

Why So Many Are So Wrong on the 'Google Phone' - tokenadult
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357081,00.asp

======
novum
I had my hands on one for about a minute from a friend who's a Google
employee. The screen was gorgeous and looked to be a little larger than the
iPhone's. There's a row of 4 touch buttons at the base of the screen and the
phone vibrates briefly when you push them.

I was completely baffled as to the purpose of the trackball. It could click,
point, and roll-to-scroll, but you can do all those things via gestures on the
screen.

It has a cute white icon on the back; a little android waving a semacode flag.

~~~
houseabsolute
Re: the touch buttons -- their design is a serious mistake that makes me
question the vision behind the entire operation. Why? Look at the purpose of
each of the buttons:

* The Back Button (leftmost) -- the operation of this button is context sensitive (Am I going back a web page, back to the previous app? It depends on how I got to where I am now.) and it is so unfortunately right beside the backspace button in the landscape keyboard. This wouldn't be a problem for a physical button, but since it's touch-sensitive it's very easy to brush by back and lose all the form data you just entered on the webpage.

* The Menu Button (center-left): Hidden functionality is a bad idea. One of the nice things about the iPhone is that it's very rare the application has a capability that you cannot discover by looking at the contents of the screen. Android, on the other hand, routinely hides functionality in a menu. Worse, the type of functionality hidden is different in every application. You will never be able to guess where the "Accounts" menu button is going to be without looking at it.

* The Home Button (center-right): I have no problem with this button aside from its touch sensitivity.

* The Search Button (rightmost): On iPhones, we know this button as "hit the home button twice."

Re: the trackball -- it's because they don't have long-click precise targeting
for the cursor on Android phones like they do on the iPhone.

~~~
gehant
_their design is a serious mistake that makes me question the vision behind
the entire operation_

IMHO, you're in the weeds about the vision of this device, the true disruptive
potential doesn't have to do with out-designing Apple.

I also got to see a few of these throughout the weekend...there are ~15,000+
and they are unlocked. If Google goes to market (direct-to-consumer), priced
above true cost & free from contract - instead of the absolute BS games that
wireless providers have been stringing out - that is _seriously_ disrupting
the market.

To be honest, buttons are the last thing I would be worried about if Google
turns the market on it's head. That said, they might, they might not, but the
possibility has me curious until the actual release.

~~~
houseabsolute
There is a reason why all the carriers in the US subsidize phones with long
contracts. The reason is that Americans like to spread out their purchases.
Offering the opportunity to not do so isn't going to have a major impact
because too few people want to buy their phone outright for it to matter.

In any case, the vision I'm questioning is the design vision. If the sales
method were the only novel thing about this device, Google could as easily
have paid another company to release their newest phone through Google's
portal instead of directly through the network.

------
samstokes
Some good points, the key one being there's no evidence yet suggesting this is
actually a major play from Google.

I've been wondering about the "SIM-free only" strategy. In the UK, SIM-free is
an established but niche sector. You only buy SIM-free if the phone model is
the differentiator, and that's only true for power users. (The iPhone has
started to push hardware-as-differentiator toward the mainstream, but I don't
think it's there yet.)

There are different kinds of power users, but one identifiable segment is the
messaging-centric user, who wants a physical keyboard, which this phone
doesn't have. From that perspective SIM-free is an odd choice. Maybe the
multimedia / entertainment / "cloud services" power user segments are big
enough to justify it, though.

If the article's wrong and this _is_ a big move by Google, it could be an
attempt by them to promote SIM-free as an option. It would make it a lot
easier for their Android partners and themselves to compete on handset
hardware if consumers actually have a choice of handsets (and aren't
restricted by which carrier has coverage in their area).

I disagree with the article's conclusion on pricing though:

> The iPhone actually costs $599, but what most people see is the $199 price
> after its carrier subsidy. Google could release a truly $199 phone, but
> they'd lose a huge amount of money on every sale.

Not all phones cost that much SIM-free. High-end Nokia phones have comparable
hardware and build quality to the iPhone, but some of them (e.g. E series)
sell for £200 unlocked.

For one thing, the iPhone might well cost significantly more to manufacture
than the Nexus One. Apple had no prior experience of manufacturing phone
hardware, whereas HTC have lots; HTC also probably have lots of efficient
supply lines Apple don't yet have. Also, it's 2.5 years since the iPhone
release; even assuming the hardware and build quality are comparable, costs
should be lower by now.

Also, offering subsidised products to drive advertising traffic is sort of
Google's _thing_.

~~~
jsz0
Maybe someday. Right now Google would have to offer at least 2 different
handsets (GSM/CDMA) and would need to strike a deal with Verizon/Sprint
because they do not activate unapproved handsets. Sprint might be more
flexible on this because they're desperate for customers but Verizon will flat
out refuse your money if you want to use an unapproved, unlocked, phone.

~~~
gehant
_Right now Google would have to offer at least 2 different handsets (GSM/CDMA)
and would need to strike a deal with Verizon/Sprint_

Curious if that becomes a non-issue once Verizon rolls out 4G next year?
Sprint is the only provider not behind that platform (WiMax).

 _Verizon will flat out refuse your money if you want to use an unapproved,
unlocked, phone_ They've never had pressure from a 800 pound gorilla...could
be interesting.

<http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VZ> <http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG>

------
netcan

       Quick Summary:
    

..Americans' desperate wish to see the iPhone on a carrier other than AT&T.
Americans have for years felt that their wireless carriers are holding them
back.. ..Americans feel abandoned by supposedly customer-friendly Apple, who
did so much to advance the state of handheld technology but just can't quit
AT&T. So now they're looking to Google, whose motto is "don't be evil," to
liberate them..

..This is unlikely to happen..

..The U.S. uses two incompatible radio standards on three different spectrum
bands..

..Americans rely on carrier subsidies to make device prices look palatable.
The iPhone actually costs $599, but what most people see is the $199 price..

..I hate America's addiction to phone subsidies..

..Remember, unlocked smartphones have been available here for years.. Almost
nobody buys them..

..An anti-carrier line would compromise their great success so far at getting
Android phones into major carriers..

..Another boat Google would be rocking is their Open Handset Alliance..

..Google's goal is to get their software in front of as many eyeballs as
possible..

..Back in 2007, there was a lot of speculation behind how Apple would sell the
iPhone. One exciting idea was that Apple would start its own wireless carrier,
which would show the other carriers how to do customer service...

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I can't remember where but someone was claiming that the subsidized model is
bad for carriers too, but they feel trapped in it.

Google pushing against the model may have the same effect as Apple pushing the
record companies to sell music online (and then later) DRM free i.e. more
money for everyone.

------
billybob
I think these arguments are weak.

1) "Never mind that while you can build a phone that supports 3G on three
carriers, I've never seen a chipset that supports all four."

Maybe (or maybe not) all carriers, but netbooks are already sold that let you
choose from several major carriers, GSM and CDMA. A phone could do the same,
and even let you activate the device on multiple carriers simultaenously. Use
whichever has coverage where you are.

What, you don't like having 3 phone numbers? Just give out your Google Voice
number and have it ring them all, with a single, unified voice mail.

2) "If Google releases an unlocked GSM phone in the U.S., it's unlikely to
sell many units, because it will be seen as prohibitively expensive."

...unless someone finances it. Seriously, if carriers can finance phones, why
can't manufacturers, or third parties? They can, and they would if it looked
profitable. And as phones becomes more central as computing platforms, it will
look profitable. Just a matter of time.

I don't know whether Google will do this first or not. It would be a good
theatrical move for Apple to do it first - and make all their fans who hate
AT&T pee their pants with joy. But somebody will do it sometime, and it will
be a great day for phone service.

------
nailer
From the article: 'which many reports say is a variant of HTC's HD2 phone.'

The HD2 has a 4 inch screen, I don't think anyone is saying the phone looks
like a HD2. From all reports, this is simpyl the HTC Passion, distributed
internally amongst Google employees the same way the Dream and Magic were.
Which were (and are) also called 'Google phone' by Google employees.

In short: nothing to see here.

~~~
robk
I've also heard it called the Passion by Googlers as well.

------
biafra
Here in Europe we have subsidized mobile phones that are not SIM-locked. You
have to sign a 2-year (or more) contract though.

Why is that not possible in the US?

~~~
eli
T-Mobile US does that. If you have a contract in good standing you can request
a SIM unlock code.

------
houseabsolute
I agree with most of the points in this article. This phone is not going to
stand up to an iPhone in the eyes of anyone lucky enough to be able to use
both for a few days. I encourage anyone to take with skepticism the frantic
praise from Googlers who just got the phone. Their questionable taste in user
interface is well documented in the literature.

