
Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey - pinstriped_dude
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/why-google-became-a-carrier-humping-net-neutrality-surrender-monkey/
======
etherael
Google gave the market the option to go for a completely open environment with
the Nexus One, and in the words of this wired article what did it get in
return?

"Not cool enough."

The phone is brilliant, but the market went elsewhere with it's carrier locked
subsidised junk models. That's just a market reality, like it or not. Google
tried to "do the right thing" and the market went somewhere else. Making all
these points about what they could've done instead which basically amounted to
"become a direct competitor with Apple on the retail level" are not realistic
considering everything we know about Google and it's views and practices on
direct end user support.

If the market wants to shoot itself in the foot by choosing shitty products,
that's their cross to bear. It's not reasonable to place the blame on one of
the few companies that provided an out and had it thrown squarely back in
their face. The only problem I fear is that due to the failure of the Nexus
One they won't invest in a Nexus Two and the Android ecosystem will become a
swirling morass of telco crippled product, thus ending differentiation between
it and the competing iOS ecosystem.

The article does however make an interesting point, HP might do better with
webOS, they are accustomed to end user hand holding and playing the retail /
marketing game. If they can push a truly open ecosystem and manage to be
successful in units moved as well, they may well end up being what Android
might have been if the market had let it go in the direction Google had
clearly wanted it to go from inception.

~~~
aresant
Not cool enough was hardly the problem - count instead:

1 - the phone came with waaaay substandard service - no live customer service,
barely service via email

2 - no chance for the wide consumer market to play with the phone or interact
with the phone with online sales only

3 - mixed reviews from the professional tech review community

So while I agree google made an attempt it felt to me much more like a half
assed try in the context of this thread

~~~
etherael
Points 1 & 2 are what I was referring to when I pointed out that google just
doesn't work that way, they're not going to open a plexiglass cube in the
local megamall and handhold largely clueless end users via their version of
the genius bar, it's simply not in their DNA. I acknowledge that that is in
fact apparently an essential part of the path to market success in this arena
as evidenced by the sales numbers, but I'm personally underwhelmed by it and
simultaneously completely grok why Google has no interest in doing this.

Point 3 is news to me, every review I read on the N1 prior to purchasing one
was a "this beats the snot out of the iPhone" level heaping of glowing praise,
and now having had one myself for two months I see why; it's completely true.
It's the Ubuntu story in a phone form factor all over again; having the
clearly superior product does not mean that you end up with significant market
share or business success.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar,_

I think it would be great if google created a "genius bar". I'd call it the
"let me just google that for you" bar.

Basically, you go to the bar and ask the bartender a question. He types the
question into google and then reads you the answer. He might even refer you to
the genius bar in the unlikely even that a quick google search doesn't solve
your problem.

~~~
gvb
That is the square box on the right: <http://xkcd.com/627/>

------
lkjhgfhjk
We didn't need no net neutrality in Canada.

We have two network providers and you have a free choice to get your phone,
cable and wireless from whichever one of them operates in your town.

Sure we don't get 3G on our kindles and we got the iPhone a year after
uzbekistan and we pay twice as much as you do for the data - but that's our
choice as Canadian consumers.

~~~
msbarnett
Except we do get 3G on our Kindles, we got the iPhone years ago, and our 6 gig
data plan is a better deal than AT&T's 2 gig top-end plan

~~~
gamble
> Except we do get 3G on our Kindles

For a $2 per book fee.

------
jobeirne
FTA: ``Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It
could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued
those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans.''

Does this sound at all like a well-thought-out, reasonable, or mature course
of action to suggest that Google could have taken? I don't think so. What
exactly does ``a fair plan'' mean? $0.50 less for unlimited texting? $10 less
for wireless broadband?

FTA: ``That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet
again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you
— as an American — have lost.''

Sounds to me like Wired is taking a shot at riding a wave of childish rage
(and trying to get fat along the way).

~~~
Retric
A 15$ a month price reduction because they are not subsidizing a phone by
~400$?

~~~
orangecat
T-Mobile does that; their unsubsidized (and contract-free!) plans are
$20/month less. Of course neither Google nor T-Mobile ever bothered to tell
anybody about that.

------
mattmaroon
The comments about phone exclusivity have nothing whatsoever to do with
wireless net neutrality, but they do illustrate how everyone seems to want the
wireless data and voice providers to turn themselves into valueless,
interchangeable commodities fighting on margins much like major airlines. You
really can't blame them for not wanting to play that game. Time and again
other industries have shown that they will all lose. The exclusive phones and
two year contracts are what's keeping their industry at a reasonable profit
margin.

If I were running Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc, I probably would be pro net
neutrality, as a lot of the consumers of wireless data will care about it and
it will be a valuable feature, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to compete only on
price and coverage either. If the people writing about this topic could only
see past their loathing of the providers to be fair about it, and exclude off-
topic rants about the providers trying to actually make a profit, they might
further the discussion a lot better.

------
mralbie
Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Google played into the telecoms' hands,
they created the first viable competitor to the iPhone and gave it to the
telecoms saying "do whatever you want with this, feel free to modify it any
way you want".

Google's vision of a market in which handsets are independent from carriers is
absolutely poisonous to the industry's business model. Even though the iPhone
is very successful I don't think verizon or sprint are interested at all in a
world where they are just a "dumb pipe", they won't allow it.

Google lost this war because of their commitment to openness.

~~~
ergo98
I'm not quite understanding the "gave it to telecoms" part - The telecoms
don't make phones. Companies like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC do.

And while Google "gave" it to them, they've all dumped incredible amounts of
engineering hours into Android and their derivatives -- any illusion that they
just ran a Ubuntu install on their Galaxy S and that was it is utterly asinine
around parts like this.

Seriously, the "giving it away" bit is dumb, and while it sells on the non-
technical sites, it is an embarrassment on HN.

~~~
mralbie
I find your lack of courtesy to be the embarrassment to HN.

I was simply try to the make the point that by pushing an open source OS (as
in manufacturers could alter the OS to include anything the carriers insisted)
Google blindsided itself. They expected to create something that would change
the handset/carrier/customer relationship, instead they just enabled the next
generation of the same thing. The Nexus One is evidence of this.

------
jpdbaugh
So from moral prospective is it better to support Android or iOS at this
point? Its a fine case of damned if you do damned if you don't.

~~~
j79
True. IF I understand the implications of the deal between Google and Verizon
correctly (and to be honest, there's a good chance I don't...), I would argue
that what they're doing is far worse than Steve Jobs saying, "You're holding
it wrong."

At least, the actions of Apple (and Jobs) is limited directly to developers
and consumers who choose to use (or develop for) their products.

Verizon and Google? This affects all of us.

Edit: But to answer your question: Let's support the little guy and go webOS!

------
icarus_drowning
This article is absolutely ridiculous. Wired should be ashamed -- it is
sensationalist, unrealistic, and absolutely dishonest in its characterization
of the Google/Verizon policy proposal. The salient mistakes:

1\. "Google and Verizon announced Monday, as part of their bilateral net
neutrality trade agreement they want Congress to ratify, that open wireless
rules were unneccessary.

“We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional
wire-line world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive
and changing rapidly,” the joint statement said. “In recognition of the still-
nascent nature of the wireless-broadband marketplace, under this proposal we
would not now apply most of the [Net Neutrality] wire-line principles to
wireless, except for the transparency requirement.”

That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again
won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as
an American — have lost."

The proposal[1] specifically notes that the wireless exemption is time-
limited-- it is noted that _"at this time"_ these rules would not apply. The
proposal includes an annual review of this position, and the transparency
requirement attempts to ensure that this review could be conducted fairly and
with good information.

2\. "Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It
could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued
those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans."

Really? And destroyed any hope of Android ending up on those carriers in the
future? Does anyone really think this is a sane proposition? (Does anyone
believe that Google wouldn't be painted as a litigious bully by the very same
critics throwing around such absurd language as "carrier-humping surrender
monkeys"?)

3\. "The FTC would have had a reason to pry into unfair business practices.
Google could have eschewed online-only selling and partnered with the many
independently owned mobile phone shops around the country, so that potential
customers could play with the device before plunking down $500."

The reasons for the Nexus One's failures are complex, but I certainly think
that one of them was that _many consumers don't want to pay $500 for a device_
, and are more than happy to sign multi-year contracts in order to get a
subsidy on a smartphone.

4\. "Google easily could have attached conditions to all Google-powered
Android phones, banning carrier software that can’t be removed just as easily
as any other app. (Try getting rid of Sprint’s Nascar app on the EVO — if you
don’t have root, it can’t be done.). These conditions also could have banned
the blocking of Android 2.2’s built-in ability to be a Wi-Fi hot spot, which
both Sprint and Verizon have crippled."

I know the "open" crowd isn't a fan of these management policies-- I'm not
either-- but it seems hypocritical to assert that certain kinds of
customizations shouldn't be allowed on open-source software. The author
essentially wants Google to be the arbiter of what "openness" means, and
moreover, to apply an unequal standard to customers versus carriers.

Boo-hoo, right? Verizon certainly can deal with getting the short end of
_that_ stick. But the way they would most likely do that is to drop Android
altogether. At which point no one gets to customize it at all.

I am continually mystified by the legions of Google critics who expect that,
because they are huge, they can do whatever they want-- completely ignoring
the fact that they are huge _because they often don't do what they want to_.
Android is a success precisely because it balances openness with pragmatism.
At times I disagree on the balance that Google has chosen, but I don't for a
minute believe that Google can simply ignore reality and force carriers to
accept a model of the internet that they fundamentally disagree with.

We can argue about the merits of particular Google decisions (like, say, the
wireless exemption in the current policy proposal), but I don't think we get
anywhere by mis-characterizing them and using the kind of polarizing, childish
language like "carrier humping surrender monkeys".

[1]:
[http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/goog...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_framework_proposal_081010.pdf)

------
ghettobillgates
The Nexus One launch and seemed ghetto and not something I would have expected
from Google.

------
spot
"It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued
those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans."

the networks require different antennas. no phone can work on all of them and
be competitive.

google got verizon to agree to neutrality on the wire and can continue to
fight for fair treatment on wireless. i call this progress.

------
yanw
Google spokeswoman: “We have taken a backseat to no one in our support for an
open internet. We offered this proposal in the spirit of compromise. Others
might have done it differently, but we think locking in key enforceable
protections for consumers is progress and preferable to no protection.”

I have to agree, Google is getting flak here although they are the only
company that stood for net neutrality. They are being pragmatic here and
everyone is ignoring the good points in this agreement. Also being ignored the
fact that this is non-binding agreement that is designed to speed the debate.

~~~
gamble
This deal is just a fig leaf. Google supported net neutrality when it suited
their business goals. The moment Android took off it became a non-issue for
them. If anything, they should be taking more flak. Google's enjoyed an
incredibly soft treatment by the press thanks to their positioning as a
company that puts ethics before profits. Yet on the issues that matter, it's
increasingly clear that Google's ethics are highly situational.

~~~
moultano
They succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired
internet. Isn't that a strict improvement over the status quo?

~~~
metachor
No it is not. The status quo is that no one has yet made any binding
decisions, and the telecom operators will try to get away with what they can
until the FCC slaps them down.

Google just succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the
wired internet in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on
the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).

~~~
moultano
>in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless
internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).

[citation needed] This is explicitly not true according to the text of the
agreement. The agreement says that it is too early to determine whether net-
neutrality provisions are necessary for wireless networks, because it's a
newer market and there is much more competition.

~~~
sprout
That kind of "let's wait and see how it looks until it evolves before we
regulate" attitude is precisely what caused the current stagnation in the
wired market.

The market fundamentally is under heavy regulation; wireless can't work
without heavy-handed regulation of who can use what spectrum. We can't just
stop at that kind of draconian regulation (which is necessary) and say that a
little thing like non-discriminatory access to your absolute monopoly is too
much.

~~~
btilly
However there are fundamental economic reasons why the wired market should
lead to natural monopolies and the wireless market should lead to more
competition. Therefore there is good reason to wait.

Furthermore bandwidth is limited. The proposal is not what Google wants, it is
what they were able to get Verizon to agree to. I read that clause as very
much of an, "We agree to disagree, and agree that our areas of agreement are
worth pursuing anyways."

------
einarvollset
What? A big corporate behemoth like GOOG being a hypocrite? How utterly,
utterly shocking.

------
agnokapathetic
Unfortunately it seems no one cares about corporate ethics c.f. Facebook.

I guess my only option is to buy a few shares of GOOG.

------
rottencupcakes
When did our culture shift to this point that everyone puts their problems on
the government?

Everyone complains about Apple's closed iPhone ecosystem, then pesters the
government to condone jailbreaking and unlocking, which go against the
iPhone's terms of service.

Comcast is caught throttling bittorent, and instead of switching providers to
satellite or Verizon or anything, everything goes to the government and
demands regulation on net neutrality.

Since when did it become the american standard to complain to the government
when you don't agree with the terms of service instead of just doing it the
old fashioned way and speaking with your money? If high speed internet is so
important to you and Comcast is the only carrier in your area, then you are at
their mercy - they paid money to expand their service to your region and
service you - you don't get to demand that they service you in the most
favorable way.

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it to, and appealing to legislation
just seems wrong.

P.S. If you disagree with me and believe that legislation limiting the
contacts that can be signed between two parties is necessary, please reply and
explain why instead of downvoting an alternate point of view. This isn't
reddit.

~~~
dmnd
> If high speed internet is so important to you and Comcast is the only
> carrier in your area

This is usually due to a local monopoly having been granted by local
government. I think contracts between corporations and government that have
the result of reducing competition in the marketplace should be legislated
against.

Take a look at the competition that exists between ISPs in places like Europe
or Australia to see how it could be. Capitalism works best when competition
exists. Obviously it's in the best interest of corporations to attempt to
reduce competition in their industry. That doesn't mean they should be free to
do so.

~~~
jimbokun
"I think contracts between corporations and government that have the result of
reducing competition in the marketplace should be legislated against."

Or just not legislated into existence in the first place, would have been a
good start. But now we need more legislation to undo the damage of the
monopoly granting legislation.

So it's not so simple as blaming it on just government or just corporations.
It is the collusion of large corporations and government eliminating
competition that is the real problem.

------
jamesseda
It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled
and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's
going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of
material, enormous amounts of material

