

Google: Your new phone carrier? - cwan
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/30/google-carrier/

======
dirtyaura
Although Google has done some moves that could allow it to become a player in
carrier space, in the current climate it doesn't seem a wise move because of
the success of Android.

Given that Android took off better than anticipated, this would be rather
risky move for global Android adoption. Carriers still "own" customer contact
in most countries. If they decide to be really afraid of Google, they will
stop helping Android adoption.

In early 00s, Nokia wasn't that operator friendly compared to other OEMs. This
led to situation that operators took less (or didn't take any) Nokia phones to
their subsidised selection. This was the main reason for Nokia's bad
performance in US.

Then Nokia started licking some juicy carrier butt. Boy it was a shitty time
to work in Nokia. Requirement pipe line was filled with all kinds of crazy
useless requirements from carriers, and that essentially halted the software
development.

~~~
mithaler
> Carriers still "own" customer contact in most countries. If they decide to
> be really afraid of Google, they will stop helping Android adoption.

I wonder how they might do this. Possibilities I can think of:

A) Stop releasing Android phones and use WP7 and such (similarly risky, if
it's actually something the market wants).

B) Keep using Android but make more deals like the one that put Bing as the
unchangeable default search on the Galaxy S.

C) Fork/rebrand Android and make their own derivative.

B seems most likely--same platform so they can benefit from Google's
development, but with Google services blocked.

~~~
samstokes
They won't do any of the above directly. Carriers don't make phones, but they
do market and sell them (because they own the customer). They'll simply refuse
to do so for Android phones that aren't neutered in ways acceptable to them.

"Hey Motorola, of course we'll do a big marketing push for the Droid 9000, so
long as it complies with our guidelines for handsets on our network. You have
made sure users can't install Google Voice, haven't you? What's that? They can
install any software they want? Well, maybe we'll just go for that Samsung
device instead. See you next product cycle."

------
endtime
I would love to have Google as my carrier. Google is by no means my favorite
corp (I trust them less than Microsoft, personally, though probably more than
Facebook and Apple), but they're angels compared to Verizon and AT&T.

------
ekidd
Becoming a wireless carrier would not play to Google's strengths. Google
generally succeeds in markets where they can leverage smart engineers to serve
hundreds of millions of users. They tend to fail in markets which require
human interaction or physical presence.

Google does, however, have strategic interest in keeping the mobile internet
market as competitive as possible. So I would expect them to chip away at the
carriers indirectly, much as they use Chrome to chip away at the IE hegemony,
or as they use Android to chip away at the iOS.

------
eli
Seems awfully speculative. Is there anything new since the last time this
rumor went around a few years ago?

~~~
jallmann
It's MG blowing smoke from his arse as usual.

------
crowsfan85
Personally, I would love to see Google in the carrier business, but it would
be a huge risk to their brand/image.

Most everyone loves Google right now. Most everyone hates wireless carriers.
So, it sounds like it could be a good opportunity. But there are reasons
people hate carriers that are either outside of the carriers' control or too
costly to fix completely on a global level (ie. spotty coverage, slow
connections, great expectations, etc)

Even if Google became the #1 carrier, their valuable, mostly unblemished image
could take a big hit.

Google's ability to simplify/scale technology for the masses (Google search,
Gmail) won't help as much when it comes to dealing with frustrated customers
on the telephone who want to speak to someone right now.

------
ajg1977
What a crock. Among other things, the article completely omits what is the
biggest hurdle for Google, or any new company, for entering the phone market -
infrastructure.

A newcomer has no hope of competing in major metropolitan markets such as New
York, SF, Boston etc, without the multi-year process of scouting, negotiating,
and installing cell towers throughout the cities. Even in private buildings
where planning permission is not needed, many of the prime locations have been
snapped up by Verizon, AT&T etc on multi-year exclusive or limited compete
leases. "Newer" companies such as Virgin Mobile lease their backbone from
Sprint etc for exactly this reason.

~~~
immad
Couldn't Google just lease the backbone too in order to enter the space?

~~~
wmf
It's questionable whether the MVNO business model would allow Google to
innovate the ways they want to.

------
Umalu
I would think Google's wet dream is a world in which ultra-high speed internet
access is available everywhere at low or no cost to the user, and I would
expect Google to be thinking hard about how to help make that a reality. Today
cellular phone companies are our de facto ISPs when we're away from our homes
and offices, so I would expect Google to be thinking about how to deal with
them or become them or whatever, but that's just an accident of history and
there are other ways to make Google's wet dream a reality. Or so I hope...

------
lotusleaf1987
Why did you change the title? I feel like the original headline was a better
description.

~~~
xtacy
What was the original headline (to those who're seeing the new headline)?

~~~
corin_
The "original" headline is the one on TC, which is 'Google As A Carrier. It’s
Not A Question Of "If They Will", But Rather "When They’ll Try"', whereas on
HN it has been changed to 'Google: Your new phone carrier?'

Was a bit too lengthy for my taste.

