Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Businesses The Internet Handhelds Wireless Networking Hardware

Verizon Might Deliver Google Phone 115

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the oh-no-wait-i-thought-it-wasn't-real dept.
MrCrassic writes "There are talks floating around surrounding Google's possible talks with Verizon and possibly T-Mobile to establish an agreement for the carrier to deliver phones carrying Google's speculated mobile operating system. According to the article, one of the main hurdles slowing down the product are concerns about user privacy and advertising, one of Google's well-renowned strengths. With over 6 million customers potentially at their disposal, could this be "the deal" that establishes Google's hegemony in the internet sphere?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verizon Might Deliver Google Phone

Comments Filter:
  • by jargon82 (996613) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:47AM (#21183789)
    Are these two concepts even remotely compatible?
    In any event, I look forward to seeing this mobile OS from google, and I do hope they don't get too tightly wrapped in all that is evil about mobile phones.
    • by WPIDalamar (122110) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:52AM (#21183855) Homepage
      Maybe Google will make them never ring in public places and inform the user when they're talking too loudly :)
      • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:13AM (#21184111)
        So it'll hang up on you if you say "Can you hear me now?" Verizon won't be too happy about that...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tompaulco (629533)
        My hope is Google will not allow the parent companies to work with third party scam companies that blind text kids with messages which if they reply to it automatically sign them up for monthly subscription plans to lame jokes and crap like that.
        If you don't know what I'm talking about, see my journal.
    • by lavid (1020121)
      On top of the inherent evil of mobile phones, there's the evil that is ".002 cents" Verizon http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/09/0625245 [slashdot.org]
      I hope these talks do not come to a partnership of any kind.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by jargon82 (996613)
        The video that summary ultimately links to has been removed. Apparently for a terms of use violation... I wonder exactly what it violated?
    • by EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:01AM (#21183961)
      I'm more concerned about the potential collision of Verizon + Do No Evil... A paradoxical combination like this could rip a hole in the space-time continuum.
    • It won't be evil if they sell phones like they sell computers. I should be able to put any software I want on the phone. I should be able to contract a service provider to connect me to the cell/phone/internet network using unencumbered protocols.
    • by hey! (33014) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:31AM (#21184363) Homepage Journal
      This is one reason I'm skeptical of getting fios service.

      The phone companies really should be in the business of selling commodity bandwidth. No, I don't want your friggen' music video service, I want to access the video service I choose. The problem is that you don't make larger than normal profits selling commodities.

      So instead, the phone companies do everything they can to make comparing their prices and service impossible. Their bills are full of portentous sounding charges, and they bury things anybody would really want to know, like whether your phone has the Bluetooth profiles it needs to connection your laptop to the Internet, under piles of crap services nobody in their right mind would buy. I'm convinced those services don't have to make money, they just have to make the decision of which carrier to choose more confusing.

      Then there is simply the practice of making "mistakes" on how the bill is calculated, counting on the fact that the bill is structured to be confusing to help them get away with it. I just added a second line to my wife's Verizon mobile service, which involved upgrading to a more expensive plan. They "pro-rated" her service for the month by crediting out the cheaper service, and back dating the more expensive service to the start of the month. For good measure they added a couple of completely unexplained gobbledygook charges that doubled the bill. I'm going to have to spend hours dealing with this, hours of my life I have much better use for and which I'll never get back.

      That's why I'm chary of getting fios, even though it looks better on paper. I don't want Verizon to be my content vendor in any case, and they've been underhanded as a bandwidth vendor. As bad as Comcast is, my experiences with Verizon have been worse. If I'd never dealt with them before, I'd have jumped with fios, that looks cheaper and faster on paper. For now it looks better to let my bandwidth hog neighbors jump into long term fios contracts and stay put at least until the DOCSIS 3 stuff is rolled out.

      If Google jumps into bed with Verizon, it's an interesting choice; I'm not sure whether any of the vendors are better or worse with respect to being evil, but Verizon is making a major push to become a content vendor. Evil or not, this is not an outfit that is interested in letting net neutrality survive; but Google has up until now built a business around net neutrality. Google is everything AOL was supposed to be to the consumer, except that it's all about access to the universe of other peoples' content. We should look very carefully at whatever deal Google cuts with the carriers, because a shift away from philosophy could be a step towards leveraging their search monopoly into a content distribution monopoly.
      • by geeknado (1117395) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @12:36PM (#21185259)
        Like many providers, your experience with different vendors is going to vary by locality. Here, Comcast is totally disfunctional as a conseqeunce of multiple ownership changes to the local cable franchise...It's been, over the course of the last 10 years, Comcast, Cox, AT&T, and now Comcast again. The surrounding counties followed a similar, but disparate pattern. As a consequence, their systems aren't even integrated properly from a customer service perspective, and the maintenance of the infrastructure is not what it should be.

        All this leads to Verizon being a better choice here than it might be in some areas. Also, and again, this may be a local thing, but the FIOS service division is totally distinct from the 'normal' Verizon service structure you usually encounter. Different techs, at any rate-- they're much better trained, and reports are that the service is extremely reliable. It's only just become available in my neighborhood, though, so I can't speak firsthand...Although it's being installed tomorrow, so we'll see.

        I dunno, neither Comcast nor Verizon has its hands clean as far as most of the 'evil' sorts of issues the Slashdot "we" care about. Comcast throttles services, Verizon complies with the gov't on domestic wiretaps...You're pretty much boned either way.

      • I only have Verizon FIOS and Comcast as two viable choices for internet. Comcast caps bandwidth and blocks torrent connections and my tv lost signal more than once a month which I find unacceptable for repeated cable outages. (Lose the TV and the Internet, and if you use their VOIP service, you lose that too) So far Verizon doesn't care how much I download, doesn't block torrent and I haven't lost TV, Internet or Phone once since I switched not only that but the image quality is much better vs Comcast. Yes
        • by Lally Singh (3427)
          Comcast blinks out on me about twice a week, and they're no better than Verizon in the sliminess factor. (DirecTV I miss you!)

          FWIW, Verizon's DSL was dead-reliable for me. I'd love getting FIOS if it was in the area. And static IPs are reasonably affordable for me, for areas where it is availble. And seriously, don't we all really just want fiber to our house?

          Bitching about sucky service is fine, but until we get someone better, you make your choices per business unit (e.g. verizon DSL vs wireless). Com
      • by iluvcapra (782887)

        I'm convinced those services don't have to make money, they just have to make the decision of which carrier to choose more confusing.

        See Confusopoly [wikipedia.org].

    • Are these two concepts even remotely compatible?
      In any event, I look forward to seeing this mobile OS from google, and I do hope they don't get too tightly wrapped in all that is evil about mobile phones.
      Evil? As long as it doesn't explode in my pocket, i'm all for it.
  • by jlf278 (1022347) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:50AM (#21183815)
    What's taking so long? Google and Verizon please hurry up and introduce a sleek new phone to compete with the iPhone so my wife will stop nagging me to pay the early termination fee on her verizon contract. It's in all our best interests a true win/win/win.
    • I'm not an expert on cell phone tech, but can't you just get an iPhone and unlock it to run on whatever network carrier you use?
      • Re:Get a Move On (Score:5, Informative)

        by paintballer1087 (910920) * <paintballer1087@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:27AM (#21184291)
        Verizon is a CDMA network, whereas AT&T/Cingular is a GSM Network, the phones are incompatible with each other. The iPhone can only be unlocked on GSM networks. Here's an article that explaines the difference in the two types of networks: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-gsm-and-cdma.htm [wisegeek.com]
      • They're incompatible: Verizon uses the CDMA protocol (analogue) while most other American carriers use GSM (digital).

        I think... I'm not an expert either!

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ksattic (803397)
          Both are digital.
        • Re:Get a Move On (Score:5, Informative)

          by krazytekn0 (1069802) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:48AM (#21184615) Homepage Journal
          My contention is that Google is simply incompatible with Verizon, protocols aside, verizon wireless has a long history of imposing ultimatums onto phone manufacturers and software publishers. Motorola is a great example, a verizon Razr only has about half the features as one that you buy from Motorola. Google maps mobile doesn't work on CDMA phones because none of the carriers (Verizon specifically) will let anyone make any kind of navigation software for a phone that the user doesn't have to pay a premium membership for. The list goes on and on, can't put Java on a verizon phone because *gasp* the user may be able to play games for free on their own piece of hardware! Or worse yet, write some piece of software specifically for themselves.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by nuba (660398)
            All those things work on their higher end phones like the Treo. A phone from google would probably be in the same category.
          • Google maps mobile doesn't work on CDMA phones because none of the carriers (Verizon specifically)

            Yes, Verizon sucks, so I bought my CDMA Treo 755p [palm.com] from Sprint [sprint.com]. Google maps is included and integrated with the phone's other applications [gizmodo.com].

            • by AncientPC (951874)
              Ditto, I have the HTC Mogul with Sprint. I just wish I had built-in GPS receiver to take full advantage of Google Maps, but I still use it a lot regardless.
          • ok, I didn't know about the treos and such, but it seems pretty sad that even though my cheap ass razr *technically* can support google maps, I would have to go back and spend a few hundred bucks on a treo to get a verizon phone that *actually* supports it. Basically this is a regressive punishment for not having a bucket of money to spend on a phone that I'll probably have to replace in a few years anyway. So maybe verizon doesn't hate all their customers, just the poor ones,
        • Not quite. CDMA is a digital technology, and it is actually superior (in terms of capacity) to the digital TDMA technology used in GSM. UMTS, the 3G "evolution" of GSM actually uses a CDMA radio interface as well, though the channel structure is different, so it is not compatible with the thing that Verizon, etc, use either. This is why UMTS is sometimes called WCDMA (Wideband CDMA).

          Verizon, Sprint, and a bunch of other smaller US operators (US Cellular, etc) use CDMA (they use CDMA 1xRTT for voice and CDMA
        • by LWATCDR (28044)
          They are both Digital.
          Cingular/AT&T and TMobil use GSM.
          Verison, Sprint, and I think Alltel use CDMA.
          So it is a pretty even split between CDMA and GSM in the US so no most other US carriers don't use GSM.
          And both or digital.
          As to which is better I vote for CDMA. The new high speed version of GSM is moving to a more CDMA like system but for the the big reason I like CDMA better is whenever anyone in my office uses a GSM phone I can hear interference on my PC speakers!
          • Alltel does indeed use the CDMA network, all of their phones are exact clones of Verizon phones (or vice versa, not sure if it's the chicken or the egg that comes first).
      • The iPhone is a GSM handset (for now at least), I'm assuming the GP means he wants to keep his Verizon (CDMA) service...the two network types aren't compatible.
    • I second this plea. I'm stuck with Verizon as well (my work uses it)... but if I schmooze enough, come next summer, I should be able to schmooze my way to a free Google phone! Woohoo!
  • by VengefulCynic (824720) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:50AM (#21183821)
    Reading the article, all accounts have it that Google has been in talks with T-Mobile for some time and now is in talks with both Verizon and Sprint. If it can net all three carriers to leverage phones with the Google OS, that would be far more than 6 million customers.
    • by necro81 (917438)
      Indeed, much more than 6 million. If it were 6 million, out of a few hundred million cellphones in the U.S., that would hardly represent a hegemony. On the other hand, if ever cellphone in the U.S. from Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile were to move to the google platform, that would represent a serious force. It would still probably not be a hegemony, not without Cingular (sorry, AT&T), but a serious force nonetheless.

      This is hypothetical, of course, since it is unrealistic to think that ever phone
  • by Chairboy (88841) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:51AM (#21183831) Homepage
    Based on Google's public stance on information, I would guess that Verizon might be the first, but not the _only_ cell provider that provides Google-centered telephony. If you watch their lectures and listen to what their spokesmen say, you'll see that Google's interests are in having ubiquitous access to the 'cloud' (their term), meaning that the lines between being online and offline blur to invisibility.

    Locking in w/ one carrier doesn't match that goal, especially when you consider their interest in the 700mhz band.

    My guess is that if Google makes their break for ubiquity, it will be viral. They'll release a 'Killer setup' on, say, a Verizon phone. Then a few months later, it'll be on a GSM phone, and a few months later, maybe on Some New Thing that hasn't been revealed yet. It'll be a useful set of apps/tools that's "just too useful" for the cell providers to ignore, while so cheap that they can't rationalize building competitive software.
    • by garcia (6573)
      Locking in w/ one carrier doesn't match that goal, especially when you consider their interest in the 700mhz band.

      If you don't believe that locking in with one carrier doesn't mesh with their goal, then T-mobile would be the best bet being that they are one of the few US wireless providers that allow you to use a SIM card while Verizon does not.
      • by spyder913 (448266)
        Verizon doesn't 'allow' you to use a SIM card because they use CDMA phones, which don't use SIM cards.
    • I can't imagine that Verizon would carry the Google phone. They cripple every phone they sell and put their won nasty UI on them.
      TMoble and Sprint tend to not cripple their phones and Sprint is pretty open with theirs. The problem is that Sprint is CDMA and TMobel is GSM!
      So they are two very different networks.
      I really hope Sprint does get the Google phone it is all that and a bag of chips.

  • Smells of... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ..."Damn, we missed out on the iPhone because we were stupid. Let's get on the Google bandwagon instead!" Whether a *good* product will get delivered or not is anyone's guess. Personally, I'm not holding my breath given Google's relatively poor performance in the market as of late.

    I'm also wondering how Verizon's not unlimited [slashdot.org] data plan will affect this. Their already going to be streaming a boat-load of ads to your phone. Will there be integration with Google Youtube? (Violation of service.) Songs to downl
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jargon82 (996613)
      Couple good points there. Google has alot of technical know-how, but sometimes it seems the business sense of actually delivering a solid, working solution is not there. Google groups are a good example. There was a google group name I was interested in getting hold of, which had been registered but never used. I have as yet found no mechanism for requesting this group name, leading me to believe that someone could essentially grab every possible name and lock everyone else out, like domain names all over
  • "talks floating around" "possible talks" "possibly" "speculated" "potentially".

    Wow. Do the authors of the article actually know anything for sure?
  • I hope there's a stack of OSs (or at least microkernels) in the OS ... one for the radio, one for the display, one to manage data, one for voice, one to drive the (add-on) FPGA-ish hardware that lets this be more than "just" a phone, etcetera. I mean, I know it's asking for a lot (and it's pretty vague, at that!), but if we're going to speculate on a "perfect handheld computer/phone", why not go all the way down to our architectural assumptions? :-D
  • by magarity (164372) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:52AM (#21183851)
    I don't get it - isn't the killer phone one that's sufficiently cool like ye olde iPhone yet goes with any carrier? Wouldn't a go-anywhere phone be a better move? I won't get any fancy phone that leaves me stuck with one carrier. It's enough that my freebie phone only works with who gave it to me but if I were to pay for one, I'd want it to go anywhere. Bad car analogy: My Honda isn't restricted to only Honda gas or only Honda streets. Whereas all the people who bought locomotives can only go where B&O lays tracks.
    • by lymond01 (314120)
      A single-carrier for a phone is a problem for people who want the phone but aren't on that carrier. Apple has cut such a sweet deal by allowing only AT&T to carry the iPhone, that it's not a problem for them. I imagine if they made the phone available to any network, they wouldn't get the per phone fees they do from AT&T.
      • by s!lat (975103)
        At the same time though, wouldn't Apple's (and also Google's) potential profit increase with the exposure to multiple carriers. I think that Apple would have been much more successfull with the iPhone had they marketed it across multiple platforms and I think that Google is going to look at that example and do what Apple didn't
        • Apple has sold more iPhones than it originally projected - how much more success do you want?
          • by MBGMorden (803437)
            Perhaps if they sold twice what they currently have? Just because their sales pass expectations doesn't mean they chose the optimal path, just one that generated better than expected sales. IE, if I predict that selling whoozits only in Florida will yield 8 million sold (which would be a good profit for me), then if 10 million sell, I'm still an idiot if selling all over the world would have yielded 150 million sales.
            • by Grishnakh (216268)
              Sales isn't that important: profit is. Apple's making lots of profit on their iPhone sales not just from the sale price of the phone itself, but also from all the kickback money from AT&T. If they hadn't made this deal with AT&T, they wouldn't get all that kickback money, and they'd have to price their phone higher. Customers are stupid, and only look at the up-front cost of the phone, and not how much it costs them over time with monthly fees, so AT&T and Apple make more profit by jacking up
              • by lymond01 (314120)
                Customers are stupid, and only look at the up-front cost of the phone, and not how much it costs them over time with monthly fees, so AT&T and Apple make more profit by jacking up their monthly fees.

                Yes. There was a contest recently that if you won, you received a free iPhone. Since it's useless without a $50/month service...
                • by Grishnakh (216268)
                  This isn't necessarily an indication of stupidity. If you want/need a cellphone anyway, and like the iPhone, winning one for free would be a good deal even though you still had to pay the monthly fees. You'd have to pay for service for any phone you get, after all, even if it's some crappy phone (like mine) that does little more than voice calls.

                  An indication of stupidity would be a cellular provider offering two deals to consumers: 1) buy an iPhone for $750, plus a 2-year contract for $30/month, or 2) bu
                  • by magarity (164372)
                    1) buy an iPhone for $750, plus a 2-year contract for $30/month, or 2) buy an iPhone for $250, plus a 2-year contract (with the same service level as before) for $70/months. Most people, I suspect, would take option #2, and very few people would buy option #1, even though the cost after 2 years is significantly less

                    Depends on the economy over those 2 years. At a high rate of inflation, #2 could be cheaper.

                    A little help from Excel suggests that you should definitely take option 2 starting
      • those sweet per phone fees are passed onto the consumer... so apple is screwing iphone wanting folks twice by limiting it to AT&T, and by at&t passing on that cost to the costumer.
  • by RobertB-DC (622190) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @10:59AM (#21183937) Homepage Journal
    I finally broke with Verizon and switched to T-Mobile, partly because the Verizon phones are impossible to hack without breaking through the wall of Get It Now [howardforums.com]. Verizon's entire business model would seem to be antithetical to Google's stated desire (with $billions behind it) to open up the wireless spectrum to any device, and to put the device owner in control.

    In fact, it's not surprising that the article notes that "Google had already made significant progress in recent months with" T-Mobile. While not perfect (my daughter's phone won't let her use anything but $2 downloads for ringtones), T-Mobile is at least based on a more open technology (from what I understand). The surprise is that Verizon would even talk to Google at all. Maybe they aren't -- the article is based on "people familiar with the matter". Those "people" could be from Google, trying to kick-start talks with Verizon by putting the news on the CEO's front porch via the WSJ.
    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      Verizon's entire business model would seem to be antithetical to Google's stated desire (with $billions behind it) to open up the wireless spectrum to any device, and to put the device owner in control.

      Actually, I don't see how Google could possibly cooperate with ANY cellular provider in the USA without going against this idea of putting the device owner in control, as EVERY provider has a business model based on keeping their phones locked up so the user's options are limited, and they're forced to buy ex
  • And Sprint (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jav1231 (539129) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:01AM (#21183967)
    Yahoo! reports it's down to Verizon and Sprint. I'm hoping Sprint! :)
  • Holy carp, I hope not. Verizon's data service to their cell phones at the moment is so far behind the times it's painful. Locked down phones with horrible proprietary browsers may be able to be resolved by Google's phone, but the absurd price scheme they use for data packages and constant disconnects from the wireless data network can't be fixed with just a new phone. Even when I am in a large city I cant get my Verizon based phone to stay connected with their crappy AIM client for more than 15 or 20 minute
    • by vaximily (924764)
      ... What are you talking about? Verizon (Same network as Sprint) has hands down the BEST Data network in the US. T-mobile's is by far the worst, with Cingular (now AT&T) not far behind.

      Now I have no doubt you may have a piece of crap phone that has brain issue's like yourself, but don't blame the network.
    • by tomz16 (992375)
      Disagree completely.

      I hate verizon's locked and crappy hardware as much as the next guy. I've tried to get away from them on several occasions, but always keep coming back... I'd switch to a GSM carrier in a heartbeat, if their networks were even remotely comparable. Unfortunately, in the northeast, Verizon's voice service really is unparalleled. Their ridiculous tower density coupled with the fact that 800Mhz CDMA outperforms 1900Mhz GSM handily really shows in practice. I've tried AT&T, T-mobile,
    • by p0tat03 (985078)
      Just curious, what are American rates for data? Up here in Canada-land, we pay $217 USD for 500MB of data. Hard to imagine getting worse than that, but I'm curious.
      • by tomz16 (992375)
        Verizon voice/data is $79 a month for "unlimited" smartphone usage and 450 minutes (a normal 450 minute plan is $39). A standalone laptop card plan is $59/month for "unlimited data".. where unlimited is now something like 5 gigs.

        Unoficially, all verizon cell phones can tether at up to broadbandaccess speeds, and you just use your regular pool of minutes.

        Other carriers are cheaper (oficially).. Sprint sero plans unoficially include unlimited vision, the $5 t-mobile tzone plan used to allow you (again unof
  • Hegemony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:08AM (#21184061)
    "...could this be "the deal" that establishes Google's hegemony in the internet sphere."

    Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but haven't they already established their leadership roll on the internet? Really, is there a company out there more influential than Google when it comes to the internet?
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No no no. See, right now Google only dominates the tubes. This would allow them to branch out into the sphere as well.
    • I think you mean the internet sphere, the Intersphere if you will. It's spherical.
    • by westlake (615356)
      Really, is there a company out there more influential than Google when it comes to the internet?

      To most users, Google remains a search engine and nothing more.

  • Hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rotide (1015173)
    Frankly, I'm not sure what to think about this.

    First, I was under the impression that Google would make a physical iPhone competitor as well as its own OS/Software. This OS/Software would also be open to 3rd Parties to create apps/additional tools for it.

    Second, I was hoping it would be open to any carrier. Obviously, some tools might only be usable on some networks as maybe not all carriers support a particular technology. Perhaps you would have to search for the carrier that best suited your wishes

    • Just a side comment about Verizon, but we have a full T1 through Verizon and we have had good service from them. Only once has our T1 went down and we had a tech here within an hour working on it and we were up and running shortly thereafter (some sort of battery or something needed to be replaced). Granted, Qwest provides our local line and the dispatched tech was a Qwest tech, so I'm not sure if it speaks to Verizon's response or Qwest's response.
    • The only way I know of to get a phone to work with any carrier is to produce a phone without a radio, and use a radio plugin from the carrier. This can be accomplished by the phone having a CF slot, since nearly all the carriers have a CF data card which can be used for voice also.

      Just producing a multi-band phone won't work, since many carriers (such a Verizon and Sprint) won't activate a phone that didn't come from them. But they can't controll where you use the CF card you get from them though.
  • Remember, GSM [wikipedia.org] is the global standard, and unlocked 4-band GSM phones are the only ones compatible with GSM in all areas.

    "GSM is used by over 2 billion people across more than 212 countries and territories." If you go to another country, you can get a local phone number merely by purchasing a SIM card. A local number is excellent because then new acquaintances can always reach you if they want to talk or invite you somewhere.

    Remember also that the business model of cellular phone companies has been th
  • OS discussion (Score:2, Interesting)

    by steffens (1050246)
    I would tend to believe that verizon can find a large correlation between the users who utilize their higher end services (data, web, extremely high minutes usage) and the front end on those phones. I have a feeling that this is not the normal "I use this phone because it was the free" type user, but rather the users who spring for the higher end phones (Q, Q9, Treo etc.. all of which aren't crippled by the standard verizon OS). It seems like for awhile verizon has gotten away with their crippled front en
  • by gelfling (6534) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @11:42AM (#21184541) Homepage Journal
    Almost every cell phone has some rudimentary web ability but the phones that affect a real computer browser web experience are EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE and all rebated according to the size of the DATA plan you buy not the phone plan. An iPhone, Nokia N95, HTC Active or Mogul, a Cingular 8225 - these are all $400-500-600 devices.

    So either Google figures those customers are price insensitive or, they figure that the phone companies will do this for free to cannibalize their own incredibly profitable network services. I mean why offer picture mail at those inflated prices when anyone can post up something in Picasa?

    No I think this will be ANOTHER service cost addr to the service you get. Which I guess is ok for some people. But I already bleed enough money to the phone company.

    And oh - GSM means no Sprint.
  • According to the article, one of the main hurdles slowing down the product are concerns about user privacy and advertising, one of Google's well-renowned strengths.
    You mean, one of Google's well-known weaknesses and one of Google's glaring annoyances.
    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      Would you prefer to pay a subscription fee in order to use a search engine, map system, etc.? Google can't exactly give all that stuff away for free.
  • I won't.

    Verizon and Google--unstoppable force meets immovable object. I think Google will lose here, simply because Verizon locks their phones down too tightly. (A lot of Verizon RAZR owners flash with AllTel firmware just to get their phone in an "unbrokeass" state.)

    Kudos to Google for trying to force open the tight walled gardens that the US Mobile Carriers have built, but they will most likely fail.

    I think I'll stick with the OpenMoko on a regional carrier, or maybe Helios or T-Mobile--that seems to be
  • Vaporware? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater@nosPam.gmail.com> on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @12:10PM (#21184915) Homepage
    Google is possibly in talks regarding phones using an OS speculated to exist?
     
    Does Google need this kind of slashvertisement, or is it just a slow news day?
  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @12:14PM (#21184977)

    Great. Now Google will not only know what I search for but also who I talk to on the phone....

    The weird and scary part about this is the number of slashdotters who can't wait for this to happen.

    So let me get this straight. AT&T as a communication monopoly is bad. Microsoft as a operating systems monopoly is bad. Google as a monopoly on all things data is good? Let me clarify: Google as an all knowing overseer of all things being communicated is good??

    We worry about the government tracking us, but not a corporation that derives it's income from targeted ads??

    Where can I get some of this google kool-aid?

    • If you actually paid attention what's going on, Google is speculated to be making an OS for phones, not phones themselves, and certainly not the network the phones will connect to. This is good - if wireless companies actually adopt this, it means more interoperability and less lock-down, and an open platform for you to make your own phone apps, etc. How you get out of this that Google will be tracking your phone calls is beyond me, when no data from a Google phone would even go through Google unless Goog
      • If you actually paid attention what's going on, Google is speculated to be making an OS for phones, not phones themselves, and certainly not the network the phones will connect to. This is good - if wireless companies actually adopt this, it means more interoperability and less lock-down, and an open platform for you to make your own phone apps, etc. ... How you get out of this that Google will be tracking your phone calls is beyond me,

        Paid attention? What? You mean the fact that they are working on web a

    • by G-funk (22712)
      Targeted ads are better than the usual wide-angle shotgun spamming we see now.
      • Targeted ads are better than the usual wide-angle shotgun spamming we see now.

        It's sad when someone actually prefers a spammer that knows about their preferences, shopping, and searching habits over someone who "shotgun spams" without a clue about who they send the spam to..

  • by wiredlogic (135348) on Wednesday October 31, 2007 @12:15PM (#21184993)
    Different companies.
  • I find it very funny that a release of a piece hardware is licensed to a broadband and telecommunications company. It should be free and not locked to just one provider.
  • Google's alliance with Verizon will give them time to seed the market and build mind share while they build their own infrastructure if this comes to fruition. I think the cell phone carrier is foolish to give them time to do this.
  • by kurtis25 (909650)
    For this to work Google and the carrier need to make money. The carrier currently charges based on my transfer amounts and I'm unlikely to want to pay so I can allow Google to show me ads or prefetch my gmail. Which means Google will have to reduce my payment. I know they have turned pay software free before but I'm not sure they can cut my cellphone bill enough to make me get wireless internet. I'm not going to pay for such a service but if it is free I would but that means Google will need to make enough
    • Nowhere does TFA say Google is trying to cut your bill by showing you ads on your phone, or anything like that. It talks about "handsets tailored to its new mobile-phone operating system," and adds, "The phones also would be open to third-party application development, potentially spurring development of new features." It sounds like all they are trying to do is open up the hardware. Verizon still owns the network and can sell you whatever data plan they want. The motivation is not hard to spot - if Goo
    • by Grishnakh (216268)
      I personally don't see how Google could offer anything useful in this realm, given the current situation with cellular providers in the USA. The only way I can see anything working out is if Google were to simply buy out one of the major providers, and then completely change their business plan so that the cellular bills are much cheaper, data (as opposed to voice) is free or dirt cheap, etc.
  • It would seem strange for Verizon to do this deal. Verizon tries to keep pretty tight control on their network, phones, applications and the like. They use BREW which is a very closed platform. They take 40+% of revenue from the applications they do allow on their network. In the recent stir about the FCC auction Verizon and Google were on opposite sides and Verizon was against any device/any application rules. Worse, GOOG411 is aimed squarely at one of Verizon's most profitable businesses.

    Why would Ve
  • From what I've read both Verizon and Google are polar opposites on open access. Google has admitted to making plans to deploy their own Network. It only makes sense that they are negotiating an access/right-of-way across these competitors networks and not jumping on-board with a hardware OEM/Telco relationship.
  • ...due to the hope it would provide an open alternative. But "open" and "Verizon"? Yeah, right...
  • Seriously, why would Google work with any CDMA network company? At least with GSM, you can pop the SIM card out and use any phone with any GSM service (as long as they use the same frequency.) This would be more in the spirit of what their demands are for the 700MHz band. Plus, if they are officially "supported" by T-Mobile, then they also have a relatively easy in to the European markets.

    Of course, if Google could have their phones sold by all carriers, that would maximize their profits. But then they
  • I think Verizon's willing to talk because they know now they blew the iPhone deal. They had the opportunity to be the sole provider of the hottest phone in forever and couldn't close the deal, so I imagine there's no way they're going to let a Google Phone slip through their fingers, even if they can't be the sole carrier.

Help! I'm trapped in a PDP 11/70!

Working...