean in the fanboy sense. I mean in the bottom line sense, what does Google get that they wouldn't get from an [iPhone, Blackberry, Nokia] smartphone?
Re:This is why.... by gyrogeerloose · 2010-04-26 09:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

...the iPhone is still not on Verizon, nor is it likely to be in the near future. Verizon, like Apple, is all about control.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that Verizon does not have a GSM network, meaning that Apple would have had to build two different models of iPhone--one for the US market and one for the rest of the world--and that iPhone users couldn't use their phones internationally if they chose. No, it must all be about control...

--
This ain't rocket surgery.
Re:This is why.... by ducomputergeek · 2010-04-26 10:45 · Score: 1

Verizon is more about "Let's deploy a network that almost no one else in the world uses. (CDMA)". How many CDMA potential customers are there world wide versus GSM potential customers again?

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:This is why.... by DragonWriter · 2010-04-26 11:08 · Score: 1

Google's idea was great, but it doesn't work in the current carrier-controlled (and I don't mean this in a conspiracy-theorist way) market.

Android exists, it seems to me, largely to prevent any one non-Google proprietary smartphone platform from dominating, and the controller of that platform getting the ability to act as a gatekeeper and tolltaker for services to the whole smartphone market, since that happening in any key network-enabled computing market (smartphone, netbook, tablet, mainstream desktop/laptop) is a potential threat to Google's basic business model (on the netbook and mainstream desktop/laptop, the Microsoft OS and browser dominance is a problem for Google now, but as the platform isn't as locked down as smartphones, its a problem that Google has been able to work around so far, and its a problem that Google is working to undermine particularly at the browser level--both through Chrome and its support for Mozilla.)
Re:This is why.... by Overzeetop · 2010-04-26 11:08 · Score: 1

We all know Apple is incompetent when it comes to actual technology (vs UI and lock in), but even I know that Steve could get CDMA working in a handset. Every other manufacturer in the world does CDMA and GSM phones blindfolded. It's really not that big a deal. It really was all about control.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:This is why.... by Lehk228 · 2010-04-26 11:50 · Score: 1

because verizon is "all about the network" they could have spent their money switching to GSM, but instead they spend their money expanding and upgrading their network, as a result, just like in their ads, they have hands down the best nationwide coverage of any carrier.

I don't currently have a verizon phone, but when i did back around 2002-2005 there was almost nowhere i could go and not get coverage.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:This is why.... by lordandmaker · 2010-04-26 19:09 · Score: 1

More people using Google's other products.
Over the past year, while I've had my Android handset, I've become a massive user of Google stuff. Google Docs, Maps, Picasa and Mail integrate pretty badly into it, but better than anything else, and so that's what I use from my phone. Since everything's already there, I do the same from a real PC.
I've tried a couple of times, and only really half-arsedly, to change this, but it's not that easy. The bundled non-gmail mail client is atrocious, there's no good Flickr clients and I've not found any real alternative to crippled-google-docs for my G1.
Google might get no money from me using the phone, but they get loads more ad views than they otherwise would when I carry on using what's on my phone on a proper screen.

Re:half a million? by LWATCDR · 2010-04-26 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

I suggest you look at Apples sales numbers. I dboubt that Jobs is shaking at all.
Planning yes. Shaking I doubt it. It is hard to be terrified when your sales are up and you have Billions in the bank.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:half a million? by AlexBirch · 2010-04-26 09:07 · Score: 1

I didn't see antitrust concerns in the article you posted. Perhaps you meant a different one?
It just reaffirms the parent post.

Re:half a million? by ElectricTurtle · 2010-04-26 09:10 · Score: 1

Well, I just looked at the numbers. Between 11/2009 and 2/2010 iPhone market share is flat as Kansas. Android market share on the other hand has more than doubled in that period. Hmmm... zero gains vs. more than double gains... yeah if Jobs isn't shaking then he's dumber than I thought.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit

Re:half a million? by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-04-26 09:12 · Score: 1

Apple has (for all intents and purposes) one phone on one carrier.

You do realize that the US isn't the entire world, right?

Re:half a million? by poetmatt · 2010-04-26 09:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

bingo. Android marketshare is going way up, and all apple has is hype. Now that they've locked down the codebase, they're slowly bringing the DRM to the masses. Patent infringement lawsuits are a sure sign that apple knows they're fucked real soon.

Apple is a master of spin, not unlike MS, but when you try to bring policies like the RIAA (restrictions of what you can do with something you purchase) people are eventually going to adapt and just move on altogether.

Re:half a million? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-04-26 09:13 · Score: 1, Funny

Yeah, there are other parts where we bomb...

Re:half a million? by node+3 · 2010-04-26 09:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's one out of dozens of Android phones, each model with it's own features and price ranges.

Steve Jobs has been quaking like a motherfucker (and not in the fun way) if the reports of his Google tantrums are true...

Contrary to common misconception here on Slashdot, iPhone far, far outsells *all* Android handsets combined.

One thing that people often bring up is Android's rate of market share growth, as though this growth is sustainable. The first problem is that such growth is, by its very nature, unsustainable. If it were, there would be trillions of Android phones in no time. The other problem is that few people look into the reason for the growth. With Droid, Nexus One, and Incredible, Android handsets are finally at a point where they are at least somewhat respectable competition for the iPhone in the mass market, so it's natural the number of units being sold would increase at a rate faster than before.

The notion that Apple, or Steve Jobs, are "quaking like a motherfucker" is absurd. iPhone is the leader. And even if Android makes it onto more total phones, the market is fractured, which will still leave Apple in the top spot between Android handsets and iPhone for a long time to come. This is the same dynamic that has Apple as the number four (sometimes number five) PC maker in the US, even with only around an 8% market share. Further, Apple is number one in terms of profits. In other words, HP and Dell would rather trade places with Apple, than the other way round.

In the smart phone market, companies like HTC and Motorola may see increased profits due to increased sales of Android phones, but each and every one of them would similarly trade places with Apple in a heartbeat if they could. If Android is bound to knock Apple off its perch, it's going to take many, many years.

So, do explain why you'd think that anyone in Apple's position would be "quaking"?

Re:half a million? by kkwst2 · 2010-04-26 09:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

You've got to be kidding me. Because he sat on the board in the past he's never allowed to build a competing device? What kind of twisted logic is that? Unless you're drinking the cool-aid enough to believe they violated Apple's IP, which from what I can tell is pretty ridiculous. Do you think he used insider information while on the board to design the product? The Android platform came out several years after iPhone, so I'm not seeing a big advantage here. No evil in my book, at least not for this.

The goal, although you can certainly argue that they haven't achieved it to a significant level with their current devices, is to build a mobile device platform that is more open than existing platforms. I care about that to some degree, but what attracts me much more to the Android platform over Apple (will be coming from WM, not iPhone) is the wider array of hardware options (HW KB, etc.), the ability to exchange the battery, and the ability to exchange memory cards. The battery issue is pretty much a deal-breaker for me, and I know you can get external batteries but that's just not a very good option to me. The memory issue is slightly less of a big deal, but right now, I love being able to carry a tiny micro-SD USB adapter on my key chain such that if I want to quickly get music, pictures, PDF's, etc on my phone, I don't need to have a cable.

Plus, when I'm in the airport, I have a huge issue now finding a plug for my laptop. Why? I'd say 75% of the plugs are taken up by teenagers and twenty-somethings (maybe the occasional old fart) charging their iPhones on layovers, etc. I travel with two spare batteries for my phone, and two for my notebook. The reason I need two notebook batteries is that I can't depend on being able to plug it in anymore. (Obligatory "get off my lawn" comment here, if you wish).

Re:half a million? by node+3 · 2010-04-26 09:21 · Score: 1

Google has many phones at various price points on many carriers.

Google has one phone, sort of.

Also, Android (overall) sales may eclipse iPhone in the next 2 years.

Markets don't work like that. You can't just follow a trend line, then extend it two years into the future.

This means the Nexus One is a success by wangmaster · 2010-04-26 09:30 · Score: 1

I'm not certain Google ever truly wanted to be in the phone market. It makes sense for google to want a reference platform for their employees, for developers and to spur the market for the android PLATFORM (this is the key). But Google really isn't a hardware vendor.

When the Nexus One was released, the motorola droid wasn't out yet, the closest competitor to the iPhone on android was the mytouch 3g and HTC hero on sprint (i'm referring to US market not european market).

I don't know if the Nexus One actually accelerated any plans, or what, but now, there's a whole bunch of decent android phones that can actually compete with the iPhone.

Google doesn't need the Nexus One on verizon, and likely doesn't want it. The Droid, Droid Eris and Droid Incredible are all much better suited for the purpose because Verizon supports the phones fully, sells the phones and they are all excellent Android experience phones.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Nexus One for Sprint never materializes either, since the Evo 4G is not that far out.

Google doesn't need to sell the Nexus One everywhere for it to be a success. They just need android to be a viable platform on all of the major wireless providers, and it's definitely shaping up to be that way now.

Re:This means the Nexus One is a success by Xuranova · 2010-04-26 11:22 · Score: 1

"When the Nexus One was released, the motorola droid wasn't out yet, the closest competitor to the iPhone on android was the mytouch 3g and HTC hero on sprint (i'm referring to US market not european market)."
The Droid came out October17, 2009 and the Nexus came out January 5, 2010

--
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."

Re:half a million? by gyrogeerloose · 2010-04-26 09:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

You've got to be kidding me. Because he sat on the board in the past he's never allowed to build a competing device?

I wouldn't go that far. However, he was still on the Apple board at the time Google introduced Android.

--
This ain't rocket surgery.

Re:half a million? by ElectricTurtle · 2010-04-26 09:40 · Score: 4, Funny

Joke's on you, I am actually bisexual, and you are actually a bigot, which is no doubt why you post as an AC to begin with.

The difference between 1-2:50 vs 4.1:11.5 is obvious to anybody with two brain cells to rub together, which explains why it escapes your understanding.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit

Re:I don't give a shit by Skuld-Chan · 2010-04-26 09:50 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJpEuMidcSU - yes I know the N900 doesn't run Symbian, but the N97 has taught me a really important lesson about Nokia - never buy another Nokia for as long as I live.

Any other carriers with a BYOP discount? by tepples · 2010-04-26 09:53 · Score: 1

I'm not tied into a contract with T-mobile

What other carrier does your phone work on? Are there any carriers operating in the U.S. other than T-Mobile that offer a discount for bringing your own handset? You're just less tied to T-Mobile.

Re:half a million? by ElectricTurtle · 2010-04-26 09:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Huh. iPhone is the leader? I think maybe you should try explaining that to RIM. Their 40+% marketshare might disagree.

Beyond that, you claim the growth is unsustainable. This is a relatively new and evolving market segment. A lot of share has been ceded to Google by MS and Palm, but so far only 'potential' share has come off of RIM and Apple. You think it's impossible for them to lose any ground? They can grow forever but Google can't even keep growing through the end of the year? I sense bias.

Oh and the Apple profits that you vaunt are a direct result of gouging the consumer. Margins like that can't proceed from high quality hardware. Apple sells mediocre crap and an image brand for heinous markup. Only so many people will be duped by that, which is why Apple has a completely flat line of market share in the computing world. They've been at 'around an 8% market share' for years .

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit

Immigration by tepples · 2010-04-26 09:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Switching to a different country is far more difficult than switching to a different U.S. wireless carrier.

Re:Immigration by ivucica · 2010-04-26 20:33 · Score: 1

Doesn't seem that way to me.

a concerned citizen of Croatia

Re:half a million? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2010-04-26 09:55 · Score: 1

That's a good counter argument, but nothing more. In summary: Apple is #1, android is gaining. Apple recognises it has competition, its negative statements about the android market reflect that. If you want to characterise that as quaking or not is a semantic argument best left to marketing types.

Now, what will the future hold? I don't know. You don't know. Apple and Google doesn't know. If you tried arguing with some one back in 1991 that Apple was going to end up on the brink of bankruptcy in six years and would have to rely on Microsoft to prop them up ( due to MS's dominance based on a crappy, buggy operating system that crashed more often than it worked) you'd have called me crazy. Leave the far off predictions to the insane I say. Choose what seems best for you over the short term, with disposable products like cell phones.

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.

Re:half a million? by DJLuc1d · 2010-04-26 09:57 · Score: 1

That is misleading when you say

This is the same dynamic that has Apple as the number four (sometimes number five) PC maker in the US, even with only around an 8% market share. Further, Apple is number one in terms of profits. In other words, HP and Dell would rather trade places with Apple, than the other way round.

as it implies that a majority of apples profits are from the PC which as anyone knows is completely off base. Apple would have gone off and died in the early 2000s if not for the iPod, and would be losing money today. In fact, according to apple's most recent (Q2) earnings report, http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q210data_sum.pdf Apple makes only 27% off of it's PC sales. So comparing a computer OEM manufacturer to Apple is like comparing Apples and Jupiter (Pardon the pun.) As far as being the number 1 profitable company, I would like to see the data that backs that up. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/04/20results.html indicates 15B in sales, yet after expenses, net profit is only 3B (20% profit.) Microsoft hands down CRUSHES apple in that front http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/fy10/earn_rel_q2_10.mspx#income with 19B in revenue and 6.6B in net profit (34% profit). I'm no fan of MS, simply because they are so closed and..... anti-consumer..... wait.... that sounds like another tech giant.

Re: Because on T-Mobile you don't... by colinnwn · 2010-04-26 10:06 · Score: 1

You don't pay the same monthly fee. They're called "Even More Plus" plans, and they are about $10-20/mo cheaper than a similar subsidized plan, with 2 phones included in the price on the family versions. And your 3rd-5th phones are only $5/mo additional each. You save some serious coin each year.

Re:half a million? by neurovish · 2010-04-26 10:11 · Score: 1

It's one out of dozens of Android phones, each model with it's own features and price ranges.

Steve Jobs has been quaking like a motherfucker (and not in the fun way) if the reports of his Google tantrums are true...

In the smart phone market, companies like HTC and Motorola may see increased profits due to increased sales of Android phones, but each and every one of them would similarly trade places with Apple in a heartbeat if they could. If Android is bound to knock Apple off its perch, it's going to take many, many years.

So, do explain why you'd think that anyone in Apple's position would be "quaking"?

Personally, if I was going for the smartphone perch, I'd go after RIM...who is actually sitting on the perch with about 42% of the market. Apple? A healthy #2 with 25%. Google is up and coming at 9%, more than doubling their market share from Nov. '09 to Feb. '10. Out of RIM, Apple, Microsoft (looks like they had the lunch that Google ate), Google, and Palm, only RIM and Google gained in that time frame. Hastily searched source: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/05/comscore-android-market-share-continues-to-gain-on-the-iphone/

Personally, I think the iPhone has peaked. Most of the people who wanted one have one by now. Consumer phones are also remarkably fad-prone, just ask Motorola. Watch out for Apple entering their "New this year, a *PINK* iPhone" phase. Also, if you want to talk about global phone sales, the top 5 are Nokia, Samsung, LG, Sony, and Motorola. Looks like #6 is HTC ( http://www.informationweek.com/news/mobility/business/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222600489 )

Re:half a million? by node+3 · 2010-04-26 10:30 · Score: 1

Microsoft isn't a PC maker.

With carriers it's always: YMMV by aztektum · 2010-04-26 10:34 · Score: 1

I've had Sprint since 2002 and a smartphone with them since '07. Their network has never failed me and I only ever seem to lose signal in areas you'd expect there to be none (I hike/camp in the middle of no where a lot).

Meanwhile I can't go a few days w/o hearing a coworker or friend bitch about AT&T's network (and these aren't just iPhone users).

--
:: aztek ::
No sig for you!!

Re:half a million? by node+3 · 2010-04-26 10:39 · Score: 2, Informative

That's a good counter argument, but nothing more.

Well, shit, what more should I have been going for, exactly?

Apple is #1, android is gaining. Apple recognises it has competition, its negative statements about the android market reflect that. If you want to characterise that as quaking or not is a semantic argument best left to marketing types.

No, it's not semantics, it's downright false. You're correct that Apple faces competition from Android, but the notion that Steve Jobs is "Steve Jobs has been quaking like a motherfucker" is completely nonsensical, even with granting abundant leeway in the semantics of that phrase.

Now, what will the future hold? I don't know. You don't know. Apple and Google doesn't know.

I was talking about the present, and specifically how you can't simply extrapolate into the future.

If you tried arguing with some one back in 1991 that Apple was going to end up on the brink of bankruptcy in six years and would have to rely on Microsoft to prop them up

Apple was never close to bankruptcy, and MS never "propped them up". Apple had billions in the bank when MS invested $150 million in Apple stock, as part of their agreement for Apple to drop their lawsuit against them. The only part of that agreement that really helped Apple in the short term was MS's agreement to continue selling Office for the Mac for a period of time (5 years?). That agreement was never about MS actually pulling Mac Office, since that was extremely unlikely, but to prevent them from being able to use that as a bargaining chip against Apple (which they had done in the past).

Re:half a million? by Dare+nMc · 2010-04-26 10:40 · Score: 1

There is more for apple to worry about than number of phones. Apple gets a monthly cut of revenue for each Iphone from AT&T, google doesn't. This was (IMHO) due to Apples superior marketing compared to every other phone supplier in the marketplace when they entered. Now enter the 1000lb marketing gorilla of Google, seams very unlikely for AT&T to do the math and say I can have Apple phone+Apple marketing for $400 up front + $15/month per device. While my competitors habe google phone+google marketing for $300 up front + $0/month (likely negative, advertising sharing). Basically that $15/month to apple is probably gone soon. Basically my prediction is Apple market share will stay above 30%, similar or above android; but apples revenue per device will drop at least 5 fold.

So much for changing the way phones are sold by JSBiff · 2010-04-26 10:41 · Score: 1

I generally agree with what you are saying. I do think, however, this has all been a very illuminating experience with regards to how, when Google launched the Nexus One and their online phone store, they made loud proclamations about how they were going to change how phones were sold, how they were going to move the market towards a choose-a-phone, choose-a-carrier model where you basically got the phone, then used it on whichever mobile operator you wanted. As far as I know, the Nexus One only ever worked on T-Mobile (I guess you could use it on AT&T but only at Edge speeds, not full 3G, because AT&T use different frequencies, and apparently it's just impossible to make a phone that can tune different frequencies).

In a lot of ways, I consider the Nexus One to be rather a failure, but you might be right, that from Google's perspective, it served it's purpose. However, as far as 'accellerating' other Android deployments, like the Verizon Droid, I don't really think Nexus one had that much impact on that - I mean, the Droid launched very close in time to the Nexus One ( I don't remember, but I thought it launched a few weeks before the N1, didn't it)? Even if it was after, the timing was so close that Verizon had to have already had the Droid designed, tested, manufactured, and developed marketing campaigns for the Droid well before the N1 launched. There's way too much that happens to launch a phone for a company to do all that in a month's time.

Re:half a million? by node+3 · 2010-04-26 10:46 · Score: 1

Huh. iPhone is the leader? I think maybe you should try explaining that to RIM. Their 40+% marketshare might disagree.

The context was between Android and Apple.

But even so, do you think RIM would not instantly jump at the chance to trade places with Apple?

You think it's impossible for them to lose any ground? They can grow forever but Google can't even keep growing through the end of the year? I sense bias.

Please cite where I said anything like that. I sense straw man.

Oh and the Apple profits that you vaunt are a direct result of gouging the consumer. Margins like that can't proceed from high quality hardware.

No, you have it exactly backwards. Margins like that can't proceed from crappy hardware. The margins on the low end are razor thin. That's why HP, Dell, and Acer (and sometimes Toshiba) sell more PCs than Apple, but make much less in profits. The bulk of those sales are on the low-end, low-margin segment of the market.

Only so many people will be duped by that, which is why Apple has a completely flat line of market share in the computing world. They've been at 'around an 8% market share' for years .

With the exception of the time between when the Intel switch was announced, to the time the Intel Macs finally shipped, Apple's growth has exceeded the market as a whole for the better part of a decade.

Re:half a million? by _Sprocket_ · 2010-04-26 10:49 · Score: 1

Keep in mind, Android is not a phone. It's an operating system. In a greater scheme of things, consumers aren't buying Android. They're buying a Verizon smartphone or Motorola smartphone with their respective brands. So to say that "Android grew X % over Y period of time" is not really helpful for any meaningful metric.

iPhone is still the leader and will continue to be unless a strong competitor emerges out of the bunch and presents a unified front where they can clearly differentiate between devices.

Except for the fact that people, are in fact, buying Android phones. It doesn't matter if they buy from HTC or Motorola (or Samsung, etc.). They all plug in to the same software base and application market. When people buy an iPhone, they're not buying an AT&T phone. They're not buying an Apple phone. They're buying the iPhone that has access to the iPhone store.

Sure, the iPhone is all about unification. It is one device by one company (currently on one carrier). But that doesn't mean it's the only way to market. Android doesn't need a unified competitor. It just needs to grow it's economy to the same or larger scale than the iPhone economy. In the end, that's what happened to the microcomputer market.

Google needs to start their own phone service by amiga3D · 2010-04-26 10:57 · Score: 1

We need real competition in the wireless arena. I don't think we're going to get it from the ones currently ruling the roost. All the cell carriers I've dealt with generally seem to have the attitude that if you grovel and beg very nicely they might, just might, let you spend some money there.

Re:half a million? by ZosX · 2010-04-26 11:17 · Score: 1

"Yep, Android has Apple quaking in its boots."

It should. They are selling an upwards of 60,000 android based phones a DAY. At that rate, it will become the no.2 smartphone behind the ubiquitous crackberry.

Apple is losing big time in their exclusivity with AT&T to be honest.

--
zosxavius photography

Re:half a million? by DinDaddy · 2010-04-26 11:43 · Score: 1

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you got your results from Google and they skewed them, but if you are seriously arguing poor iPhone sales, the stock buying world disagrees with you:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20002964-37.html

Re:I don't give a shit by Lehk228 · 2010-04-26 12:12 · Score: 1

it looks to me like they decided atthe last minute that the interface flying around like in the ad was kinda shitty when you are finished with your 1st hour "play with it" phase and want to use the damn thing. granted i have not bought a nokia in a very long time, but that is what i like about them, i have hadmy current nokia 1100 since very early 2005, 5 years later i am strongly considering buying a new $5 faceplate and maybe a new $50 battery. before that i had owned a 5185i from 2001-2005, i switched phones due to changing carriers

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Re:half a million? by Random5 · 2010-04-26 12:38 · Score: 1

Schmidt had no involvement with the iPhone design - they already knew google was developing Android then and he left the room whenever the iPhone was being discussed.

Re:half a million? by kg8484 · 2010-04-26 13:22 · Score: 1

It was just the first article that came up in Google. Second paragraph FTA:

Mr. Schmidt's departure comes as the Federal Trade Commission has been investigating whether Mr. Schmidt's membership on the boards of both Apple and Google could raise concerns about competition.

FTC was looking into Schmidt being on the board of two companies that were in the same market. Part of the concern is that this would allow collusion between the two companies. Here is a NYT article:

The Federal Trade Commission has begun an inquiry into whether the close ties between the boards of two of technology’s most prominent companies, Apple and Google, amount to a violation of antitrust laws, according to several people briefed on the inquiry.

Re:half a million? by nazsco · 2010-04-26 13:36 · Score: 1

U = 500.000 * n

U being the number of android users.
n being the number of android phone models

hence, we have U = !795.398.001

Re:half a million? by nine-times · 2010-04-26 13:42 · Score: 1

Huh. iPhone is the leader? I think maybe you should try explaining that to RIM. Their 40+% marketshare might disagree.

There are different measures of who is "leading", and market share is one. There's also sales, mind share, and actual innovation (who is actually leading the trends of what phones will be in the future).

I'll let other people argue about who is leading in which measure.

Eh... by bytethese · 2010-04-26 14:34 · Score: 1

A phone like that needs to be able to make calls and use data at same time, Verizon is not the place.

Re:half a million? by IntlHarvester · 2010-04-26 16:46 · Score: 1

Google purchased Android in 2005. You will notice this report is public information, unlike any iPhones plans at the time, which may not have even been known to the board.

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.

Re:half a million? by cerberusss · 2010-04-26 22:00 · Score: 1

The reason I need two notebook batteries is that I can't depend on being able to plug it in anymore

Bring a splitter :D

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?

Fuggit I'll Build My Own by Mana+Mana · 2010-04-26 22:58 · Score: 1

``The problem is that you don't get the advantage of having an unlocked phone, which ought to be portability.

The ideal situation'' ...would be that Google took the daring move to partner with the like of MetroPCS, BoostMobile, prepaid mobile companies to offer national mobile data plans for a sub $50, sub $40 monthly cost!

I would buy a $600 Android phone in a flash, if I would get a cheap data plan, on which I could use VOIP for voice, and use all the unmetered data I could want for WWW, SMS, video, Google Ads/search/Gmail/Gmaps/Buzz/etc. And I had the freedom to walk away at any time from my carrier, as I should after shelling out BIG phone costs myself.

Cringely reported a few years ago that Google was buying ungodly amounts of unused bandwidth to one day get around the peering/carrying charges and the lackadaisical infrastructure investments from the wireless carriers, and also their net neutrality sabotage as well. So, one day soon watching that video all day long would be routed not through the com carriers but through the Google backbone. Add the reported likely reason that Google did not itself become a wireless carrier by buying some of the recently auctioned spectrum was to stay out of the retail mobile business but rather to concentrate on what they do well. I don't see what they're waiting for, except that they are daring the future to pass them by out of fear, lack of imagination, or vacillating. Shame.

Re:half a million? by Bakkster · 2010-04-27 00:57 · Score: 1

Google makes jack shit from Android "sales" because it's a free operating system.

Advertising money from the built-in applications. Also, money from the official Android Marketplace and Google Checkout. And that's all beyond the typical 'Google makes money the more you surf the internet.

Keep in mind, Android is not a phone. It's an operating system.

And so is iPhone OS. All the iPhone numbers are the overall OS, combining iPhone, iPhone 3G, and iPhone 3GS sales. So let's compare apples to apples, Android OS to iPhone OS.

--
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

Re:half a million? by English+French+Man · 2010-04-27 01:28 · Score: 1

No, you have it exactly backwards. Margins like that can't proceed from crappy hardware. The margins on the low end are razor thin. That's why HP, Dell, and Acer (and sometimes Toshiba) sell more PCs than Apple, but make much less in profits. The bulk of those sales are on the low-end, low-margin segment of the market.

Low-end is completely different than low-margin... Actually, the GP has a point, how can you sell $500 a device that is supposedly "cutting-edge", and make a huge margin? Are the production costs that low? Then how is it high-end.

And then there is the HP/DELL/Acer vs Apple argument... So how is a low-margin PC at $1000 crappier than a high-margin iMac at the same price? (disclaimer: I don't follow the price market for pre-assembled PCs nowadays but I am quite sure that some PCs are sold at the same price range than some iMacs, the figure is not that important, replace by whatever price range you wish to compare). Low-margin PC would mean that the components plus manpower cost almost $1000, High-margin iMac means that components plus manpower is significantly lower than $1000. Now DELL or HP manpower is probably cheaper than Apple manpower (design isn't everything for those companies), so components are easily better in an HP or DELL machine than in an Apple machine, for the same price.

Of course if you compare a $600 DELL to a $3000 iMac, you will probably find better hardware in the latter, but that's hardly the point, is it?

--
If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.

Re:half a million? by English+French+Man · 2010-04-27 01:48 · Score: 1

Google has one phone, sort of.

Wait, what? Are you saying every Android-powered device is exactly the same? Or that the Nexus One is the only phone that somehow counts as a Google phone? I'm confused here.

Markets don't work like that. You can't just follow a trend line, then extend it two years into the future.

That's why the GP used the word 'may', I think, because he understands that the market is not something that is easy to predict, and that two year-extrapolation on such a young market is quite random. Then apparently, he was citing a source, so some economists seems to agree with him. And by the way, if you just extend the trend line, it beats Apple in a little more than a year. So I guess that wasn't the method used then.

--
If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.

Re:half a million? by ElectricTurtle · 2010-04-27 02:11 · Score: 1

How is that giving me the benefit of the doubt? Your statement is not cogent. Further, the link is right there, and numbers are sourced in a market survey clearly indicated.

Of course Apple is selling product, but it's to a flat market. That market is already bigger, so of course they will have high numbers, but that market is not growing, in fact it is slightly shrinking. Conversely, if you think Android's increase in marketshare isn't similarly tied to increase in sales then I can't help you.

--
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit

Re:half a million? by Sheik+Yerbouti · 2010-04-27 03:31 · Score: 1

Android will win long term market share wise and no one can do anything to stop it it's just a fact. Because in two years time there will be 100s of different android phone models all the way from free with contract feature phones to fire breathing fully decked smart phones and several categories in between.

Apple like in the case of the PC vs. MAC era of the 80s will lose market share to the more open platform that allows device competition. However that does not mean they will lose revenue they will always have their hardcore that will stand in line to buy whatever they sell and go on about it endlessly. So they will just keep making gadgets for that subset that want the Apple "experience". Same way not everyone drives a BMW most drive something much less flashy and affordable. But there is a certain hardcore that will always buy BMW. BMW does fine with their upmarket product and clientele and so will Apple. but the fact is they will not dominate the smart phone market ever. Right now it's RIM that dominates smart phones and they will likely be supplanted to a large degree by Android, which is open source, which means no one handset maker will likely totally dominate in the future. And that's probably a good thing as there will be choice.

N900 by Weezul · 2010-04-27 04:39 · Score: 1

If you like the idea of a Linux phone, then you'll like the N900. I'd never recommend them more broadly, neither does Nokia.

I've had two serious software glitches on my N900 : 1st, the RSS reader filled up /home after not liking feedburner feeds. 2nd, the screen locked unpleasantly when I charged the phone overnight before I reset the settings. I've had no hardware glitches on the N900.

By comparison, all three Apple laptops that I've ever purchased have had hard drive crashes within the first three months, two have experienced charging issues, and one experienced mother board failure. Apple has however been more helpful when resolving the hardware problems, mostly because AppleCare is world wide.

Symbian was designed before touch screen technology was popular outside asia. N97s are very likely the product of old Symbian heads competing both externally with Apple and Android as well as internally with Maemo/MeeGo.

I've no idea how long Nokia will take delivering a MeeGo device, but MeeGo will officially target Maemo's most obnoxious shortcoming, like rotation.

--
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell

Re:half a million? by node+3 · 2010-04-27 07:48 · Score: 1

Low-end is completely different than low-margin...

Yes, one is about the technology, the other is about the price. However, that distinction has no bearing on the topic at hand, because the low-end is low-margin.

If someone is buying the cheapest computer they can find, then undercutting the competition by even $5 can make a difference. On the other end of the spectrum, if someone is ready to spend more than $1,000 on a computer, they're already willing to spend more to get more, by definition. This allows for higher margins.

Low-end is completely different than low-margin... Actually, the GP has a point, how can you sell $500 a device that is supposedly "cutting-edge", and make a huge margin? Are the production costs that low? Then how is it high-end.

We were talking PCs, not handhelds.

And then there is the HP/DELL/Acer vs Apple argument... So how is a low-margin PC at $1000 crappier than a high-margin iMac at the same price?

$400-$600 is the low end, not $1,000.
There are no $1,000 iMacs.

I am quite sure that some PCs are sold at the same price range than some iMacs, the figure is not that important, replace by whatever price range you wish to compare

Yes it does matter, because once we leave the low-end, we also leave the razor-thin low-margin.

Now DELL or HP manpower is probably cheaper than Apple manpower (design isn't everything for those companies), so components are easily better in an HP or DELL machine than in an Apple machine, for the same price.

Non sequitur, and false.

Of course if you compare a $600 DELL to a $3000 iMac, you will probably find better hardware in the latter, but that's hardly the point, is it?

At last, an almost glimmer of insight. Apple doesn't have a $600 iMac because the iMac is overpriced, it doesn't have a $600 iMac because a $600 iMac would suck. Apple does have a $600 Mac mini, and that's as low as they go (and even then, it is incredibly small, while still avoiding the low-end components found in cheap PCs).

Re:half a million? by hkmwbz · 2010-04-27 10:49 · Score: 1

Contrary to common misconception here on Slashdot, iPhone far, far outsells *all* Android handsets combined.

So because it outsells something now, it will always do that?

The notion that Apple, or Steve Jobs, are "quaking like a motherfucker" is absurd. iPhone is the leader.

Yes, right now. Does that mean that it will always be the leader? So, do explain why you'd think that anyone in Apple's position would be "quaking"?

So, do explain why you'd think that anyone in Apple's position would be "quaking"?

Because Android is a huge threat.

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Re:half a million? by hkmwbz · 2010-04-27 10:53 · Score: 1

FYI, Schmidt didn't attend any meetings where the iPhone was discussed.

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Re:half a million? by English+French+Man · 2010-04-27 10:57 · Score: 1

The context was between Android and Apple.

We were talking PCs, not handhelds.

Which is it? The first quote is from the message I first answered to.

Apple doesn't have a $600 iMac because the iMac is overpriced, it doesn't have a $600 iMac because a $600 iMac would suck.

So we agree, Apple products are overpriced? You may be happy with this, I'm not. And I assure you, while low-end, high-margin products may not exist, high-end, low-margin do, and it's better for the consumer than the same kind of high-end with a high margin.

--
If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.

Re:half a million? by pseudofrog · 2010-04-27 17:06 · Score: 1

iPhone is still the leader

Please define "leader". The iPhone is a leader in no useful metric I can think of.

Slashdot Mirror

No Verizon Partnership For Google's Nexus One

176 of 206 comments (clear)