Google Hopes to Disaggregate Carriers with gPhone 183
Hugh Pickens writes "The New York Times has a look at Google's plan to loosen the carriers' control over their mobile phone networks in an effort to bring the dynamics of the PC-oriented Internet to the mobile Internet hoping that it can beat competitors in an open environment. The Google Phone or gPhone which is expected to be unveiled later this year will not compete with the iPhone but will help Google distribute their online services. Google intends to provide software that will be built into phones sold by many manufacturers and, unlike Microsoft's Windows Mobile, Google is not expected to charge phone makers a licensing fee for their software. Google will make its money brokering ads on the mobile phones and even envisions a free phone service one day supported entirely through ad revenue."
Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's a non-starter for Canada, given the outrageous data fees...
Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, one can only assume that Google would require the carriers to offer either all of the features of their application suite, or none at all. And once one or two national carriers (or a handful of regional ones) start adopting this software, the rest will be compelled to make a decision:
Play ball with Google and adjust business models accordingly. This is obviously a somewhat frightening concept for companies like Verizon which are deeply entrenched in selling individual services for exorbitant sums, and it will likely be an expensive task to perform.
or...
Distance themselves from the household name of Google, stubbornly maintain the status quo, and fade into obscurity as an increasingly-clued consumer populace flocks toward their Google-embracing competition. And where the former choice was merely frightening and expensive, this one will be downright terrifying and death-bringing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's some ultra-smart dudes at Google, at this point. The next major shift in computing will be smartphones. Only an open system with an excellent SDK for 3rd party applications has much chance of dominating, so the current players seem to be Google and Microsoft. I personally have disliked every version of Windows CE I've ever seen, though I hear good things about the latest version. Based on open-source GNU/Linux, Google's got a real shot at the largest new market on the horizon, IMO.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Diaggregate Carriers? Only one catch... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dammit! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
But the cell companies like control (Score:5, Interesting)
And (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And (Score:5, Funny)
Hello, 911
"... one moment please. You have dialed 911. gPhone will place your call shortly. Please listen to these 3 contextual ads."
"Hi, need a lawyer? Call 1-900-SUX-2-B-U!"
"Need an ambulance in a hurry? Call 123-456-7890"
"Remember Forest Lawn - when it comes time to go to that big sleep."
"Thak you for waiting. gPhone will now connect you to 911"
"This is 911 emergency services. Your call is important to us. In the meantime, plase listen to these contextual ads ..."
Re:And (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it does make a difference. If T-Mobile meets my needs better, am I going to go with them or with AT&T? What about Verizon? Yes, these companies have to compete for our money, so yes, it does make a difference. That was the whole reason for number portability.
Not quote. For prepaid you have a point, but you still have to keep in mind the cost of the phones as most are locked to a certain carrier. For service plan, most require a multi-year contract which really takes competition out of the equation.
If phones were not tied to providers, providers didn't require contracts, and everything wasn't controlled by a handful of companies, I'd completely agree with you about letting competition sort it out.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the gphone will be good in opening up competition, but I won't go for ad-supported cell service.
Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a couple vendors. They all charge roughly the same prices, offer roughly the same services, probably share customer support reps in some developing nation, own the same Congressmen, they're all charging us the 'regulatory fee reclamation' shit, etc.
I've had four different cell phone providers. There's little difference.
Google may make their money off advertisers, but they've proven themselves far more responsible, ethically minded, and consumer responsive than any of the cell phone companies. Sure, the advertisers pay their bills, but those advertisers won't exist without us consumers using their products and thus providing advertisers with eyeballs to purchase.
Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I have nothing against an ad supported network, so long as I can still choose to pay (instead of ads) if I want to.
Re:And (Score:5, Funny)
but why?
"hey dave! let's go get some burgers!"
"Holy crap what was that?"
"Sorry, I get free cellphone through google, it plays ad's based on keywords from the last thing you said"
"this sucks!"
Oh yeah, I can see an ad supported free cellphone working just fine.
Re:And (Score:5, Funny)
"MY EARS!"
Re:And (Score:5, Interesting)
In looking at options to get the lowest monthly cost, well there just weren't many options to be truthful. One option was 700 shared family minutes for $79 USD/month or 1,400 shared family minutes for $89 USD/month. WTF? If I can get 1,400 minutes for $90/month, why can't I get 700 minutes for $45/month?
When it comes to the mobile market, my money doesn't seem to control much of anything.
Easy way to save a ton of money on a mobile phone (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically speaking, you can usually choose to buy the phone outright (rather than at a huge discount) and forgo the contract. Have to agree that cell service is overpriced, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm betting they'll do this, do it right, and revolutionize the cell phone - putting the crap old guard out of business or at least change them into something better. I for one would welcome free ca
You will get them anyway. (Score:2)
Even if you are paying a phone company they are not going to turn their nose up at an additional revenue source if it is there to be had.
At least with a more open environment the various will have to compete against each other to be less annoying and provide a better experience so you have a reason to choose their app/service.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the free Netzero internet service? Want a phone service to be as reliable and easy to use? I expect this to go the way of free Netzero internet or commercial free cable TV or subscriber magazines free of commercials.
In short, it will devolve into a paid service with advertisements.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Google charges reasonable or no fees to the carriers, but then allows the carriers to still make a living with reasonable caps, then the carriers should shut the hell up, since it appears Google won't be charging them a fee, unlike mshaft. Afterall, they, like the smaller of us, have an OPPORTUNITY, not a RIGHT to do business. They need to update their aging business models.
Meanwhile, Chinese on the mainland (and possibly in Japan, Korea, and a few other
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, I feel old and dumb. It takes me 3 months just to figure out where all the stupid functions are on these UI-from-Hell cell phones (I'm looking at YOU Motorola...). Maybe they just hang them on a cord or something and have them bleep randomly. Maybe the Oriental mind can fathom the bizar
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The companies have the power given by the market regulator.
I think all consumers should complain more about the market regulator and less about the companies. They always try to maxi
Um, okay (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a big difference between putting a bunch of beige boxes into a rack and designing a piece of hardware. Google has experience with using hardware that was designed and built by other folks, but they don't do hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
To quote the link from the grandparent: "Servers are commodity-class x86 PCs running customized versions of Linux."
What part of that isn't beige, oh all-knowing A.C.?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, from the description of this project, it sounds like they don't intend to design and build their own phone. It sounds like they
ads (Score:4, Interesting)
And then some ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, and aslo ads and ads.
I think there is enough ads already, I'm starting to hate Google.
look an ad in my sig!
heurg!
Re:ads (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like Google's vision of a world paid for by Ads either. Because we'll end up paying for services one way or another, through the marketing budgets of the products we buy if not directly. The other consequence of this is that we never feel ownership of anything because we don't pay for it and we get a 'well you can have a refund, what do you want for nothing' if we complain about the quality of a service. Ads are damned intrusive (by their design), annoying and ugly!
Re: (Score:2)
So, it would seem that short of living in the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure some pre-teens will fall for free ad-supported phones, but nobody with any money at all is going to put up with it.
Re:ads (the critical measure of success) (Score:2)
The critical metric, the fulcrum, the absolute measure of success or failure of ad-supported media, in any form, is the ratio of ads:content. If ads outweigh content in terms of user attention, you'll lose.
I could argue that ads are more effective when they're in the background, and don't capture your attention dir
Re:ads (Score:4, Insightful)
However, AT&T and Verizon's wireless arm sit somewhere among the RIAA, MPAA, and the guy who designed the packaging on jewel cases in terms of the amount of respect/patience I have for them.
If we can get a carrier that doesn't treat its customers like dirt, I think the ads are a decent tradeoff. Even better, if the carriers are indeed disaggregated, we'll wind up with a system like Europe, where the cost of the handset is often *completely* separated from the plan. The Mobile networks provide the airspace and the bandwidth -- that's it. Pricing schemes tend to be mostly straightforward.
I pay 10p ($0.20 USD) GBP per minute outgoing, and 5p ($0.10 USD) per SMS outgoing on my UK mobile. No monthly fees or bizarre restrictions like you see on US prepay carriers. If you're a heavy user, a prepay scheme might cost you a bit more money, but for someone like myself who rarely gabs on for more than a minute or two, it's much cheaper than what I used to pay in the US. (OT: This is more or less the *only* instance under which something is cheaper in the UK than the US. This graph [yahoo.com] should scare the pants off of you if you're an American.)
I didn't mind paying for my handset [wikipedia.org] either. I needed a basic but durable handset, and the fine forces of capitalism indeed produced such a device at a reasonable cost. I'm pretty sure that all Verizon users can testify that their entire line of devices is absolute garbage.
So... bring it on. I welcome some 'real' competition in the industry.
woeful be the day.... (Score:2)
-how would TV networks afford to do anything?
-how would 75% of the websites out there stay in business?
and so on...
I'm sure it'll never happen, because the human race does seem to be sheepish enough to succumb to advertisements, but it's still an interesting thought experiment to wonder what'll happen when/if the paradi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that advertisers don't seem to understand this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's cool that Google won't be charging for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
&
Because I'm sure the manufacturers will pass the savings on directly to you and me.
Even if they would, I'd rather pay the $10, or $20 more than watch ads. On a tiny mobile screen, you lose from ads in 4 ways:
1. Extra time required to download the ad (we're not all on the latest 3G).
2. Extra fees for the extra bandwidth from the ads (unlimited data plans are rare
Just curious (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just curious (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll need more than the rights to the spectrum. They'll need to set up antennas everywhere, which includes both the broadcast equipment, tower, as well as renting/buying the space occupied by the towers. If memory serves, an unobstructed GSM tower covers about a 2-mi radius (say, 12.5 sq mi), so covering the most populous tenth of the (nearly 3 million sq mi total) lower 48 states would involve 24,000 towers. CDMA can be configured to cover a wider area, but this should give you an idea of the scope of the project.
I hate carriers at least as much as anybody else, but after Google makes that kind of investment they may find it hard not to be Evil with their pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the AC who responded to you is quite correct. Power constraints on the mobile phone will limit its maximum distance from a tower. Worse, a mobile phone would have an approximately omnidirectional antenna, which makes it even harder on battery life. But also just as importantly, you don't want a mobile phone that transmits a lot of power right next to your brain even if the battery technology was available.
Secondly, city dwellers are some of the most important market segments, and you definit
Re: (Score:2)
Transmission distance is a function of both carrier wavelength and power. The longer the carrier wavelength, the lower the power. 700MHz light has a fair bit longer wavelength than a lot of mobile phone bands; it was chosen for TV because it travelled so well.
Unfortunately, the data bandwidth is a function of the frequency, and so a lower frequency means less data, which means more towers to get the same service to as many people.
Re: (Score:2)
some os frontend for some htc/whatever hardware would make much more sense, or improved mobile sites and improved mobile support for gmail, google apps etc. you can already get gmail and google through j2me apps on ju
obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
ph0wned!
Single Page (Score:4, Insightful)
My basic issue is this: How much cheaper is an ad-subsidized gPhone going to be in comparison to some relatively nice pre-paid phone?
Other than a low(er) price... a Google Phone isn't magically going to bring the internet to the masses. Are Google ads going to subsidize a 3G network? Even the iPhone isn't anything special unless you're within range of a wifi network and/or are paying AT&T $2,000 for their service plan over the next two years.
As far as I noticed, TFA never comes out and says what a gPhone is going to bring to the market that will win over consumers. Brand name? Features? Function?
Re:Single Page (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about TFA, because like most people around here I didn't bother to read it, but I do have a bit of a background in the wireless industry. And ANYTHING that ANYBODY can do to loosen the tight grip that the carriers have on our collective balls is a good thing.
Right now the carriers control what types of phones you can use on their networks. They want to lock out anything that might compete with their own content offerings. It's bad enough that Microsoft can make all their own services (MSN Search and IE come to mind) the default in Windows. Now imagine if they made it outright impossible to install other software or content that didn't come from them. Because that's what the cellular carriers do!
There is no reason that there shouldn't be a wireless version of carterfone. This document [ssrn.com] provides an interesting read into the current state of affairs. Consumers on Verizon and Sprint are screwed. AT&T and T-Mobile customers fare a little better, since they always have the option of buying unbranded/unlocked GSM phones. But even at that the carriers are attempting to impose artificial limitations -- like T-Mobile's claim (false, but they still sell this to the unwashed masses) that MyFaves won't work on a non-MyFaves phone.
All the power to Google if they can open up this market just a little bit. I won't ever be owning an ad-sponsored phone. But maybe they will bring something similar to carterfone to the market. They certainly have nothing to fear from the carriers, unlike the equipment makers (Mororola, Nokia, etc) that are afraid to speak up for fear of losing that carriers business.
Will not compete? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really think they expect me to carry a gPhone in one pocket and an iPhone in another.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm sure they'll keep this in mind when designing the new combination giPhone... now where should one put that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Iraq?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
b
Re: (Score:2)
Not Competition? (Score:3, Insightful)
its a phone, it has applications, it has internet access.. Of course its competition..
Google's Experience (Score:2, Interesting)
They claim that Google will have hard time because it doesn't have the experience dealing with complex hardware. Sure, maintaining what is probably the world's largest search engine isn't complex. And as far as the handset hardware goes they won't be the first to port the kernel to a mobile platform, and someone else may have already
Not just ads. Ads tailored to your conversation (Score:5, Funny)
"Hey, let's have dinner tonight"
(Robotic Google voice) "May we suggest ... Chez Panisse ... which is 2.4 miles from your present location, Bill, and 1.3 miles from your present location, Karen. Reservations are available at 7:30 and 7:45 PM. A reservation has been made for you at 7:30. Bill, please turn right on Western. Karen, go 1 mile straight ahead to Central, then turn left on Western. Chez Panisse is at 1540 Western. Have a nice dinner, and thank you for choosing Google for your phone service."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"I worked like a slave today ..."
gPhone ad: "Are you looking for slaves? Say 'yes' to search for slaves in your area."
"I hate this gPhone!"
gPhone: "Thank you for your user input. We have subscribed you to 5000 email lists for gay pr0n, and sent out invites in your name to everyone in your phone book, as well as everyone in THEIR phone books. Have a nice day."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, let's have dinner tonight"
(Robotic Google voice) "May we suggest ... Chez Panisse ... which is 2.4 miles from your present location, Bill, and 1.3 miles from your present location, Karen. Reservations are available at 7:30 and 7:45 PM. A reservation has been made for you at 7:30. Bill, please turn right on Western. Karen, go 1 mile straight ahead to Central, then turn left on Western. Chez Panisse is at 1540 Western. Have a nice dinner, and thank you for choosing Google for your phone service."
Okay, it's funny, and it's a little scary. But consider that, in a gift economy, this kind of interaction might actually prove beneficial. Imagine, for example, if Chez Panisse actually turned out to be the right place for a date? Bruce Sterling wrote a charming story about this, titled Maneki Neko [amazon.com]. While the spectre of Big Brother and Total Information Awareness looms large over any information-based society, we sometimes lose sight of the fact that this power can be used for good as well.
They key to t
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, let's have dinner tonight"
(Robotic Google voice) "May we suggest
Reservations at Chez Panisse without waiting 6 months? Unheard of.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and to the first poster: it's on Shattuck Ave.
Re: (Score:2)
It made the reservations to Chez Panisse six months ago in anticipation of this call.
Geez... noobs...
(wait a minute... is this real? Or is it GoogleSim?)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I don't see this happening in the US (Score:5, Insightful)
I really do not think their apps will be integrated into phones sold in the US for the major carriers. The manufacturers will have it in the original OS install of the phone probably, but let us not forget that when US carriers purchase the phones to sell for their network, they tend to heavily modify the phones OS. Generally all useful features installed on a phone that are free to use are disabled, or erased (Motorola phones, and Verizon policies come to mind). The US carriers want you to pay them more money, when it comes to having something useful (fully functional Bluetooth, easy transfer of files, ect). They like playing the "nickel and dime you to death" game. This is why phone modding is so popular. People want the functionality back in the phones, that the carriers removed.
In European markets, as well as others outside of North America, however, might see a great benefit here.
Re: (Score:2)
As a European, I gotta tell you we don't have some special love for ads on our phones either. I've changed two service providers since the previous ones would demand sending me SMS for various promotions and lotteries I couldn't care less about.
Google is milking the ads idea horribly and starting to piss off people.
They better come up with a new trick if they want to expand outside the desktop search bus
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's completely different though (Score:2)
With more open phones/networks (ie those not locked down to the extent they often are in the US) there is room for much more competition based on quality of apps and user experience.
I just got a new Nokia N95 ("free" if I commit to a 2 year contract) from Vodafone Australia. The b
Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Funny)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why Would Google Tip its Hand? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why Would Google Tip its Hand? (Score:5, Interesting)
You're assuming google actually wants to acquire the spectrum, rather than make the carriers do a repeat of the dark fibre build-out.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Uh, your item number 2 is suspect. Who says the carriers are actually going to build out anything? And even if
Someday... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
in the year 2050... (Score:2, Insightful)
Finally a competitor in a non-competative market (Score:4, Insightful)
So, hurry up google, I need you.
Re:Finally a competitor in a non-competative marke (Score:2)
Re:Finally a competitor in a non-competative marke (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The plans are cheap. You can tether. You can install any Palm software you want -- and there's a lot of it. You can also write your own. It's a good phone that also takes photos and videos, plays videos, plays audio, displays pdfs, has imap and pop support out of the box, supports the gmail and google maps apps, has a full-sized sd slot, comes with editors and viewers for MS docs, and supports ssh (client, not server). It doesn't run Linux, but other than that, it'
Re: (Score:2)
As an owner of a Treo 650 and a tester for Linux4palm, it is my duty to direct you to hackndev [hackndev.com] where they have been successful in running Linux on a Treo 650 and I have tested it myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Forcing the Airwaves Open (Score:4, Interesting)
Google tried to force the 700MHz band open to any terminal device, unbundling the network from the dialtone. It didn't work. But there are other ways, and Google is persistent. Google bought lots of fiber and built lots of datacenters, so it can mount its own competitive telco. But Google's model calls for everyone to have unfettered access to all content and people on all the networks, so Google can help everyone navigate everyone else's content (and each other). They'll get there. And the incumbent telcos (and cablecos which keep their own bundled monopolies, though they just got the cableboxes unbundled from them this year) can't compete with Google. It's too rich, too popular, too smart. Unfolding history is on Google's side. I just wish it would all happen a lot faster.
ads everywhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what's there to "disaggregate"? (Score:2)
VOIP (Score:2, Interesting)
I might want an Ad supported phone (Score:2)
A well targeted ad, is not that annoying. I am not saying this would be easy to do, but you giv
Re: (Score:2, Informative)