Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Google raises the white flag on transforming the US wireless industry

By | November 22, 2010, 4:30am PST

Summary: In order to guarantee Android’s success in 2010, Google has snuggled up to the telecoms and given up on changing the US wireless industry to make it better for consumers.

The technology industry is full of once-great companies that held on to an idea, a product, or a platform too long and ended up eventually falling hopelessly behind their competitors and going out of business or being acquired because of it. Think of DEC, Sun, and Palm.

However, the yin to that yang is when a company doesn’t give a new initiative enough time to run its course and pulls the plug too soon. Google has been guilty of this in 2010. The culprit is not a technology or a platform in this case. Instead, it is Google’s multi-faceted strategy for transforming the US wireless industry. This ambitious scheme — which few companies other than Google would have the influence or resources to pursue — has been aimed at helping US mobile users. It has now been utterly abandoned.

The final indication that Google has given up on this altruistic idea is the Google Nexus S smartphone, which CEO Eric Schmidt essentially confirmed the existence of last week during his interview at the Web 2.0 Summit.

A decade from now, 2010 will likely be remembered as the coming out party for Google Android, but it should also be remembered as the year Google traded in its advocacy of wireless fairness in order to purchase Android primacy.

I’m sure there have been lots of high fives on the Google campus this year as the numbers were released showing Android passing iPhone and BlackBerry in US market share for smartphones. However, I hope that somewhere in a cubicle or a corner office at Google there have been at least a few head-shakes or face-palms, because Google has had to ditch some of its highest ambitions in order to achieve Android success. If you’re really cynical, you could even argue that Google sold out the average consumer in order to bend to the wishes of the telecom companies and phone makers.

There have been lots of signs that this was happening throughout 2010 but the final confirmation is the Nexus S, which will reportedly be built by Samsung, sold by Best Buy, and locked into T-Mobile for wireless service. That may not sound like a big deal, if you don’t know the history of the Nexus One, the predecessor of the Nexus S.

The Google Nexus One was released in January to breathless reviews from the tech press, but lackluster sales from the public. It was a fantastic piece of hardware, truly the best Android phone that had been released up until that point and some would still argue that it’s the best overall Android smartphone to hit the market.

But, the most unique part of the Nexus One was that you could only buy it online from Google and that it was not locked to a wireless carrier so you didn’t have to sign a two-year contract the day you started using it. The trade-off was that you had to pay the full non-subsidized price ($500) to buy “the Google phone.”

For the US market, this was intended to be a first step toward mimicking the European wireless model where you can purchase your phone and your wireless service separately, giving wireless users more freedom to match up a preferred device with the service that made the most sense for the user’s needs.

Unfortunately, sales of the Nexus One were not very good in the first quarter. Users still preferred smartphones that were $200 or less - even if it meant signing a long-term contract that cost over $1000 a year. Plus, many of the people who did pony up the 500 bucks for the Nexus One and had problems with it complained about Google’s lackluster customer support.

The Nexus One, which was supposed to be opened up to all four of the big US wireless carriers, landed first on T-Mobile and then AT&T. However, before the long-anticipated availability of the Nexus One on Verizon, the product was cancelled. Then, the Sprint version was cancelled, too. Google eventually sidelined the phone and made it available only to Android developers looking for a testing device, and Schmidt said Google would not do a Nexus Two.

Now, here comes the “Nexus S,” but the only resemblance to the Nexus One is that it runs the stock Android OS without any of the additional UI “enhancements” that HTC, Motorola, Samsung and others have been layering on top of Android (typically doing more harm than good).

When you combine this move — assuming the Nexus S reports are as reliable as they appear — with the fact that Google has cozied up to its No. 1 Android partner Verizon Wireless and punted on Net Neutrality for the US wireless networks, it certainly appears that Google has lost interest in helping shape the future of the US wireless industry to make it more it friendly for consumers. That’s a major letdown coming from a company that once put up over $4 billion to bid for the 700Mhz spectrum for the sole purpose of meeting the FCC’s minimum bid and forcing the winning telecoms to accept the FCC’s open access rules.

Verizon’s 4G LTE network is built on the 700MHz spectrum that it won in that auction. We’ll see how closely it sticks to the open access guidelines when it goes live at the end of 2010.

Maybe ditching its wireless-changing ambitions was necessary for Google to achieve Android’s success, but I like to think the two things could have co-existed. Google could have hired someone else to handle the customer service and retailing of the Nexus line but continued to offer unlocked, full price smartphones in the US to give users a chance to warm up to the idea. And, meanwhile, Google could have continued to put pressure on Verizon and other carriers to keep their open access promises.

We don’t know the conversations that are happening behind closed doors. Google may be putting pressure on Verizon and other carriers in private while keeping a united front in public. But, it sure doesn’t feel like it. It feels like Google has gotten so bullish about Android’s expansion that it has tossed its consumer advocacy aside and assumed that an ascendant Android will solve all problems.

I’m sure that I will get a hold of the Nexus S and I will review it. I will probably even like. After all, the Galaxy S models are among the best Android smartphones on the market. But, based on what the Nexus S represents — Google’s surrender to the telecoms — it will be tough to ever get enthusiastic about it.

Also read

This article was originally published on TechRepublic.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic. He writes about the products, people, and ideas that are revolutionizing business with technology.

Disclosure

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner has nothing to disclose. He doesn't hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Jason Hiner

Jason Hiner is the Editor in Chief of TechRepublic, an online trade publication and peer-to-peer community for IT leaders. He is an award-winning journalist who examines the latest trends and asks the big questions about the technology industry. He previously worked as an IT manager in the health care industry.

You can also find him on Twitter, , Facebook, and at JasonHiner.com.

53
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google raises the white flag on transforming the US wireless industry
birumut Updated - 20th Jun
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
sesli sohbet sesli chat
As long as users expect to buy $500 phones for $199, the carriers will always have the last say. They also don't like to share phones, because then they would have to compete on price and quality of service. Something that is much more difficult to achieve than getting an exclusivity deal with a handset manufacturer.

Now, you could argue that you don't really need a cross-carrier Android phone, because there are so many Android phones in the market with similar specs that chances are that whatever type of handset you are looking for, your carrier will have it. It's not like back in 2007 when having an exclusivity on the iPhone also meant you had an exclusivity on modern consumer-friendly smartphones.

The Galaxy S is a good example. The carriers do have exclusivity here (they each have a version, under different names), but the exclusivity is paper thin.
@Theli
"Subsidies" are a scam. That's what the author referred to as keeping the store open for advocacy if nothing else.

No, you don't get it. Cross carrier is the holy grail! I don't care if Sprint has a comparable phone that's almost as good. I shouldn't have to pay $100s for a new phone just because they bought my carrier or I was offended by a previous carrier. Customer service is uniformly poor compared to, for instance, what you'd expect at MCDONALD'S, because if you don't like it, you can just switch, oh, yeah, except for the activation fees and costs of buying a new phone.
Odd is it not? With CrapWare abound on Android, is it only Apple now that offers hope of wrenching power from the carriers? A single phone able to move from carrier to carrier (except in the US and a couple of other countries where exclusivity still remains) with the same set of base applications and configurations provided by a single company.

I suspect, this aspect more than anything, has kept the iPhone off of Verizon. Both companies (Apple and Verizon) are control freaks.
@Bruizer
>>With CrapWare abound on Android

Just HOW many fart apps are available on an iphone?
@sackbut

In Bruizer's defense, I think what he's referring to are things like VZ Navigator, CityID, and HTC Sense/Motoblur. Adding 1,001 fart apps from the app store or android market are the consumer's choice to add after the purchase of the handset. VZ Nav is not a choice of the consumer but of the carrier, and at that it's one that isn't removable without rooting one's phone.

Joey
0 Votes
+ -
really
sportmac 22nd Nov 2010
@sackbut that's all you have? fartapps?
@sackbut Yeah but the carriers don't preload them on the iPhone! Im a happy Galaxy S owner, but I must say this one goes to the iPhone. Apple somehow managed to retain control of what you get on the phone instead of AT&T or any other carrier putting in their stupid crapware. I wish Google starts taking some control back soon, not for the future of the platform, but for our (consumers) own good, tbh. Regardless, Android still kicks iOS's butt grin
0 Votes
+ -
Beware of Google!
Gr8Music 23rd Nov 2010
Just wait until the hidden data collection of all phone services built into the Android OS hits the press...

Did I say that out loud?

Google is ultimately evil!
0 Votes
+ -
@Bruizer Apple has been the most proprietary phone manufacturer to date with its exclusivity to AT&T. Had they had known what the mobile platform would be today, granted, they'd probably not had signed this contract. However, they did, and that's that. But Apple is certainly no saint in ANYTHING open, which is what this article is about.
@Bruizer Apple having control is not any more appealing than the carriers having control. However, having said that, a successful approach for Apple to take the power away from the carriers also paves the way for an Android phone that is (even more) independent as well. An independent Android phone doesn't really have to be branded by Google anyway.
@Bruizer

Apple is on the wrong side on this battle. Their position from the outset was to form an evil alliance with AT&T, and even if they make a Verizon phone it won't be cross carrier capable, so if you're fed up with AT&T, and your iPhone 4 is only six months old, too bad, you'll have to buy a new one to get on Verizon.
@tkejlboom
Hmm I thought Apple went with AT&T because they were able to get what they wanted in terms of how the iPhone would operate. At the time wireless service providers were unwilling to let a device like the iPhone manage its own operations. AT&T agreed but required exclusivity in return. At least that's how it was famed when when the iPhone was introduced.
@tkejlboom You are so wrong. Of course Apple would have preferred to have been on all carriers. AT&T (Cingular) were the only company willing to deal with Apple. Apple got to maintain control and AT&T got exclusivity. That was the deal...get it! Before iPhone everyone was at the whim of the Cellco's. Android benefited from Aples break through but are now losing that control leaving only Apple fighting the fight.
0 Votes
+ -
Highly premature
Economister 22nd Nov 2010
I think Google has just taken a sensible detour to build the Android brand. You cannot take on the carriers and establish your brand at the same time; it is simply too expensive and risky.

If Android achieves market dominance, taking on the carriers will be MUCH easier. This battle if FAR from over. Wait and see.
0 Votes
+ -
Uh, tell that to Apple.
matthew_maurice Updated - 22nd Nov 2010
@Economister Granted the Apple "brand" has been long-established, but the iPhone was certainly not. In fact, many people questioned whether Apple's approach (limiting to one carrier, at least initially, and tightly controlling the ecosystem) would even work, let alone succeed. But Steve's obssesion with maintaining his vision [AKA megalomania] was proven out.

The problem with Android for Google is that the toothpaste is out of the tube. The carriers don't need Google, as Verizon is clearly showing, they can put crapware and Bing on thier flavors of Android and leave devices on their shipped OS version and still sign up lots of lucrative data plans.

The real question is does Google care? Their mobile stategy isn't about selling handsets or even software, it's about selling ads. As long as Android users keep generating input to "the algorithm" Google is probably happy.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
Economister 22nd Nov 2010
@matthew_maurice

Android does not even belong to Google, but the Open Handset Alliance (if you can say that any open source SW belongs to anybody). I think Android was a response to iOS, which threatened to become dominant.

I do not think Google wants to deal with handsets nor OS's. As you say, they just want to sell ads, and Apple was a huge threat on mobiles.

The only exception is Chrome, which Google will use to tie into its cloud services, and it will still sell ads.
@Economister
"I do not think Google wants to deal with handsets nor OS's." While I'm not sure that is 100% accurate, especially with the statement above and the high-5's. I also don't think they can. Our experience here and with articles we have read and continue to read. Google is horrible at customer service, - especially the enterprise level. At this point this maybe an Achilles heel for them, but I'm sure they are working on that problem, I would hope so.
@matthew_maurice

Did you even read the article? It's not about the software on the device. Even the Nexus S is getting stock OS. This is about vendor lock-in and one sided contracts. We're talking about vertical integration monopoly, Apple's bread and butter, and how it's bad for the consumer.

Furthermore, I'm sure Google sees having the option of Bing on Android as a smashing success, even is some default to it out of the box. See the decade long legal disaster of Netscape v. IE for why that's important.
@Economister

Hope you're right...
@Economister

Hope you're right...
@Economister

Hope you're right.
@Economister I agree. If the Nexus S is successful on T-Mobile, it will only increase the popularity of Android and increase consumer demand for other carriers to provide high end Android phones. OEM's will make them, either as carrier deals or stand alone products. Who thinks carriers will let T-Mobile be the only kid on the block with a decent Android phone? That situation can't last. By signing with T-Mobile, Google are ensuring Android remains a dominant platform (not that it wouldn't necessarily do that anyway, but signing with ONE carrier, is better than no carrier being able to brand your device ie: people having to buy it outright).

Luckily here in Australia, we don't tend to get device/carrier lock-ins. When they happen they don't last.
@Economister I'm sure it was a risk Google could afford...but they didn't take that risk...why? Cause they have their hands in everyones pockets in the form of Ads. They don't really care about end user satisfaction. They only care about market share and market dominance. Problem is it is that it lacks vision and guts. The android platform is a good platform but it is being tugged in so many directions that it is falling apart.
Just one more thing Google failed at. The list keeps getting longer and longer.
0 Votes
+ -
Speaking of failures....................
Economister 22nd Nov 2010
@Loverock Davidson

nt
@Loverock Davidson
Hi troll! Long time no see.
better. The genie is out of the bottle, and the carriers can no longer control which applications consumers buy and install on their phones. The proliferation of smart phones will in the long run force Wireless carriers to let the end users have the applications they want. Of course they will continue to try to feed bandwidth through an eye dropper at high prices.
0 Votes
+ -
is consumers. When consumers become educated and stop accepting crap from vendors for their money, things may change. Unfortunately the consumer has been conditioned to believe that they have no say and no power. This is made abundantly clear when you look at any number of vertical markets...software and airlines spring immediately to mind. Consumers have been led to believe that they have no alternative but to accept whatever level of treatment the industry deems appropriate. They don't understand that "market-driven economy" doesn't mean "business-driven economy". Consumers are the market, business is the entity that serves the market. Google, in developing Android, provided a tool for business to serve the market. It is ultimately up to the consumer to vote with their pocketbook which vendors are serving the consumer best.
switch to carriers that will give them that. Smart consumers will go for Google Nexus phones on TMobile without the crapware.
@DonnieBoy - They haven't yet... why would they in the future? What would be the difference vs. now? And on top of that while Google has no control over Android's customization by the carriers, they are getting a lot of blame about updates, functionality, and inconsistent versions. And that appears to happen on it's own.
@ItsTheBottomLine

I switched to T-mobile and have a Nexus One. So, some did. Frankly, I think Android, and no contract plans are the only reason T-mobile is alive today.
0 Votes
+ -
patience!
GDF 22nd Nov 2010
I think we're only halfway through act two of a three-act play. Doom and despair abound. The bad guys are mercilessly kicking our hindquarters. The good guy is laid up with a gunshot wound / broken leg / deadly disease (select one or more).

In the long run, the important seeds have been planted. Android is making it a two-player game in the "really smart" smartphone arena. Apple is having to move away from AT&T exclusivity to reach more customers. Verizon had to let go of its proprietary add-ons like VZ Navigator when there are free apps that do a better job.

The best news of all may be that Google was able to bring net neutrality to the wired-Internet world by "kicking the can down the road" on wireless neutrality. I can live with that, and I can't wait for the curtain to rise on act III.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google raises the white flag on transforming the US wireless industry
AndroidGold.com - Best Android Tablets and Phones 22nd Nov 2010
I dunno - I just saw a really nice Ideos Android phone from Huawei in Hong Kong - out the door for just $245.
It's quad-band CDMA and GSM - so it should work on any unlocked carrier network, seems as these become more available from Chinese OEM's they will eventually make their way to the States; certainly Android will be the primary facilitator in this - the question really will be whether Google will open the license for their Android Market app and other licensed apps to all devices rather than stipulate a complicated compliance process that requires overbuilt and expensive devices and eliminates the cost of low-cost unlocked competitors.
Who determines what is considered junk and what is not? I once bought a laptop computer for a friend (with his money) that had all of the "crapware" removed for an extra fee, when I protested about the extra fee, Circuit City dropped it. Are you willing to pay more to have "less?" It all comes down to dollars and cents. What someone is willing to pay for or not. That phone without all of the undesired extras might cost another $50-$100 making it undesireable for many or even unaffordable. I doubt if the carriers or manufacturers are going to subsidize the removal of what someone decides is unneeded software. It is just like someone deciding what is best of a series of TV shows, what if I want the whole series? It apparently is not available, just the "best of", same principle. There should be a choice, with different pricing, of with or without.
@dhays

Charging more to have your device unbroken is extortion, not good policy.

Uh, what if you don't want the whole series? Better yet, ask why you can't get just one track off an album? Oh, yeah, iTunes and the death of the old corrupt music industry.
The company whose number rule is don't be evil has become exactly that.
who proudly proclaims some moral position should always raise a red flag. The day I read Google's mission statement, the realist in me said: If they have to tell people, then there's a problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Your writing is one big fictitious piece
jack of daniels 22nd Nov 2010
Don't pretend to know what's going on. You don't so what you do is make up a phony conclusion. Do yourself a favor and read the FAQ at the Open Handset Alliance. Android is a partnership agreed upon and developed by 79 and county tech companies. http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_faq.html
Google is such a noble and selfless company, even when directly faced with hard, cold evidence of Google's blatant lack of ethics. It's textbook cognitive dissonance. The idea that Google would "sell out" doesn't surprise anyone who is honest when faced with the company's past practices.
I think the mobile carriers would be happy to get rid of contracts. They created a mess for themselves by encouraging consumers to perceive handsets as, essentially, free. But to make that work, the trade-off has been 24 month contracts.

Except, now consumers expect phones to be free AND without contracts. Not economically viable, not good for Telco's and I think they know it. (Didn't these kinds of "free" plans contribute mightily to the DotCom bust?) At least back in the 90's as this was beginning, the Telco marketing VP I knew would shake his head about this specific impending mess.

You want flexibility, low cost handsets, and no contract. You get one of the three. Which will you choose?

So all you anti-Telco's in this thread, get a grip. Unless and until you get consumers to realize the deal they've been getting for 15 years, it's just a fantasy - and not even Google has the weight to overturn it.
@dsgarnett I tend to agree. I don't have aproblem with contracts. I've been with the same carrier for a while, over several 24month contracts. I've never considered changing because I've never had any significant issue, infact I like my carrier. They are reliable and have good customer service. Why change? Contracts save me money. That said, I've also bought phones outright, and do so regularly, if I'm within contract and want a change of handset. I'm not afraid to pay outright, but if my contrct is coming up for renewal and I'm looking for a new handset I'll go talk to my carrier. I've had up to 8 months dropped off existing contracts just so they can resign me onto a new 24 month contract (with a free handset). In fact I don't think I've run out a single 24 month contract, ever.

Contracts aren't lock-ins unless we look at them that way. You are always free to buy out of the contract, and usually the payout is quite reasonable provided you've been with them for a year or more. Sure if you do buy out of a contract, you in effect end up paying for your handset, but wouldn't you have done that anyway if you didn't sign a contract in the first place? I don't see contracts as an evil ploy by carriers at all. No one is putting a gun to my head to sign - I have always been free to buy outright.

In fairness to the other side of the argument, I'm not interested in the iphone, so I never had to consider changing providers to get one. Also, in Australia that lock in deal no longer exists. I can buy one outright now if I want to, or cheap with my carrier. And a part of me thinks "so what you can't get an iphone unless you sign with x. Just get any number of other excellent handsets on offer from other oems". There is no shortage of competition in the handset market.
0 Votes
+ -
The future of Voice Calls
BDA123 22nd Nov 2010
I think you have to look at the bigger picture. It will not be long before you don't have a voice plan and a data plan, but just a data plan. The future of wireless is that the device you select 4", 7", 10" etc. will be either Android, WebOS, iOS, or WP7 based and will have Google Voice, Skype, Ooma or someother voice service that utilizes your data connection to make phone calls. If google can make sure that Google Voice is built into the Android versions used by carriers they will win the game. Besides why compete with the device manufacturers (Qualcomm, Nokia, LG, Samsung, Motorola, Apple, Dell, and everyone else producing tablets now), the chip manufacturers (Qualcomm, Samsung, TI, and Nvidia) and even try to keep up with screen technologies? The competition is to strong, constantly changing, and margins are too thin. It will not even be years before Google Voice eliminates voice plans anyway and the major US carriers are only selling data plans.
This is a very informative and good article..I have made my effort in explaining HOT TRENDS

in Mobile Technology in my article..The link is below..

http://authorshive.com/2010/11/22/mobile-technology-and-advancement/
0 Votes
+ -
Nexus One failed for many reasons
os2baba 22nd Nov 2010
The Nexus One flopped because of many reasons

1. You can't sell an unsubsidized phone and then have it run on only one carrier. It makes no sense. Even if there was a Nexus One for all 4 carriers, it would have still flopped. To sell a unsubsidized phone in the US, it would have to be both a GSM/CDMA phone that would run 3G/4G on all 4 carriers. Only then does it make sense since you could then (theoretically) switch carriers.

2. You also need low no contract prices on each carrier. The only carrier that is offering a lower no contract price in the US is T Mobile and even that price is just $10/$15 lower. I think AT&T is also offering no contract service now.

3. Pathetic tech support. This is not free gmail without tech support. If you plonk down $500, there had better be *excellent* phone support.

4. You can't spend expect to make too many $500 sales without a touch-and-feel experience. The phones have to be sold by the carriers, Best Buy, Amazon, Google etc. It has to be a multi-pronged strategy.

I have now started buying my T-Mobile phones without a contract. It's not a whole lot of savings, but I can always switch my phone at any time and I can always go to any other provider if T-Mobile or the phone vendor is dragging its feet with OS updates.

It would have been nice if Google had learnt from their mistakes and continues with the Nexus Line, creating a new phone every 6 months or so. It would have kept the carriers and the phone vendors on their toes. Eventually if Google had fixed the problems above, I think they would have kept chipping away and eventually got where they wanted to be - carrier free, providing voice over IP.
Was Google's real goal with the Nexus One changing the industry? They spoke big about that, but they didn't even slightly deliver on it. I think it was closer to the vest -- they wanted to help Android catch on, and in order to do that, they took the delivery of a true iPhone competitor in-house. After the Droid and a number HTC models (the N1 was of course an OEM from HTC) hit the market, they didn't need this anymore. They wanted Android successful, but I don't think they fancied actually being in the handset business.

The talk of changing the industry was great: one phone, unbundled, use on any carrier, sold at a reasonable price. They did the first two: one one, and it was unbundled. It was also GSM-only (despite chips from Qualcomm that can do GSM and CDMA2000), and fairly useless on AT&T, as it only did T-Mobile's 3G frequencies (1700/2100MHz). So they sold an unbundled phone usable on one network... no functional change there.

Then there's the sales model.. yeah, they sold the Nexus One online, unlocked. But hey, you could buy a Motorola Droid or Milestone online, unlocked, even before Google's offering. So where's the innovation there?

Price? Nope. The list price of every phone sold in the USA is dramatically inflated. This is done so because the telcos are in the catbird's seat -- if they don't buy your phone, they don't sell your phone, and so you don't sell any phones. They negotiate a price based on the MSRP that they'll pay at wholesale. And they do it this way specifically to make the price of the phone ridiculous, so that consumers will accept the idea that phone bundled with service is a good idea.

What should a phone cost? The iPhone 3GS, the Droid, and the Nexus One all had MSRPs around $575-$600. But let's look at something very similar: the iPod Touch. If you add a microphone ($0.75), a camera ($1.25), and a cellular modem ($15-$20 for radio, baseband, PA, and appropriate RF switches), you have an iPhone... usually Apple cuts the memory down on the iPhone, too. So that's $40-$60 additional retail cost. Not much extra engineering expense, either ... these aren't much changed from model to model. You can buy an iPod Touch for just over $200, so properly priced high-end smartphones ought to run around $300. Not $600. But everyone BUT THE CONSUMER benefits from the artificially high MSRP, so this isn't going to change.

Google could have changed it, but they wanted to be able to sell to T-Mobile and perhaps others. You can't drop entirely within the framework of the existing system, sales and price and everything, and expect to also change it. Just won't happen.
Yes it's bad, but it's by no means an irreversible process. I reckon that when the market share gets high enough, they will revert to their previous model.
0 Votes
+ -
This article misses a simple fact: Phones are available unlocked, and have been for years. And most consumers don't want them.

Lots of phones can be bought unlocked, from Nokia http://qurl.com/djc4h and HTC http://qurl.com/l244t and Motorola http://qurl.com/f5g1w But very few people buy them.

Personally, I have and probably will again. But most people would rather save the up-front money and buy through carriers.

The carriers, meanwhile, are going to find ways to lock in customers one way or the other. Many carriers abroad require lock-in to get good calling rates even if you're not buying a phone through them. All businesses the world over do whatever they can do to lock in customers, and most customers benefit from this in return for giving the businesses predictability.

So I'm not disagreeing that unlocked phones are a good trend. But if you want to push for it, you need to figure out a model where customers can get unlocked phones without paying too high a premium.
Google surrendered because the CUSTOMER is always right - and they chose to keep the existing system. They saw the price spread between unsubsidized handsets and subsidized handsets and said "No Way." Complaining about handset subsidies is like complaining about the weather (and it's extremely hypocritical, considering that ZD parent CNET has the "Cheapsake Tech Deal Alert" e-letter - yes, I subscribe). Handset subsidies work (just like rebates for car purchasers and lessees). The price of the sort of *freedom* you want has been shown, and it's still way too high!
i can't help but agree with the tone and outlook of this piece. It does look like Google has sold off, even if it has (had?) the best of intentions in its heart.

Maybe Verizon bought enough Google stock? or promised to? or maybe someone on the board is close and tender to Verizon? Is the ambition of becoming the next MS consuming the higher sphere at Google?

Thinking that they are trying to change the telco corporations from the inside is too optimistic, i'm afraid.
Funny,

Reading about all this positioning and who is the best talk, one has to question why the Nexus or any other smart phone should cost $500. on average. Give me a break, they are all made in cheap labor countries, and when simply comparing to the latest laptops, where prices are dropping like a rock, why does any wireless phone cost $500. ??? I just purchased a full blown HP laptop for under $500., so this whole idea of $500. smart phone prices is a ripoff. Supplemented prices says it all, we are all being ripped off by these billion dollar companies. lol

Mortgage-Free-Homes.com
Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!
sesli sohbet sesli chat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix