
Google to mobile industry: 'F*** you very much' - benpbenp
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/08/google_nexus_partner_friendly/
======
SwellJoe
Since we've all been screwed by the mobile industry for the entirety of its
existence, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel indignant towards Google for
pissing off said industry. There are very few industries more arrogant and
abusive than the telcos (at least in the US; I dunno about the UK), and if
Google wants to take their place, I'm all for it. Instead of playing the
consumer-screwing game better (like Apple did with the iPhone and its
subsidized/locked-in model) Google is leaving those decisions up to the
consumer and giving them a fair deal all around.

My impression is that Google looked at the existing phones and the way they
were being sold (exclusive to specific carriers, and used to lock consumers
in, just like all prior phones) and felt that it just wasn't doing the job the
way they'd planned. Android had a reason for existing, and it was to break the
logjam in the mobile industry so that Google could get on with the business of
monetizing the hell out of mobile users. Since the old players decided to use
Android to play by the old rules, Google simply reminded them of the way
"open" is supposed to work. The play here is not for Google to become a
traditional mobile device provider or to become a mobile service provider
(though they'll touch on both). The play is to make the mobile web standard
enough and good enough and pervasive enough to where Google can work their
money-making magic there. Telcos are standing (aggressively) in the way of
that, and the device makers remain willing partners in those plans.

~~~
bbuffone
Everyone complains about the mobile industry but if I listed the industries
that have or are currently screwing me mobile isn't even in the top 10.

Health-care, Insurance, Oil, Headphones, Government, Credit cards, Banking,
Financial, Video Games, Cable then maybe mobile.

My mobile plan is one of the lowest monthly bills that I have based on amount
of usage. To my knowledge it is one of the least subsidized industries. Are
there issues? Sure. Could coverage be better? Sure. Would it be nice to have
true consumption $/Mb pricing? Sure. Are they too locked down, Definitely, but
the iPhone showed them what unlocking the phones to 3rd party developers can
do.

I am not sure what another unlocked phone is going to do. The life-cycle of
phones is shorter than the term of a mobile contract. So it really doesn't
help me. If the phone allowed me auto-switch between AT&T and Verizon based on
the best coverage and I paid Google on a $/Mb. That would be a game changer
and push the mobile industry farther.

~~~
chrischen
I find it interesting when people trash the government. In the US atleast, you
have some control over it. If you are getting screwed by the government, you
have various outlets to mobilize change and if you don't act on them it's no
ones fault but your, since the government answers to it's shareholders: you.

~~~
ax0n
_I_ didn't vote this guy into office. But I did vote. And I knew going into it
that either candidate would've screwed us over in his own way. Most of us have
come to terms with the fact that all candidates are for bigger government,
it's just whose pork barrels will be filled for the next 4-8 years.

~~~
chrischen
_You_ can be a candidate too. That's the the whole premise of democracy.
Choose the right guy, and if the right guy ain't there _you_ can step up.

Or you can keep whining and wait until someone else does it like the rest of
us.

~~~
ax0n
That'd be great, if America was a democracy.

------
alexgartrell
So, I'm kind of torn here. We're watching Google ascend to a position where
they can bend numerous markets to their whim, but they aren't _really_
cheating the consumers at all. If anything, they've been great to us. Beyond
that, as a college kid with an interest in distributed systems/networks, I
should probably be angling to try to work there someday. But still, I'm
scared, because it's hard to trust a company that big to do no evil.

Am I just being paranoid? (Not a rhetorical question)

~~~
gaius
_they aren't really cheating the consumers at all. If anything, they've been
great to us_

The thing is this: the relationship that exists between me and T-mobile is, I
pay them money and they provide me with voice and data and BlackBerry
services. Now I'm obviously just one individual, but I am fairly
representative of a high-value subset of T-mobile's customer base and as a
collective, T-mobile's interests are well aligned with our own. They aren't
going to screw me because in doing so they'd screw _us_ (e.g. all BB owners)
and we'd migrate en-masse to Vodafone.

The relationship that exists between me and Google is that they provide me
with free services so long as I and those like me engage in behaviors that are
beneficial to their advertisers. It's difficult as an end user to get support
from Google because they don't really care; they'd care only if their quality
of customer service could affect my purchasing decisions with their
advertisers. If people who couldn't get tech support from Google for their
phones switched to Bing for search maybe they'd care, but I doubt anyone does
that...

~~~
btilly
Not exactly. The relationship you have with T-mobile is that they have signed
you to a contract that locks you in to their service. At every turn T-mobile's
goal is to lock you in, and once you're locked in they don't care about you.

By contrast Google sets things up so that you can switch at any time, and they
_constantly_ have to keep you happy.

~~~
gaius
That's not really true, tho'. Come contract renewal time they are _very_
accomodating. Or call them up and get through to Customer Retention and again,
they'll bend over backwards.

But my point stands. T-mobile is interested in keeping me happy, over the long
term. Google is interested in keeping its advertisers happy. Given the choice
between you or I and them, it will always choose them. That's why it wants all
your data, even if they don't sell it directly, it is to monetize it.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Well sure. They'll seem like they'll do anything for you. But if you look at
the cold, hard numbers you'll realize that the average phone contract sums out
to maybe $1-2k over its life, with a pretty hefty profit margin. Of course
they're going to "bend over backwards" for you at contract time.

The used car salesman does the same thing. The rubes fall for the shtick
nearly every time and the salesman laughs all the way to the bank.

Keep in mind that these are the same folks who markup a service that costs
practically nothing to run to rates 4x higher than the cost of transmitting
data from the Hubble space telescope.

~~~
gaius
Well, sure. Profit isn't a dirty word. But it is a mutual relationship in most
cases, cash in return for goods or services. My relationship with Google is
far murkier. I can't look at my account and see what is the cash equivalent
I've paid them for Gmail this month - and make no mistake, if we weren't
providing Google with something of cash value in return, we wouldn't be
getting all these "free" services. What am _I_ worth to Google as a
"customer"? I've no idea. What level of service do they "owe" me? Well, none
actually, there's no contract between us. That's a little disconcerting.

------
RyanMcGreal
I can never tell how much of a given _Register_ article is prescient
contrarianism and how much is straight trolling.

~~~
drats
Orlowski's articles are often blatant trolls, this one is way out there
claiming that the mobile operators who've had us over barrels for so long
should be felt sorry for because they can't break the net. Nobody is stopping
them making a video on demand service, people are stopping them from making a
video on demand that has priority and blocks others. And calling all the civil
society groups that fought for net neutrality Google sockpuppets is a bit
much.

He's siding with all the other players to be a troll but we side with Google
not because we love them but because we don't want the carriers to be anything
more than ISPs. They are simply too stupid to manage it, look at SMS data
transfer still costing four times more than data transfer to the Hubble
telescope. Whereas you have Google pushing open jabber chat protocols and then
building Wave on top of them. Who do you trust, a bunch of dying lock-in
mongers with a track record of squeezing everything they can out of you and
the troll-jester Orlowski or Google which has a decent track record open
sourcing most of their stuff and adding value?

As someone who has suffered iPhone lock-in and incredibly poor customer
service (3G on my 3G iphone has never worked from day one and the carrier and
Apple refused to do anything about it - even suggesting I "turn off 3G to
abate the problem" WTF) I can't wait for unlocked no-contract Linux phones to
become the norm and just wipe them all out. And I don't think Google cares
about "the mobile industry" either, they can burn bridges there because that
industry doesn't work as a block (there is no honour among thieves) and they
can always find one to make the hardware for them.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> we side with Google not because we love them but because we don't want the
> carriers to be anything more than ISPs. They are simply too stupid to manage
> it...

Amen! For now, I trust Google because they've positioned themselves in such a
way that they benefit from doing the right thing. The balance of incentives
favours openness, because Google is in the best position to exploit open
platforms to deliver their services. The rest of us benefit more or less
incidentally.

------
eli
The degree to which Google is "shaking up" the mobile industry has been
_vastly_ overstated by the media. I think this is mostly due to the crazy
rumors that were flying before the launch (e.g. it was going to use SIP for
calls, or that it would be massively subsidized/free even without a plan).

What Google actually offered with the N1 is not very revolutionary. Selling
unlocked phones online isn't new. Nor is having phones that run on your choice
of US carriers (hello, Blackberry).

Really, the only innovation here is at T-Mobile, which has calling plans that
are a little bit cheaper each month if you bring your own phone instead of
having them subsidize one.

------
coffeemug
How much the consumers have gotten screwed on the phones is peanuts compared
to how much the consumers have gotten screwed on voice charges. Really, there
is no such thing as circuit switched networks anymore, so there is no
technical reason to charge people by the minute. Google, get Skype/Google
Talk/whatever on there, let us buy flat fee data plans, and put the bastards
out of business already.

------
sethg
Awww. Do the poor wittle cellphone manufacturers have their poor wittle
feelings hurt? Here, have a blankie.

Really, I’m having trouble seeing what the complaint is behind all the
bombast. The author doesn’t claim that Google is selling the phones at a loss
or doing anything else that would raise an antitrust issue. Carriers can offer
the Nexus alongside other manufacturers’ Android phones and, for that matter,
the ten thousand other cellphone models that clog the market. Most consumers
will choose among those models based on prices and features, not brand name.
(Microsoft sells keyboards and mice under its own brand name, but they’ve
hardly put the other keyboard and mouse manufacturers out of business.)

So where’s the problem? That competition might reduce the profit margins of
cellphone manufacturers? From my side of the salesman’s counter, that’s
anything but a problem.

~~~
nihilocrat
My first thoughts as well. It's about time someone with actual clout gave the
mobile phone cartel the shaft. Yes, it's a cartel, when you pay $.50 a text
message off your plan with all carriers there's gotta be some price fixing
behind the scenes.

~~~
gaius
Yes but who really does that? Except when roaming. Even a basic plan will have
like a thousand texts a month.

~~~
dpritchett
I pay for texts on a per-message basis. Single texts are a quarter or so and
the smallest minimum text plan is about $5/mo. I don't send 20 texts in a
month so I just forego the service altogether.

I still send and receive the occasional text but I don't care enough to pay
for the package. It helps that I have a 5GB smartphone data plan.

------
Zak
The mobile providers are being pushed in to being dumb pipes essentially like
ISPs and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them? How is this anything but good
for consumers, and fair for the mobile industry?

------
jsz0
I wouldn't even consider a third Google Android handset in the future. HTC
(and others) are burning too many bridges not getting updates out the door
fast enough. I can't even run most of Google's new Android first party apps on
my phone because I'm stuck with Android 1.5 and Sprint/HTC won't commit to any
time table on an update. "2010" is as specific as they want to get. Android
3.x may be out before I even get 2.x. Good work guys. Great end user
experience. Maybe Google did some shady stuff here but the third party handset
makers screwed themselves too.

~~~
gamble
I suspect that the motivation for an official 'Google Phone' is to provide at
least one model that's guaranteed to get firmware updates in a timely fashion.
With luck, it will pressure the other handset manufacturers to provide the
same service.

------
msbhvn
So Apple gets attacked for not allowing their OS to run on non-Apple hw and
Google gets attacked for allowing their OS to run on non-Google hardware? (I
realize they're actually being criticized for now having their own device
here, but just another perspective). I guess you could just not have your own
hardware, since that's working so well for WinMo.

------
pkulak
All another company needs to do is build a better phone and they'll have all
the press again. Without Google's (free, by the way) OS, Motorola would be
just about dead by now. And I don't think Sony Ericson or LG had some great
mobile OS in the works either. Google may have single-handedly saved a half
dozen companies from being eaten alive by Apple later this year when the AT&T
exclusivity runs out and all we every hear is how Google is screwing over it's
partners by having the gall to have an HTC phone Google branded and sold
online.

------
dhyasama
Does anyone really believe the companies that were supposedly shafted were
surprised when Google released their own phone? I knew the Google phone was in
the works long before any of the other phones came out and I don't have
connections at Google or telcos. I'd bet money the device manufacturers and
the the telcos were well aware of the Google phone when they agreed to work
with Android.

------
txxxxd
This guy doesn't understand the industry he's writing about.

Telcos benefit by not having the overhead of advertising and supporting
phones. They make their money selling services not phones (hence the heavy
subsidies.)

Manufacturers benefit by the popularity of the Android platform. It's easy to
get people to switch to your hardware if they already know how the OS works
and can use all their existing apps.

~~~
seldo
Well, there's two side to that. The fragmentation of the mobile industry is
the problem that Android was built to solve. However, Google getting directly
into the business of making and selling handsets means the playing field is no
longer level. That was the author's point, at least before he went off the
rails and started off-handedly claiming that global warming is a hoax.

------
scotty79
Other Android phones are to Nexus One as Firefox is to Chrome.

If Google does the same thing as you do it doesn't mean it doesn't love you
anymore. It still will cooperate with you and it still will pay you. It just
wants to try out some things but they don't want to force you to try it for
them.

------
bradgessler
It would be interesting to see a decent unsubsidized $100 Android device hit
the market. This would be inexpensive enough where a consumer could buy the
phone outright and choose a telco without a long-term contract.

------
kgosser
What a ridiculous article with antagonistic points. Terrible writing too.

------
shareme
You have to take this article with a large grain of salt as Google's obvious
target was not non-US mobile telecoms but US telecoms

And obviously caught in the middle is OEMs who attempted to do Mobile Telecoms
bidding..

The other obvious target is China Mobile to derail their Ophone initiative

