

Reuters: Google phone with T-Mobile contract in Jan - ippisl
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BD49220091214?type=technologyNews

======
eli
I'm not sure I approve of changing what a HN story links to after there is
already discussion related to the old link.

~~~
andreyf
Agreed. I'd much rather have a separate discussion now that the news is
"official".

~~~
eli
It's not that the news is more official, it's that the original link was
speculating about a $99 unsubsidized price, which is pretty exceptional for a
smartphone. That's not in the article at all.

------
eli
...according to a rumor posted in a comment on another blog.

I'd say there's basically no chance of this being accurate. Otherwise, I'd buy
a case of phones and resell them for parts. They surely cost at least $300 to
produce just in parts.

~~~
psranga
Sounds pretty believable and reasonable to me (except for launch date).

Do you have further info on why the phone will cost about $300 to build? In
comparison, the iPhone 3GS allegedly has BOM of $178.
[http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-
Carries-178-96...](http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-
Carries-178-96-BOM-and-Manufacturing-Cost-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx)

Curious here: who would buy the "parts"? It'll cost you a lot just to
disassemble the phone.

~~~
eli
I don't put a ton of faith in iSuppli, but regardless my point is that it is
unlikely anyone would sell a device at a loss--and $99 would surely be a loss,
yes?--without any obvious way to recoup that money.

~~~
buro9
How much are you willing to pay to put the brakes on your competitor and to
catch up fast?

$100 per customer now to prevent them from locking into the iPhone isn't quite
so ludicrous if you also have a long-term strategy to get that money back (and
then some) using the advertising in the shipped google services.

Besides, you have a war chest for just such things... but instead of spending
it on acquisitions you can use it to help buy customers, they become happy
with you too.

~~~
kiiski
I'm not really familiar with the subject, but if Google uses their profit from
online advertising to get people to use their phones (by selling them cheaper
than "possible"), wouldn't that be the same as Microsoft putting ie in
Windows? So what do the anti-competition laws say about this?

~~~
mcav
Google doesn't have a monopoly in mobile phones, so the anti-competition laws
probably wouldn't affect them much.

~~~
gojomo
Actually, the potential issue would be whether they are using profits from one
monopoly (search) to undercut competition in another competitive market
(mobile phones). A guest post at TechCrunch actually had a good overview of
the ways Google might face antitrust action:

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/01/what-an-antitrust-
case-...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/01/what-an-antitrust-case-against-
google-might-look-like/)

------
brown9-2
The only thing anyone knows for sure is that Google handed out a demo phone to
it's employees last week.

Every other part of this story is pure conjecture, speculation, and anonymous
sources.

I think the Internet is setting itself up for a huge disappointment here.

~~~
cmgarcia
I couldn't agree more. I was stupefied when I saw this headline on HN.

~~~
mortenjorck
Still, the headline is only six characters from the truth. Prefix "Rumor:"

~~~
brown9-2
But isn't that the point? How valuable is it to discuss rumors?

I heard a rumor last week that Microsoft is going to buy Apple. Should we
spend dozens of articles talking about it? I heard another rumor that the
movie Avatar is a secret communist plot to take over the world. Is that worth
10 articles too?

Also I'm not sure if someone edited "Rumor:" out of the title but it is
currently neither in the HN title or the Reuters article.

~~~
andrew1
I guess the interest in and plausibility of the rumor will govern how much it
is discussed. If the rumor being true will affect people (say iPhone
developers) then it seems natural that people would want to discuss the
likelihood of the rumor and what the consequences of it will be.

------
michaelkeenan
I will bet 2:1 odds that Google will not sell the phone for $99 to people with
old Google accounts. I'll put up USD$100 (against your $33), payment to be
made by donation to the winner's favorite charity, proof by forwarding the
email receipt. Reply to this comment or see my contact details on my user page
to take up the offer and work out the details.

Edit: changed from 2:1 odds to 3:1 odds (edit 2: the original edit changed the
other side's amount from $50 to $33, though as jfoutz pointed out I'm not
thinking of ratios correctly, so I've changed the ratio back to 2:1 and left
the $33 as $33).

Edit 3: thanks kw_ for taking the bet! For the record, the main reason I think
I'll win is because the iPhone reportedly costs $179 to make[1], I'm assuming
the cost of the Google Phone will be similar, and I don't see it making sense
for Google to sell it at a loss. I choose the charity Village Outreach,
because it is the top-rated charity at the charity-effectiveness-judging
organization GiveWell[2].

[1]<http://9to5mac.com/gigom-who-rich-iPhone-34040>

[2]<http://www.givewell.net/charities/top-charities>

~~~
smokey_the_bear
I'm not the betting type, but I could see why Google might do this. A big
strength of the iphone as a app buying platform is that everyone already has a
payment method set up, so you just have to click a button to buy. Google could
require people to buy the phones with Google Payments, then they'd
automatically have a "spend money" button hooked up, ready to buy apps and
whatever else.

------
waterlesscloud
The only way this even sort of makes sense is if Google's primary goal is to
force a dramatic drop in cellular data plans. A cheap, desirable phone that's
not locked in to a carrier via a contract could, potentially, force intense
competition on rates. The phone is removed from the equation when selecting a
carrier, and consumers can change carriers on a whim with no penalty. Service
has to improve and prices have to drop.

I don't know though. That looks a little too big picture for an actual
business strategy.

~~~
yardie
Problem is you can already by phones without contracts and carriers are in no
rush to negotiate to lower prices. If intense competition you mean 20
carriers, I agree. But most countries have 1-3 carriers. And most haven't
moved on price at all. They might add features and bandwidth, but rarely do
you get a price break.

------
jbarciauskas
First hint this is total bunk: There is no prepaid $29 data plan on AT&T. The
Pick Your Plan menu includes a $19.99 100MB data option, thats the maximum
prepaid data option. On T-Mobile, the internet-only postpaid plan starts at
$29.99 for 200MB and $39.99 for unlimited data. I doubt the prepaid plan is
CHEAPER, if it even exists (and I couldn't find it) and I don't think the
carriers will be creating new plans just for this phone that isn't even being
sold through them (in the scenario described).

------
ilamont
This is an unconfirmed rumor. It looks like it was sourced from a semi-
anonymous comment on another blog post.

More important question: If this product is for real, and it takes off, are
Google's partner carriers prepared to deal with the surge in traffic?

------
cbetz
If this is really true, I will consider ebaying my droid, coughing up the $150
cancellation fee and saying goodbye to Verizon forever.

The U.S. badly needs an open (i.e. European-style) cell phone market. Google
has (hopefully) realized this and is doing something about it.

~~~
davidw
I wonder if these will work in Europe. If so, I'll get someone to ship me one
soonest... that's a decent price for an unlocked Android phone, which I've
been wanting for a while.

~~~
rsclarke
The article on [1] rumours pricing, costing €20 per month for roaming on
HSDPA. One just has to wait until it is released to find out I guess, but I
too look forward to seeing the device being launched in Europe/UK.

[1] [http://www.androidguys.com/2009/12/14/reuters-nexus-one-
avai...](http://www.androidguys.com/2009/12/14/reuters-nexus-one-available-
directly-through-google-website-january-5/)

------
dminor
So it's an HTC phone built with Google's input, will be carried on T-Mobile,
and Google sells an unlocked version. The G1 could be described in exactly
these terms!

------
eob
Seeing this kind of rumor posted to HN always makes me wonder if it has jumped
the shark.

------
whalesalad
The Dream is the G1, it was never known as the Dream. It was known as the
Dragon/Passion and now Nexus One.

------
cschep
Any AT&T users just ready for something different? I love my iPhone, but I got
an original one so I've had the same experience for three years now. I might
pick this up if it's compatible with AT&T's network, just to see the other
side of the coin.

------
ax0n
Would you sell your privacy for a bargain on a phone? I think I might be
tempted to. Sheesh.

~~~
dschobel
is there something specifically wrong with Android phones vs other platforms
or is that another tired reference to the Schmidt quote?

~~~
alex_c
I don't know about wrong, per se, but Android phones are absolutely tied to
your Google account. Doesn't have to be your MAIN Google account, of course,
but still.

~~~
dschobel
Sure, to the extent you want to access google services. But isn't that a
given?

My desktop is tied to my google account to the same extent that I choose to
use google search and email.

~~~
alex_c
No, to the extent where the first step in booting up your Android phone for
the first time is filling in your Google account information (at least on the
HTC Dream I tried). It's closer to Windows asking you for your MSN or Live or
whatever login the first time you boot it up.

------
sown
That just sounds too good to be true, especially the data plan situation.

------
peterwwillis
Android Central addresses the rumor status of this story:
[http://www.androidcentral.com/getting-little-something-
our-c...](http://www.androidcentral.com/getting-little-something-our-chest-re-
nexus-one)

* There is no "Google Phone." * HTC, not Google, is the manufacturer. * Currently, no carriers have been announced. * We don't know if it will be available for purchase by the general public. * We don't know when the Nexus One may be made available for sale. * We don't know what it will cost. * The Nexus One, for all intents and purposes, has the basic features of today's high-end smartphones.

More hype-hate here: [http://forum.androidcentral.com/htc-nexus-one-opus-
one/4182-...](http://forum.androidcentral.com/htc-nexus-one-opus-one/4182-too-
much-hype.html)

And Droid already has android 2.1 ported to it:
[http://www.androidcentral.com/android-21-ported-motorola-
dro...](http://www.androidcentral.com/android-21-ported-motorola-droid)

------
tghw
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 _wipes a tear_

Seriously, VOIP, over US carriers? Yeah, they'll let that happen...

~~~
grandalf
T-Mobile is the little guy right now but it has the most forward-thinking
policies, however with limited 3g coverage.

~~~
gaius
I have been a T-mobile customer since 1994 (they had 2 handsets and 2 tariffs
back then, business and personal) and this is the first time I have heard
anyone describe them as forward-thinking.

~~~
tsuraan
I've only been a customer for about 5 years, but in that time I've heard their
CEO saying they won't be banning or hunting down people who use their phones
for tethering, I've seen them roll out the Android phone before anybody else,
and I've had really good experiences with their network (in msp and in the
rocky mountains). I don't know if any of those are "forward-thinking", but
I've actually been a happy customer, rather than a grudging one.

~~~
grandalf
I pay $60 per month for unlimited voice and data, and I can tether as much as
I want with no fees, etc.

tmobile's main problem is network coverage (around San Francisco it's quite
bad) ...

But its policies and customer service are quite reasonable. From what I
gather, at&t has just as bad network coverage but doesn't like you to tether
and charges a lot more.

To get measurably better service one needs sprint or verizon, which charge
even more than at&t

