
Google Changes Tack on Android - markerdmann
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702304371504577406511931421118-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwNTExNDUyWj.html
======
jerrya
Oh I hope this is true.

I sit here seven months after Google released the source to ICS, and still the
T-Mobile Samsung Galaxy S II has not been upgraded to Android 4.0, and today
the rumor is it will be at least another month before TMo and Samsung can get
their act together.

Android may have lots of Google induced issues, but it certainly seems that
90% of the issues most users have comes from terrible carrier bloatware and
infrequent, late, or just never occurring carrier updates.

~~~
clarky07
Note that it isn't just the carriers that suck, it's the manufacturers too.
Many of them put their own tweaks on Android which means that they have to do
updates on their end to get Android upgrades.

It's absurd that I as a developer am forced to release for 2.2 at this point.
95% of my iOS customers are on 5.0 or better, and 88% of them are on 5.1 which
came out in March. I think roughly 20% of android is still on 2.2, and most
are on 2.3. Seems pretty silly when 4.0 came out 7 months ago.

~~~
thought_alarm
> Note that it isn't just the carriers that suck, it's the manufacturers too

Carriers have absolute control over the consumer sales channels, and that
gives them all the power. The carriers demand extreme control over the
hardware and software pushed through those sales channels, and the
manufacturers (other than Apple) have no choice but to give them that control
because that is how you win in this business. Just ask Samsung, who made $5
billion last quarter selling devices running outdated Android 2.x. Or ask HTC,
who got crushed by the carriers after offering devices with unlocked Android
bootloaders.

If you're a manufacturer, you win by being the one who makes the carriers the
most money per customer per month.

So how does ICS help Samsung make more money for Verizon? How does upgrading
old devices to ICS help Samsung make more money for Verizon? If you're
Samsung, that's the only question you're trying to answer.

The reality is that ICS does not help Samsung or any other manufacturer make
more money for Verizon, and that's why ICS adoption has been so low.

The problem is that the manufacturers (other than Apple) have little desire to
change this business model. If (and when) Samsung begins to defy the carriers,
LG and Motorola and HTC will trip over themselves to take Samsung's place and
become the next darling of the carriers.

~~~
fpgeek
> Or ask HTC, who got crushed by the carriers after offering devices with
> unlocked Android bootloaders.

I generally agree with you about the power of carriers, but this HTC
bootloader thing is an irritating myth. Samsung's devices have been
consistently more hackable than HTC's for the entire period in question, not
to mention that they topped it off by hiring cyanogen. HTC has had their
issues (too-large device portfolio, not matching the SGS2, etc.), but
bootloaders were a blip, either way.

------
untog
A few weeks ago, I bought an HTC One S unsubsidised from T-Mobile. The cost?
$599. Friends thought I was crazy. You can get it for $199 on monthly
contract! But do you know how much I pay per month? $30. For unlimited texts,
web and 100 minutes of calls. I'll make up the difference within months.

If Google can make this kind of thing easier, I'm all for it.

~~~
Hawkee
Where did you get this $30 plan? Is this with T-Mobile?

~~~
untog
Yep:

<http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/prepaid-plans>

I've been hesitant to promote it in case it gets oversubscribed and T-Mo shuts
it down...

~~~
AjithAntony
Very complicated chart. All the data is unlimited but varies by full speed
caps.

FWIW, If you ever need to conserve your high speed data plan, you can switch
to 2G. That way you can still have your data on, but it is un-metered.

~~~
untog
It is somewhat confusing. But 5GB at 4G is more than enough for me.

------
Drbble
Credit for acknowleding their mistake, but man it took a long time for Google
to stop mutilating their own feet with the flagship phone crap and lip
servicing AOSP, forcing manufacturers to add sizzle to compete.

------
jrockway
It should be interesting to see what a product sold to consumers rather than
wireless carriers will look like. My guess is that they will be less expensive
and have less bullet-point features; carriers need expensive phones to justify
an expensive ETF (and cost to switch), but consumers just want to buy
something inexpensive and replace it in a year or so.

~~~
rogerbinns
Note that "not messed with by your carrier, no bloatware, no extra skins you
don't want and more timely updates direct from Google" is a fairly strong
bullet point for some.

At the very least this will raise the bar so everyone else will have to do
better.

~~~
pyre

      > no extra skins
    

On the other hand, I have found some of the features of Samsung's skin to be
_more_ useful than stock Android. The competition is good.

~~~
rogerbinns
I have a Samsung tablet where I really don't want some of their crud. (The
device came with no less than 3 apps named "Music", and two named "Books".)
I'd strongly prefer the vanilla Honeycomb skin and not Touchwiz, but I don't
get that choice.

What they could have done is make it possible to turn off. And sell it in the
Android market for other non-Samsung devices. (If it is that good then other
people will want it.)

------
Caballera
I bought a Galaxy Nexus from Google about a week ago for $399 from Google
Play. Completely worth it, as it's unlocked and it runs pure ICS and will be
updated whenever Google releases an update.

------
notatoad
if i remember correctly, this was the original vision for android. the nexus
one (thanks bgentry) was initially only sold through google's online store,
and then the carriers got it and eventually google shut down their online
store. It's good to see google taking back some control.

between google and apple surely there is enough influence that together they
can bully the carriers into sucking less.

~~~
bgentry
You may be confusing the G1 with the Nexus One:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_One>

------
Hawkee
The main problem here is consumers don't want to pay $400 when they can pay
$200. If they're going to stick with their carrier for the long haul the 2 yr
contract isn't really a problem. It comes down to upfront cost and the carrier
will always win at that game.

~~~
rmrm
I thought the problem (in the US) was that At&T or Verizon don't want this
model to work, and don't make the plans attractive, so you end up paying more
for the phone and still end up paying the same overburdened service cost.

Also, that available primarily online only phones don't sell nearly as well as
hands on, in person sales.

This strategy seemed to have not worked so well earlier. I guess seeing how
subsequent Nexus devices going through the carriers have been mangled, lack
upgrades, etc -- leads them to think they just have to do it anyway, and try
for the long game.

~~~
Lewisham
AT&T is probably going to be pushed to do so by the continued existence of
T-Mobile. We're lucky that deal didn't get through, or you can be sure you
wouldn't be able to have SIM-only plans.

My guess is Verizon will block this point-blank, and refuse to activate the
phones. It'll take a change in the legal landscape to compel them to do so.
They already have Android phones coming out of their ears, plus the iPhone, so
they have no need to play nice with Google, particularly if Google isn't
willing to use Motorola to play hardball.

~~~
fpgeek
Wouldn't the open-access conditions of the 700 MHz band force Verizon to play
along - at least to the point of activating phones purchased elsewhere?

Or to put it another way, if they've really stopped playing nice, wouldn't
Google end up making that argument?

------
guelo
Does this mean Verizon and Sprint will never get another Nexus? I don't know
if the concept of "unlocked" means anything on their SIM-less networks.

------
gonzo
Google as a MVNO coming up in 3...2...

