
Google Plans Its Own Android Phone - alexandros
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10614007/1/exclusive-google-plans-its-own-android-phone.html
======
jsz0
I think this could be very detrimental for Android's future. My biggest
concerns:

1) Google's implementation is going to instantly become the reference platform
for Android. Third party handsets will probably have to conform closely to its
screen size, processing power, and input methods to play nicely with third
party apps. This is ultimately a good thing for end user experience but will
negatively impact the variety of different Android handsets on the market.

2) It's confusing. Android has its own proper name but most people know it's a
Google powered/developed project. Is the average consumer going to understand
there is a "Google Phone" but also Google phones? Even if Google has no anti-
competitive intentions here they are going to cast a shadow on their
competitors on their brand strength alone.

3) Google is going to have a huge competitive advantage. They can time the
release of their hardware to match up with major Android releases. They will
have a clearer understanding of where Android is heading and what types of
hardware features will be supported in the long-term. Google's wealth and
influence guarantee they will always have first mover advantage. Let's say
company X comes out with an amazing new SoC. Google is quick to port Android
over and quick to get a handset to market. Competitors get the trickle down
support but won't have a product out the door until long after Google.

4) What is Google's motivation? The latest batch of Android phones look
fantastic. There is no need for a Google first party device as a supplement to
the other handsets on the market. This leads me to believe Google is getting
into this space to win. I don't know how they can possibly juggle their
multiple roles here. It's a no-win situation. Even if they play this straight
the appearance of dishonesty and anti-competitive tactics is going to be a
huge problem.

This is an amazing turn of events. A week ago I would have said Android had an
inevitable path to Windows-izing mobiles. After this news I feel like these
handset makers would be crazy to look at Android as a long term solution. If
Google is getting into this market they're doing it to win. They apparently
don't want to Windows-ize mobiles, they want to Apple-tize it for themselves.
What a crazy turn of events.

~~~
stcredzero
_Third party handsets will probably have to conform closely to its screen
size, processing power, and input methods to play nicely with third party
apps._

Isn't the whole point of Android that this isn't required?

 _Is the average consumer going to understand there is a "Google Phone" but
also Google phones?_

Very easy to address with branding/marketing. Think Honda/Acura or
Toyota/Lexus.

 _Google is going to have a huge competitive advantage._

But it's in their DNA to give up a _tactical_ short-term gain for a big long-
term strategic win, of the kind involving Open Source.

 _What is Google's motivation? The latest batch of Android phones look
fantastic. There is no need for a Google first party device as a supplement to
the other handsets on the market. This leads me to believe Google is getting
into this space to win._

I think they're getting in this space precisely because there is no need for
their _phone_ to win. It's their _platform_ that needs to win. Therefore they
are free to _innovate_ , unencumbered by the pressures that the carriers will
face.

I think they're in this space to exert pressure to innovate. Instead of the
"public option" think of them as the "innovative option."

------
eli
I don't think this rumor is true.

The US market is not well suited to selling phones retail. I don't see how
Google can sell a smartphone that is considered "cheap" without being able to
recoup anything in carrier subsidies. HTC smartphones retail for $400 and up
without a subsidy. (For example, Google charges $400 for the developer version
of the G1, but T-Mobile can sell it for $50 with a new contract)

Secondly, how is one phone going to work on Verizon and AT&T? Even if Google
limits itself to GSM networks, AT&T and T-Mobile use different frequencies for
3G. Will they make an edition for each carrier?

I think Google is just creating one or more netbooks or "mobile internet
devices" and this analyst (the only source in the story) got confused and
thought it was a phone.

~~~
Andys
Most phones sold in other parts of the world are available unlocked and
supporting multiple 3G frequency bands without much trouble.

~~~
eli
Sure, but it also means that people routinely shell out 5x more for a fancy
new phone than we do.

And it's not just competing frequency bands, it's competing technologies. AT&T
has WCDMA, but Sprint and Verizon do CDMA2000. T-Mobile has HSDPA. These
things don't work together. Compare that to Europe and Asia where WCDMA will
get you quite far. It's entirely the FCC's fault for letting the "market
decide" what 3G standard we should use instead of just mandating one like
every other country. But I digress.

~~~
notauser
We generally pay less for phones than the US, we just pay it up front instead
of over time.

It's cheaper because we avoid paying interest and carrier mark up on what is
essentially a loan for the hardware.

You wouldn't think it was a good deal buying a computer on punitive finance
terms, why is it such a good deal for phones?

~~~
mbrubeck
Believe me, many of us in the US do understand that. But its not like the
major US carriers will offer us a discounted service if we bring our own
unlocked phones. So if you pay for your own phone and then buy a standard US
service plan, you still end up subsidizing _everyone else's_ handsets...

This is why it's notable when Wal-Mart gets into the no-contract service plan
game.

------
technomancy
Why has nobody mentioned the fact that this is not being sold in cooperation
with telcos? This is the only interesting thing about this announcement to me,
and is very exciting. Telco (and Apple) meddling has kept the entire market
very distasteful to me, so seeing a chink in the oligopoly's armour is a ray
of hope.

~~~
dschobel
Do the carriers care? Google will still need a carrier and the carriers only
care about having the "cool new phone" to the extent that it gets consumers to
sign contracts with them.

Why should they care if the phone comes from HTC or Google?

~~~
eli
Indeed, as others pointed out, you can already buy an unlocked phone from
google -- the "Android Developer Phone 1" is $400.

------
jcl
_Skeptics point out that Google might have a hard time getting the phone out
in time for the holidays, since it typically takes a year or more to bring a
phone from design to production._

The article's author appears to be totally oblivious to the fact that Google
has been selling unlocked phones (rebranded developer G1s) for almost a year
now: [http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/12/google-
introduces...](http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/12/google-introduces-
developer-g1-phones.ars)

~~~
eli
Yes, and it costs $400. Or you can get the same hardware for $50 with a new
contract from T-Mobile.

I'm pretty confident this rumor is false. There's no way Google can make a
"cheap" smartphone without a kickback from the carrier.

~~~
zokier
a) According to T-mobile website it costs $130, not $50 b) How do you figure
that $130 + $55/mo for two years is cheaper than $400?

~~~
wmf
_How do you figure that $130 + $55/mo for two years is cheaper than $400?_

Cognitive bias (I forget which one this is). Also, your monthly bill is
generally no cheaper if you bring your own phone, so really it's $130+55x24 vs
$400+55x24.

------
antirez
I'm truly excited. Evil or not, Google is today the only big company that
instead to have the kind of corporate interests leading to a closed market,
has corporate interests breaking the old market and creating a better, free
one.

------
scorpioxy
I don't understand. Why would something like this "undercut" other players.

Isn't the whole point of Android? Not have a closed platform with a single
player?

I frankly think the more devices we get, the better. More competition means
better services and lower cost. And on an open platform like the Android, it
also gets much better because it allows other uses for the platform(Archos,
and netbooks...etc).

~~~
protomyth
Think of it this way, if Microsoft came out with the Microsoft PC, how would
you feel if you were Dell / HP? Opensource doesn't fix development direction
by the project driver. You still need to get your stuff into the main branch
to expect decent adoption or keep it separate and pay the delta cost.

More devices is cool, but application testing is going to be interesting. If
your device is not as popular and has a different form factor / screen size
from the dominant devices, then expect some level of non-support from
developers.

~~~
eli
It didn't quite work out that way when IBM release the IBM PC

~~~
protomyth
I'm going to assume (yeah I known) you meant the testing part. The problem is
that PC input/output is pretty standard (display, keyboard, mouse) with the
added advantage of once the screen size gets past a certain point and you have
a windows OS, testing on multiple screen sizes is not a real need.

You really need to test on small screen size(s) and check that your program
will work on the available input options (keyboard, touch). If a vendor goes
outside the box too much then that product becomes a new test case.

~~~
eli
But IBM _created_ the de facto standard _by_ coming out with a PC that
everyone else cloned!

And your second point is a challenge for any platform with multiple
manufacturers. If anything, that's an argument for an Apple model where only
one company makes the hardware.

~~~
protomyth
Well, Microsoft and Compaq are more responsible then IBM.

Yeah, I guess, from a testing and support view, the game console maker's and
Apple's model is better. There might actually be a business model for testing
other people's apps on a variety of devices.

------
Poiesis
Android is fascinating, even without this news. It's the Microsoft Windows to
MacOS race all over again (open vs. proprietary, licensed hardware vs. not).
I've been trying to come up with "this is why the iPhone is winning this time"
but coming up flat. Just first to market, maybe?

~~~
nwatson
Google is patient and the G1 phone was the beta that let Google work out many
Android kinks. I was surprised when people declared Android "dead" after "only
1 million phones sold in the first year." This will be a long war and Android
will build its user base more quickly than most expected two months ago.
Focusing on development for the Android platform is starting to make sense.

------
protomyth
At this point, Dell should buy Palm instead of using Android.

~~~
ableal
Jamie Zawinski just drowned that kitten:
<http://jwz.livejournal.com/1108212.html>

------
kenshi
How strange. Nokia's growing dominance of Symbian (back when it was a feel
good, group hug of competitors) was what made all the other companies in the
consortium back away from the platform.

Google might make an awesome Android phone, but I'd guess that if they did,
they'd help drive away a lot of hardware manufacturers from the platform.

I wonder why Google has chosen to do this, and if this is the cause of the
Apple-Google rift.

~~~
gcb
Because the other companies already dismissed them?

------
brianobush
I don't think google has the expertise in this area like Motorola does. Then
again, Motorola hasn't done too well and is betting its future on android. I
guess they could outsource all work to HTC, but what would this gain?

~~~
wmf
Keep in mind that Android is ex-Danger people. They do have expertise. I would
still expect some outsourcing, though.

------
cma
From what I've gathered it will pack a Pixel Qi screen with along with a 200+
DPI when in black and white (sunlight) mode. Google would like to put it's
book-scan settlement to good use.

------
protomyth
This really isn't good news for the Android OS. I guess we have Zune vs Plays-
For-Sure part 3.

~~~
alexandros
Not if they use android like everyone else. In the case you mention, microsoft
created an entirely new stack which it didn't license to other parties, and
also deprecated the software its vendor ecosystem was using. Hardly the case
here, even though the google move may be slightly antagonistic to its partner
vendors and telcos.

~~~
protomyth
It is still really hard to go up against the company doing the development of
an OS. It just seems like one of those red flags that should be looked at. At
the very least, Google's own phone will probably have all the updated software
in a more timely manner then outside vendors.

~~~
stcredzero
If Google's going to do this right, then they'll Open Source all the nifty
stuff they put into this phone!

Strategically speaking, for Google to win, the Google Phone doesn't have to
win. _Android_ has to win. If the Google Phone only reaches the digerati and
hipsters, but then heavily influences the rest of the Android market by
pushing innovative things forward, then Google wins.

~~~
enjo
I don't think there is going to be a lot of nifty stuff in the phone (if
Google is in fact doing this). From Googles perspective, I think they want a
phone that delivers the full Android experience without custom OEM 'user
experience additions' and carrier application cruft (I'm looking at you
T-Mobile).

I would be surprised if you see anything non-standard on a Google phone.

~~~
stcredzero
Yes, but they'll also have the opportunity to put in _innovative_ things that
the carriers might not think of.

~~~
pwmanagerdied
I don't really follow Android too closely, why couldn't they just put that
those in the upstream Android distribution rather than just the version for
their phone?

~~~
stcredzero
The most likely thing is that they'll do that, but that _carriers will leave
things out._

------
gcb
the ultimate Evil test: will google bend over to the telco overlords?

