Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Attack On the Mobile Market Rumored

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the first-the-itablet-and-now-this dept.

Google 324

xchg writes in with a somewhat speculative, though plausible, piece from WiseAndroid claiming that Google is gearing up for an all-out assault on the mobile-phone market that will include a new, Google-branded handset and the first comprehensive Google phone service with unlimited free calls. "The real breakthrough, however, will come with the marriage of the Googlephone to Google Voice, the Californian company’s high-tech phone service. Google Voice gives US users a free phone number and allows unlimited free calls to any phone in the country — landline or mobile. International calls start from... just over a penny a minute. Google Voice also uses sophisticated voice recognition to turn voicemails into emails, can block telemarketing calls automatically and offers free text messaging. Google sounded its intentions two weeks ago when it purchased a small company called Gizmo5... [E]xperts are predicting that the Googlephone will be launched in the US early next year."

cancel ×

324 comments

Creative destruction (4, Insightful)

mruizcamauer (551400) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250638)

... of a large industry, telecoms... but that is progress!

Re:Creative destruction (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250656)

I hate mobile phones and everything about the industry behind them.
This sounds quite a bit less hate-able.

Re:Creative destruction (3, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250764)

What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.

They share in common, contempt for the flock they shear.

Google will succeed because of the venality and arrogance of the incumbent carriers. That's why they chose this market. Google will be a company people like, despite the creeping monopoly of their personal information and continuing erosion of their privacy.

Re:Creative destruction (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250824)

What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.

What credit card company uses 'contractual lock-in'? I've never seen a credit card that you couldn't cancel at any time.

Re:Creative destruction (1, Informative)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250870)

True - but you have to do so by paying them off. Cartel-like, they are setting the interest rate for an individual across accounts and trapping these with tools like "universal default".

Re:Creative destruction (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250906)

Wait... you mean to get out of a loan with a bank (basically what a credit card is)... I have to pay it off?!?

Dear god, they're screwing us!

Re:Creative destruction (2, Funny)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251008)

You have to pay it off, on terms unilaterally adjusted by the lender, on criteria independent of the contract under which you entered the lending agreement.

Christ, talk about a couple of responses to my post taking a tangental discursion from the actual POINT I was making! And then? DEFENDING predatory lenders who abuse their customers!

Where'd I leave my motherfucking cluestick?

Re:Creative destruction (4, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251114)

That's not true. At any point you can go to the credit card company and say "Here is the $3874 I owe you" and get out of your contract.

The terms are only unilaterally adjusted if you pay it off monthly. In that case, you're still in the loan, so of course your contract holds. They can't ignore the contract. You signify agreement to any changes by not canceling your account. If you've been using your credit responsibly, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. If you've been using it like a second source of income, yeah, you're screwed.

I do think many of the credit card company's practices are horrible, and some should be illegal. In fact, some are now (read: June 1st) thanks to the credit card reform that was passed. But it annoys me that so many people take on so much debt and then complain that they have to pay it off.

I don't see enough people taking responsibility, so I poked at your point that read that way to me.

Re:Creative destruction (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251558)

That's not true. At any point you can go to the credit card company and say "Here is the $3874 I owe you" and get out of your contract.

Did you know that when you do that, the credit card company reports it as negative credit information that lowers your credit score?

That's right, they penalize you for fulfilling your contract. It's a strategy right out of the loan shark's playbook.

And when you pay off your entire balance every month, do you know what the credit card companies call you?

A "deadbeat".

I'm not making this up.

The credit card companies are at the top of the list of commercial entities that are openly hostile to their customers. The big phone carriers are right up there, too.

Re:Creative destruction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251808)

Did you know that when you do that, the credit card company reports it as negative credit information that lowers your credit score?

Uh, wrong. I have a virtually perfect credit rating (I know because I just refinanced my mortgage a few months ago and got my score) and I NEVER carry balances on any of my credit cards and I charge everything I can so I can collect the reward points. I pay the entire balance every month, ON TIME. Paying at least the minimum payment ON TIME is the secret to a good credit rating ... nothing more.

Re:Creative destruction (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251244)

You have to pay it off, on terms unilaterally adjusted by the lender, on criteria independent of the contract under which you entered the lending agreement.

Incorrect. When they change the terms of your agreement (interest rate, annual fee, etc.) you are able to avoid said changes by closing the card and paying it off under the previously agreed to terms. You don't have to pay it all off at once either -- you can make the minimum payment that was provided for by your previous account agreement.

DEFENDING predatory lenders who abuse their customers!

I don't see them as being predatory. Nobody forced people to run up those credit cards. In fact the new credit card "reform" bill kinda pissed me off. Two of my credit cards are now assessing an annual fee because of this "reform". They can no longer collect penalties from those who become delinquent so now those of us who maintain our accounts in good standing are going to pay the price. I'm left with the choice of eating an annual fee or closing two of my oldest accounts and seeing my credit score drop.

The only good thing that came out of that legislation was the concealed carry in national parks provision.

Re:Creative destruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251702)

No, they would downright abuse people, even if they made payments on time, like doubling, tripling, quadrupling their monthly minimum payment, so when that revenue stream dried up, everyone will get an annual fee.

This is why I don't use credit cards anymore, period..

Re:Creative destruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251332)

Simple, don't carry a mf'ing balance on your credit card, Mr. Dickhead

Re:Creative destruction (0, Flamebait)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251582)

Shakrai, it's a dick move to post under your own name AND immediately again as an AC. I know you think it makes it look like there's a whole bunch of people who agree with you, but it only makes you look sad.

I mean, you're already posting under several different account names. Isn't that enough?

Re:Creative destruction (1)

TikiTDO (759782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251044)

I don't think it's the "pay it off" part that's got people annoyed. It's more to do with the "pay off not only more than you owe, but also enough to pay for huge CC company profits, and the ludicrous incomes of the employees."

Re:Creative destruction (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251146)

They don't get to add $500 "you paid off your card" fees. What amount are you talking about?

The high interest rates? You agreed to them in the contract. It was a one sided contract, but you agreed. You can pay off your loan at any time and get out of it.

Should credit cards be able to lend people $25k at 28% interest? Almost certainly not. Does that mean it's OK to take that money and then claim "it was unfair, I demand 7%"? No.

Re:Creative destruction (4, Interesting)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251266)

It's more to do with the "pay off not only more than you owe, but also enough to pay for huge CC company profits

The nerve of those for-profit companies turning a profit.

Hey, I got an idea for you if the notion of a credit card company turning a profit bothers you so much: Get a credit card from a credit union. Most Americans are eligible to join one or more credit unions. Why we need to legislate "reform" on the credit card industry when the marketplace has already provided alternatives is beyond me. Maybe if people would spend some time doing basic research on the options available to them we'd all be better off?

Re:Creative destruction (1, Funny)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251744)

The stench of Randroid droppings is thick in the air tonight.

Somebody open a window!

Re:Creative destruction (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251342)

what nonsense. of course you have to pay off the money they loaned you (yeah what assholes...). credit cards are a triumph of freedom and consumer choice - there's 100's of offers out there from super low rates to high rates with interest FREE periods and everything in between. you can cancel anytime by just paying them back the money you owe, it doesn't get any fairer. if they put their rates up you get notification, and your free to just chop up the card and pay back the money before the new terms start.

I've had a CC for about 10 years now and i think i've only ever paid $50 in interest and about $1000 in annual fees, and considering a CC is an unsecured loan i think that's amazingly cheap.

FUCKING-A !! GOOGLE ME !! GOOGLE ME NOW !! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250930)

I want you to GOOGLE ME like I've never been before !! Won't you GOOGLE ME NOW !! I want it !! GOOGLE ME !! NOW !!

suckas !!

Re:Creative destruction (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251016)

What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.

Actually, the question could easily apply to the federal government, as well. At least if you consider the actual taxpayers to be "customers". They're getting shafted, and there's even less that can be done for it.

Re:Creative destruction (2, Insightful)

ani23 (899493) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251154)

why the mobile phone hate. I think its the single most awesome thing in the last decade. imagine being able to call a loved one from wherever you are and know that you will be able to get through (in most cases). the industry on the other hand . . .

Re:Creative destruction (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251612)

why the mobile phone hate. I think its the single most awesome thing in the last decade.

Awesome as long as you like being on a long leash.

Re:Creative destruction (3, Funny)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251726)

Only if it comes with the hot, half naked chick, with a whip.

Re:Creative destruction (0, Troll)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251174)

It also concerns me, in the long term. What is google doing to finance all this ( and their other potential market takeovers )? What is their end goal if they own everything? Why should i trust them anymore then any other company?

Remember, power corrupts.. At what point does it corrupt Google and we ALL get to pay the price?

Re:Creative destruction (2, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251444)

What is google doing to finance all this

Google finances everything from their advertising revenue.

If that ever dries up, they are royally, totally, completely fucked.

In the meantime, they are royally, totally, completely fucking up every market they blunder into by offering services in that market for free - totally destroying the market for any one or company trying to make money in that market.

Freetrads love Google because they get stuff for free (as in someone else pays for it). People with half a brain are realizing Google is becoming the greatest corporate evil ever.

Watch the rabid down-modding being...

Re:Creative destruction (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251754)

Parent is not a troll. Google is a for profit company like many others and right now they think before acting to keep their image, but what if that were to change?

Re:Creative destruction (4, Informative)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250740)

Ever since the introduction of 2G mobile technology, we've just been throwing data back and forth between the towers, and yet even in 2009 the telcos still charge us differently for minutes, text messages, and "data."

It was always going to take a disruptive force to get them to recognize data as data and price it as such. Maybe Google will serve as just that disruption.

Re:Creative destruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250980)

Well, voice has more strict latency requirements than text, but yes data is data.

Re:Creative destruction (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251716)

Though voicecalls are a bit more than data - not only because of QoS requirements but also due to need for interaction with "general" telephone network.

OTOH cost of text messages was always virtually zero...

Re:Creative destruction (4, Interesting)

Myopic (18616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251200)

Goodness, I hope Google offers a phone.

Today I went to an AT&T store (I'm an AT&T customer) trying to buy a phone, as I've been doing for literally years. I'm a computer programmer, a big nerd, and I still have a crappy candybar phone from 2002. I really want some kind of super smart phone, but no company is apparently willing to sell me one! To me, my constraints all seem reasonable:

  • The phone must charge and sync data over a standard USB or mini-USB cable, with no proprietary chargers or data cables.
  • The phone's software must be under my control, so I can install a new operating system if I want, or whatever else I want. It must be a fully open hardware platform, the same way I can install new software on my computer.
  • The phone must use standard SIM cards so I can easily switch telephone providers, or travel internationally with pay-as-you-go SIM cards.
  • The phone must have Bluetooth which can be used for earbuds and for data syncing.
  • If it's a smart phone, it must be able to show real full webpages, not just mobile versions of webpages.

Really, are those such unreasonable requests? I'm just not willing to pay money to companies that make me endure shenanigans such as:

  • Phones that only work on one carrier. (WTF?)
  • Phones that require a $50 cable to sync data or to charge the battery. (WTF?)
  • Phones that have Bluetooth but it can't be used to sync data, only to communicate with proprietary peripherals. (WTF?)
  • Phones that hold information for the people I contact, but provide no way to get that info off the phone. (WTF?)

So the first company that offers me a smart phone with zero shenanigans is going to get my money. I'm desperate for a new phone, and I'm going to buy the first one that is above the threshold of acceptability! My phone is an embarrassment, and I'm a perfect candidate for an expensive new phone, and I'm really surprised that there is no company that wants my money.

Re:Creative destruction (4, Insightful)

Flavio (12072) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251386)

Here's the deal: be realistic. No company's going to offer you a "fully open" cell phone simply because there aren't any fully open operating systems for smart phones out there, and rushing something similar to the market would end up in a support nightmare. Nokia's come a long way with Maemo running on the N900, but the user impressions I've read wrt to the N900 make it clear that the software is beta at best, and is lacking features one would consider standard in a smartphone.

Here's my unsolicited advice: buy an unlocked GSM phone from overseas. My GSM Nokia 5800 can sync over USB or bluetooth, connect me to the Internet over bluetooth using Nokia's Ovi Suite (for Windows) and comes with all the cables you'll need, including the car charger. It's a very affordable smartphone, has great GPS functionality which doesn't require an internet connection to download maps, can play high resolution videos, has a real (albeit kind of slow) web browser and is made by Nokia, which is the most OSS-friendly cell phone manufacturer out there.

Re:Creative destruction (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251796)

I sincerely appreciate your advice. I'll look into the N900. All I mean about "fully open" is that the hardware should not have any artificial barriers to me altering its software. It might be relatively hard to get serial-level access to the drives or ROMs or whatever, but beyond that, the manufacturer should not have put in extra effort to frustrate efforts to change the software configuration. They don't have to make it easy, but they need to NOT make it hard.

Re:Creative destruction (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251408)

Check out the Nokia N900. Runs Maemo, basically a completely unlocked Debian distro (unlike Android or Moblin, which while extremely polished are kind of sandboxes). Don't know if the cable is standard mini-USB, but I think Nokia is pushing in that direction. It was just released and reviews are starting to trickle in. They haven't been completely positive (a lot of people don't like the older tech resistive touch screen, which is much less sensitive to fingers and can't do multi-touch), but I think this may be my next phone. You might want to take a look, too.

Re:Creative destruction (2, Informative)

csboyer (1101385) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251410)

Buy an unlocked GSM phone. The N900 meets most of your qualifications above but it only works with T-mobile 3G =(. You can get ATT 2G no problem but thats a deal breaker for most people.

Re:Creative destruction (1)

Myopic (18616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251812)

Hmmm, yeah that may or may not be a deal breaker for me. I'm not sure, because I don't have any data at all on my phone. But thank you for the tip, I will look into the N900.

Re:Creative destruction (2, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251420)

I'm an AT&T user (in before NSA wiretapping) and one of the most appalling aspects of their data plans is that tethering with a 5GB limit is an additional 60 bucks a month. It costs the same price per month for them to flip a magic switch on your existing phone as it does for them to give you an extra 3g adapter!

Years ago I had a phone and a 3G adapter but the 3g speeds sucked and the coverage was spotty even though I was in a major metropolitan area. It's probably worse now that so many iPhones are saturating their network.

Re:Creative destruction (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251438)

You're confused about what the mobile phone makers produce and what the carriers give you.

Mobile phones have a lot of features, natively, but each phone is customised by your telco.

The telco you buy a phone from through generally gets to decide what features are enabled or disabled.

For example, a phone with blue-tooth might allow direct picture exchange with other phones when bought unlocked (or without a contract) but when you buy the cheaper version from Verizon, that feature may be disabled.

Unlocked phones can be bought but they cost more.
Why?

Because the cost of the phone is subsidised by the carrier you buy it from through phone call charges and presumably the contractual agreements that send part of your phone use revenue back to them.

When I look at your list of "must haves", the unlocked Motorola SLVR I bought 3 (or 4?) years ago allows me to:
o use Standard SIM cards from any telco
o Use blue-tooth to attach ear buds or exchange pics with other phones
o recharge and sync data via the micro-USB port ... I don't care to use it as a web browser, so I'm not concerned about whether it gets WTAP pages or not.

Similarly I don't want to run beta-ware software on it so I'm not eager to replace the phone's operating system with my own package that turns it into a brick.

I suspect that the above three bullet items I've listed are available today, you just need to do your home work and be willing to pay a bit extra.

Try going to an AT&T store and asking for an "unlocked phone" and if they can't sell you one, go to Sprint and then Verizon and then...

Re:Creative destruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251520)

I'm pretty sure the Openmoko fits your requirements.

Re:Creative destruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251594)

Uhh... that's most Android devices, bro. The only one that comes close to being "off" your list is the standard USB, as some of them use micro instead of mini. Other than that, hack on!

Re:Creative destruction (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251740)

You won't get fully open platform, rules of whatever entity that regulates your radio spectrum prevent that, basically.

Re:Creative destruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251818)

Actually your requests sound fairly reasonable to me. My suggestion is to check out Nokia's N900, totally open platform, 3G only on T-Mobile (due to the radio) but other than that. I think the only deterrent is the abhorrent price of $550.

Re:Creative destruction,Christmas gifts,shoes,ect (0, Offtopic)

coolforsale1214 (1688170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251294)

http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] Dear ladies and gentlemen Hello, In order to meet Christmas, Site launched Christmas spree, welcome new and old customers come to participate in the there are unexpected surprises, look forward to your arrival. Only this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com] (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping Thanks!!! Advance wish you a merry Christmas

Creative destruction will be prevented (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251502)

And while it is clear to everyone with a clue that this represents a "win" for the consumer, it will be shot down in a matter of months by the Telcos.

America does not know how to "do" creative destruction. We save the auto industry. We save the energy industry. And we will save the technologically and financially backwards telecom industry when the time comes.

The Google Phone will be aborted and the consumer (and America) will lose again.

Now all that we need... (-1, Troll)

Cornwallis (1188489) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250666)

is for Dear Leader to nationalize Google so the takeover of the American public will be complete.

Re:Now all that we need... (0, Offtopic)

Microlith (54737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250716)

Hey look it's a troll!

*snaps picture*

Re:Now all that we need... (0, Offtopic)

NeuralClone (860360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250842)

[Bender Bending Rodriguez]Neat![/Bender Bending Rodriguez]

Re:Now all that we need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250758)

or wait a few years and a conglomerate will privatize the government.

Will not happen (0)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250922)

He did his 8 years already. He is LONG GONE.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250678)

Impossible. Google can't show me enough ads to pay for the nominal 12 cents/minute that we pay for cell phone service.

Re:Anonymous Coward (2, Interesting)

TSHTF (953742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251080)

It would just go over the air as data. For example, 1500 minutes of G729a voice uses (4.12kB/s * 60 seconds * 1500 minutes) = 370 MB

The question is what kind deal Google could cut with the carriers to provide nothing more than 370MB a month of data transit.

The carriers will attempt to unite and squash this (5, Interesting)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250718)

This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.

This should prove to be an interesting battle as google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.

Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t (2, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250792)

google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.

and in contrast to all the phone carriers, a large percentage of people like, or at least respect the company. I can pretty much only see some good coming out of this.

Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251668)

...that is, if there is a battle at all. When google feigned a bid for the wireless spectrum freed up by the digital TV conversion, I had high hopes they had big plans to launch a new network and re-make the wireless market in America. They didn't. Is it even possible now for a new competitor to come in, acquire spectrum, create a nationwide network, and compete with the incumbents? I don't see how, so I don't dare get my hopes up. The ownership of spectrum, in particular, seems like an impassable limitation; those who own it now aren't giving it up, and you simply can't compete on equal terms without it.

Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251172)

The local service for land lines still is owned by the Telcos so Google will have to pay for that, access is granted by law but whoever owns the line can ask for reimbursement fees. . If they don't own the towers and the network infrastructure to carry calls then how will they offer service unless they piggyback on an existing service? Will a Google Phone work on every carrier and for free? Or will the carriers detect a "foreign" SIM card and block access, similar to how my AT&T phone won't work on a Sprint cell network. This is all pretty far fetched speculation that it will be free. I think Google likes selling the technology like Andriod to phone mfgs as that is low risk and high payback. Owning a cell network and being #4 or #5 in the market and having to displace major competitors who are well entrenched is not Google's style. High barriers to entry, low margins and high investments doesn't sound like a good market to be in.

Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251792)

"High barriers to entry, low margins and high investments doesn't sound like a good market to be in."

Low margins on the cell phone network? Are you crazy? They buy phones that cost them $100 and turn around and sell them for $500. On top of that, they massively oversell the network resources they have available. On top of that, many operate at reduced tax rates for various technology/communications grants. On top of that, most of their employees in the sales sector make minimum wage plus commission. On top of that they sell $5 cords for $50.

High barriers to entry, check, but to say that the cell phone industry has low margins is like saying funeral homes operate on low margins.

Re:The carriers will attempt to unite and squash t (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251560)

Well google, despite how impressive this phone may be, still owns 0 towers AFAIK. Telecos will just bend them over on the rates to use their towers. Now, I am no expert in telecom law, so if there are limits or something that I am completely overlooking, please correct me.

if this is true... (2, Interesting)

garynuman (1666499) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250724)

wouldn't this, if true, lead to a pretty massive shakeup in the telcom industry? i would imagine at the very least the pricing of plans would have to change drastically

Google Is the New Borg (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250760)

Seems obvious to anybody that the company that assimilates, disrupts and dominates over the competition is Google.

They are monopolists of information and now they aim for communication. I'm a fan of Google, but we must be wary about Google's aspirations.

Perhaps Slashdot should change the google icon here to a borg icon like Microsoft's. Of course not, people here slobber over Google and Apple, but slag Microsoft at every opportunity.

Oh Shut Up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250834)

If you are going to troll with that tired old cut and paste material at least make it funny in some way.

Remember this:

* Dumb sucks
* Dumb and funny is fine

And with the off chance that you were actually trying to be serious and are actually that stupid. Yes, the big bad Google is so fixated on controlling us poor peons that they:

* Released the complete source code for Android for anyone and everyone to modify and do what they want with
* Released the complete source code for Chrome for anyone and everyone to modify and do what they want with
* Released the complete source code for Chrome OS for anyone and everyone to modify and do what they want with

Oh wait, that's the exact opposite of trying for total control over users...

Re:Oh Shut Up (-1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251242)

You forgot to include "and have said they want ChromeOS to run on ARM netbooks that are totally locked down so you can't even install a printer driver".

Tivo, meet Google. Google, meet Tivo.

"It's for security reasons!" - yeah - their security. Can't have people installing adblock on that Google netbook. >p> How about them using Google voice-to-text so they can search your conversations to "deliver more targeted ads for a better experience"?

Google is an advertising ocmpany - EVERYTHING else is secondary to that. Remember that.

Re:Google Is the New Borg (5, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250892)

How are they monopolists of information? In fact, have you seen them ILLEGALLY enforce their natural monopoly? Have you seen them do illegal actions to take over markets? If so, please provide the proof of that. Otherwise, Cayate la boca, chica.

Re:Google Is the New Borg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251254)

They might not be a monopoly, but having acquired Grand Central and now the Gizmo project, they've pretty much tied up all the innovative SIP systems. If they bought up pulver.com (FreeWebDialup) as well, that'd give them pretty much a monopoly in the public SIP market, competing against private interests such as Cisco & eBay.

Re:Google Is the New Borg (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251464)

First, I HOPE that they buy pulver. They quit doing the free stuff long ago. It was nice having a global hook-up with them.
Second, Cisco sells hardware, not software. And they work with the telcos and ISP. Google would have a HECK of a hard time competing against them. And e-bay does skype. NOT SIP, though there are gateways. And it is starting to die down on its own.

Basically, Google is NOT a threat against the telcos. And to be honest, I wish they were.

Re:Google Is the New Borg (1)

plague911 (1292006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251518)

Bla one of googles stated goals is collect and distribute all the information in the world. To be the next great library of the world.... As we can see with current state of the search engine market. The information market as a whole is more or less a natural monopoly. You make some weird and seemingly uniformed statement about google not trying to "illegally enforce" their monopoly. There are two things off with that statement. First it implies there is a way to "legally enforce" a monopoly.... THERE IS NOT. Secondly that statement also implies that you need to use your monopolistic powers in order to be a monopoly. This is simply factually in correct. Personally i like google. Their motto of "do no evil" I like. I also will probably switch to google if they do enter the phone business. The problem is, google is becoming very very very powerful. Right now they are seemingly acting morally. There is however no guarantee that this will continue.

Wacky mockup (1)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250790)

Why does the 3D-rendered "Googlephone" in TFA appear to be running Windows Mobile?

This is a fun rumor, but I don't really get much of a sense of its veracity from this article.

"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked... (4, Interesting)

NeuralClone (860360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250802)

This is all very interesting but Google Voice barely functions when calling internationally. And I've had horrible luck with it domestically too.

I've been trying to use this service for a while now and it consistently connects me to random numbers in the country I'm calling (yes, I'm dialing the right number and I'm dialing correctly). When I actually do connect to some random person, they can't hear me 4 out of 5 times (and that's being generous).

When calling domestically, I get connected to who I'm calling, but 50% of the time one of us can't hear the other. Very irritating.

So, until they can actually guarantee that their service, you know, WORKS, this isn't something I'm remotely interested in. Google Voice isn't even close to ready for anything beyond a fun little service to play with.

Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked.. (0, Offtopic)

NeuralClone (860360) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250854)

What the hell? "Troll?" I'm stating my personal experience with a service and I get branded a "troll." Nice.

Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked.. (0, Offtopic)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251012)

What the hell? "Troll?" I'm stating my personal experience with a service and I get branded a "troll." Nice.

I find that by doing what the psychologists call "desensitization" I can relax a bit more. So, you need to desensitize. I haven't done it in a day or two, so I'll show you:

Slashdot, gives the ignorant dumb fuckers mod points. I think they have a script that checks to see how ignorant and stupid your posts are and if you meet a certain benchmark, then they give you mod points.

See? I'll get a minus one some fucking thing and you know what? Not a goddamn fucking thing will happen. I'll go on tomorrow doing whatever what I'm doing. The mods will feel all rough and tough for upholding the community standards or some such nonsense, so they'll feel good. I feel good for explaining desensitization. And you'll see someone who gave it back to the dumbasses who modded you down.

It's a win/win/win!

Fukitol! The answer to all of life's problems.

Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251046)

Sorry, must be this new Google Auto-moderation software.

Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked.. (1, Interesting)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251288)

The Google fan crowd are as bad as the Microsofties and Apple polishers together.

To them, Google can do no wrong. Sure, you sacrifice privacy, but "LOOK AT THE SHINY!"

I for one don't want an advertising company (which is what Google is) listening in on my phone calls. They would be pissed if their cell phone company sold their call information to advertisers - but Google can listne in - they're not evil.

The days of Google not doing evil are long gone.

Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked.. (2, Informative)

TSHTF (953742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251020)

Here's another data point for a random end-user: I've used Google Voice to the tune of approximately 1200 minutes per month for the last four months and haven't experienced service issues with receiving calls or placing calls. I've made very few international calls, however.

Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked.. (2, Funny)

perffectworld (973737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251032)

I haven't used it for outbound calls, but I quite enjoy the many calls from far away numbers that I receive badly transcribed in my inbox from people quitting their jobs, or going on vacation, or trying to find out why their girlfriend hasn't called them back. It's a form of entertainment.

Canada too? I hope (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250848)

I hope something like this comes to Canada. I would love to see Google wipe the floor with Rogers, Bell, & Telus (a.k.a. The Three Stooges).

Yeah, but that is not the real story. (2, Funny)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250872)

Google called it Android because the planet from where they all come from has lots of Androids. And Oprah, Laura Bush, as well as Michelle Obama are secretly having babies from the top guys of Google.

I think that should cover all the conspiracies.

Re:Yeah, but that is not the real story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30250960)

Google's behind the chemtrails?! Wake up sheeple!

Re:Yeah, but that is not the real story. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251238)

is that you jeff?

Adapt or else (5, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30250926)

Remember when web mail providers were giving like 4Mb of mailbox capacity, and then Google came with 2Gb (oh, yes, and a spam filter that actually worked)? Most providers didnt vanished, just had to adapt and still are here, giving a better service to their costumer. For cellphone industry that is something very needed, someone that come with a disruptive idea and weight enough behind to actually push it. Wont kill all companies, but to survive they will have to improve, not just giving the latest gizmo and charging you a lot.

Re:Adapt or else (1, Interesting)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251042)

Google will be facing up real giants this time. Not just a few web services. We all think of Google as a big company but compared to Comcast they are not so big at all. I'd say they'd better have thier sh*t together for this one.

Re:Adapt or else (1)

adamchou (993073) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251830)

Google will be facing up real giants this time

when google released gmail, they were going up against msn hotmail and yahoo. i don't know about you, but those are some pretty damn big companies.... unless you're talking about some other time

Re:Adapt or else (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251440)

Exactly! The only thing Google is offering here is a soupped up VOIP solution. Once google breaks in the carriers then it's open game for everyone else. Let them get into the market and maybe we can crack this nut.

Re:Adapt or else (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251750)

Except Google Voice isn't VOIP. It's unified messaging and call forwarding. No VOIP to see here.

I for one welcome our (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251056)

google telco overlords!

Conspiracy Theory (0, Redundant)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251074)

I can't wait for Google to record all of our conversations, run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with "targeted" advertisements.

Re:Conspiracy Theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251234)

I am not a gmail user but...

Don't they already do this with our email?

Also, what do the laws say about "wiretapping" data calls vs voice calls (is VOIP considered data or voice?).

Re:Conspiracy Theory (0, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251314)

I can't wait for Google to record all of our conversations, run them through a voice to text converter and then email/SMS/call me with "targeted" advertisements.

I see the Googlebots modded you -1 Troll. Why? Because it's very believable. And it's probably what they'd end up doing. So there'd be all these nice transcripts lying around ... that could be VERY profitable.

Re:Conspiracy Theory (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251682)

Look at it this way, you would profit greatly from the increased competition, even if you decided to stick with another carrier.

Please, for once (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251096)

Can the quality of service of a US company be the envy of Europe, instead of the other way around?

This is coming anyway with 4G (2, Interesting)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251162)

4G is IP only - it *only* carries data. Perhaps Googles adoption of voice over the current 3G system will speed up 4G developments.

3G? (1)

nthitz (840462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251170)

Right now their services work only internet connections. As the article said they will have an awful hard time getting onto cellular 3G networks to have access anywhere. phones over wifi is not enough for many customers!

Where is the network? (5, Interesting)

zogger (617870) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251222)

At first I thought, whoa, the google phone company, then I broke down and RTFA....You still need a "plan" of some sort from a carrier unless you are using this google phone at some free leeched wifi spot or at home on your network. If you are at home..no need for a special phone, just use your headset and the software like you are now.

If this takes off and people drop voice and go to data only plans, the carriers will just restrict the heck out of them, maybe even dropping the caps from five gigs to one gig, then a hundred bucks a gig after that, whatever they say, or stop offering data only plans, etc. In other words, they aren't going to get "cut out", you will still be horking over ca$h to attverizonsprint whatever.

I am digging on much better quality phones though..eventually I think the mobile phone will more or less be your computer, and at home you'll just have a wireless connected screen and keyboard and mouse, etc with some NAS action.

They haven't got the Droid quite right yet... (0, Troll)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251232)

Maybe they should focus on fixing the devices they already have on the market rather than bringing out whole new things?

The Android is an interesting device but Exchange-Calendar sync is broken (even my iPod Touch does it better), the camera is mediocre and a lot of features just feel like they're .9 level rather than ready for prime time.

The article may say something incorrect (5, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251356)

The article says

For the first time, a single company will control everything from the software in users’ phones to the services they use to make calls and surf the web.

But wait, every phone I've ever had the hardware, software, and services were controlled 100% by my phone carrier. So in that way, the Google phone would be the same.

To me, the difference is that I trust the hardware, software, and services from Google, but I don't for a second trust AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon. They have proven that they refuse to provide products and services that I want, but Google has proven that they very much understand and want to provide the products and services that I want. I share the privacy concerns about Google, but at this point I'm just being vigilant, watching for Google to violate my trust. So far so good.

Google! Please put the dinosaurs out of business! I want to stop giving them my money! I want to give you my money for better services!

Re:The article may say something incorrect (1)

Cyberllama (113628) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251626)

Google, as a brand, does have an amazing amount of trust. We should just drop the whole Health Care debate and convince Google to go into the business of selling Health Insurance.

Re:The article may say something incorrect (2, Funny)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251774)

Hmm interesting, where would the ads be placed tho?

The big question: (1)

bashibazouk (582054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251416)

How is Google making money on this and is this going to annoy me enough to stick with what I have?

Watch what Google employees are using. (2, Insightful)

bezenek (958723) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251550)

I assume Google will beta test a phone like this in-house. I will be watching for Google employees carrying something unusual as they walk across the street on the Santa Clara campus.

-Todd

Two words, "whose network?" (3, Insightful)

Jawn98685 (687784) | more than 4 years ago | (#30251630)

RTFA, folks. Google is far, far from posing a threat to the wireless carriers. VOIP over Wi-Fi is one thing, but VOIP over 3G wireless (or whatever) is something else entirely, something that the actual carriers have the means, and certainly the motivation, to fuck with at will (as we have already seen). Unless/until Google starts putting up their own towers, there is nothing new here, at least nothing revolutionary or "game changing".

Holy $#%#$% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30251718)

Why things like this only happens in USA?

Why don't they just come here in Brazil, and offers also this kind of services to us...

It's a shame to Brazil, a potential country having to pay about 60U$ (R$ 100) to a damn megabyte internet access..

Pfff...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...