Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Oct 2012 19:15 UTC
Google "We know what Nexus means now. There can no longer be any doubt: a Nexus device is about openness first and foremost. That does not mean Google won't make compromises with the Nexus program. It simply means that Google will only make compromises when it comes to increasing openness. Why? Because Google benefits from open devices as much, or more than you do. Last year the technology sphere was busily discussing whether or not the Verizon Galaxy Nexus was a 'true' Nexus device. This year we have an answer: a Nexus controlled by a carrier is no Nexus. Rather than get in bed with Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T to produce an LTE version of the Nexus 4, we have HSPA+ only. Even the new Nexus 7 with mobile data is limited to this enhanced 3G standard." Interesting take on the whole thing - reeks a bit of finding a reason for a feature deficiency, but it does fit into the available facts.
Order by: Score:
v Thomklaw nails it...
by bowkota on Tue 30th Oct 2012 19:26 UTC
Yeah, right
by No it isnt on Tue 30th Oct 2012 19:47 UTC
No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

A more sensible explanation would be Google being allowed (by the manufacturers who also have competing products) to sell these things with very slim margins on the condition of those very significant annoyances, leading to people wanting a more costly upgrade if they actually like the thing. Not unlike Apple and the original iPhone sans 3G, except the slim margins of course.

This is to increase the demand of premium products, not for some communal wishy-washy feelgood nonsense.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Yeah, right
by bassbeast on Tue 30th Oct 2012 20:57 UTC in reply to "Yeah, right"
bassbeast Member since:
2007-11-11

There is a dark cloud looming that threatens Google though more than any, which is probably why they are afraid to get in bed with a carrier, and that is the ever nastier data caps. I have a feeling we are gonna see the whole "net everywhere" thing die a HARD death because in a dead economy you have the carriers getting well...just plain NASTY when it comes to prices, both on mobile and at home, and this is gonna seriously hurt Google's bottom line.

I'll never forget what one of the fund managers said on Money matters the other day "If I click on an ad on my tablet its completely by accident and I rush to close it, because every ad costs me money with my data cap" and from the looks of things its ONLY gonna get worse here in the USA.

So I wish Google luck but I hope they are willing to invest in backbone because nobody is gonna be clicking on any ads when charged by the Mb.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Yeah, right
by Morgan on Wed 31st Oct 2012 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah, right"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The thing is, they are investing in backbone connections, at least they are trying to here in the US. They've rolled out fiber in select cities but it's far less than 1% penetration right now. And as fast and cheap as it is, and despite the fact that it's expected in my area within two years, I doubt I'll be on board. Believe it or not Comcast has actually started getting more consumer friendly over the past year. This past April they completely removed their already generous bandwidth cap, which opened the gate for us to start using Netflix and other streaming media exclusively and allowed my fiancée to cut her satellite service off for good. That alone gave us a $50/month net savings.

No, I'd rather have Comcast's ambiguous but improving stance on consumer privacy and friendliness than Google's "we give you cheap ungodly speeds, you give us your complete Internet history end-to-end". I'd rather not sell my soul just yet.

As for wireless backbone, well they didn't win their wireless spectrum auction but their actions made the process and results more open. They have also purchased the most aggressively marketed Android phone manufacturer in the US, and it just happens to be the biggest Android OEM for Verizon as well. I wouldn't be surprised if we see pressure from Google on the big V to start phasing out data caps. With LTE the caps are a joke anyway. I'm on Sprint so for me a data cap doesn't exist, but I'd like to think such a move would push AT&T back into the capless era. T-Mobile has already begun to remove caps for new accounts here as well.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Google remains a US-centric company. Most of the changes they will bring about will not make a dent outside our borders, and that's too bad. Then again, perhaps the world is better off if Google stays on a leash...

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Yeah, right
by gan17 on Wed 31st Oct 2012 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah, right"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, Google remains a US-centric company. Most of the changes they will bring about will not make a dent outside our borders, and that's too bad. Then again, perhaps the world is better off if Google stays on a leash...

Would you mind enlightening me on this bit? I'm not all that familiar with what Google's providing aside from the high-speed broadband to certain states.

If anything, I would've imagined Google be more rest-of-world-centric than most US tech companies. With regards to this article at least, and the Nexus 4 in particular, one would think they're giving the ROW more preference over the US this time round by making it a pentaband only device, and lowering the cost to about (a bit more than) half what you'd usually pay for a similarly spec'd unlocked Android halo handset.

I realize some of Google's services are US only, but that's more to do with bureaucratic/legislative/licensing issues in other countries that prevent them (which might or might not be a good thing). Google Voice would be one example, I suppose.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Yeah, right
by Morgan on Wed 31st Oct 2012 02:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah, right"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Sorry, I should have clarified that that is speculation on my part; I thought it was clear from the context. To me it would fit with their current patterns, but I could of course be way off.

And I do believe Google has their collective heart set on being the biggest worldwide player in their markets. I think you're right though; the current focus they have on the US is likely forced due to bureaucratic reasons. I think they also want to try to bring the US up to the level of Europe when it comes to landline and cellular broadband access before focusing on the rest of the world.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Yeah, right
by dsmogor on Fri 2nd Nov 2012 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yeah, right"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

There are many of their service that either lag on worldwide roll-out or end up being nonexistent (not that due to technical reasons), to name a few:
- music
- voicemail
- navigation
- voice search (though they are better than competition in that anyway)
- Android developer payments
Nokia for that matter used to be much more reliant, when they pushed (and advertised) some universal service it used to be indeed worldwide.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Yeah, right
by JAlexoid on Wed 31st Oct 2012 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah, right"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Comcast's ambiguous but improving stance on consumer privacy and friendliness

Every time I used to get a support request for the software that monitors any IP traffic of the many American ISPs I couldn't stop thinking that all of the privacy loving Americans are massive wussies. If you value your privacy so much then get a law through to make privacy protected.

Marketing data based on your IP traffic is being sold in a worse form than Google does.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Yeah, right
by JAlexoid on Wed 31st Oct 2012 10:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Yeah, right"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

"If I click on an ad on my tablet its completely by accident and I rush to close it, because every ad costs me money with my data cap"

On the other hand, it might drive up the value and price of a click. If your click is intentional then it's much more valuable than an unintentional click.

Reply Score: 5

Re:
by kurkosdr on Tue 30th Oct 2012 20:09 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

Now that lots of people will be unloading their Galaxy Nexuses and they will get down in price both as new and as used, I will get one. I want to see The Real Android. Oh, and also have upgrades on time (since google is going more rapid release as time passes, upgrades become more crucial).

I could get the Nexus 4, but I don't prefer LG's panels. LG's blacks on their smartphone displays are too grayish IMO, even in auto brightness mode, and there is too much glare too.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 30th Oct 2012 20:30 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

I guess openness doesn't include GPU drivers and etc. which are required to run conventional Linux (i.e. non Android) on those devices.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by shmerl
by sirspudd on Tue 30th Oct 2012 20:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
sirspudd Member since:
2010-10-13

And Lima is his name-o

http://limadriver.org/

Not sure how this is going to play with the ARM Mali-T604, but there are good grounds for optimism. Shit is getting awfully real and favourable for Linux nobs.

Chromebook on order, Arch Linux invasion imminent

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 30th Oct 2012 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Lima is a good effort, but it's reverse engineering. It doesn't stem from openness of vendors, rather from the complete opposite.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by WorknMan on Tue 30th Oct 2012 20:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I guess openness doesn't include GPU drivers and etc. which are required to run conventional Linux (i.e. non Android) on those devices.


It also doesn't include the source code for the Google apps. When these for-profit corporations start talking about openness, what they really mean is 'openness, as long as it's convenient for us'. Which is fine, as long as you don't fall for their bullshit rhetoric, like they're somehow doing you a favor.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Wed 31st Oct 2012 10:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Since when openness is the same as opensource?
Windows is not opensource, but is very much an open platform. Openness != open source.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Wed 31st Oct 2012 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

JAlexoid,

"Since when openness is the same as opensource?
Windows is not opensource, but is very much an open platform. Openness != open source."

Your basic point true, obviously. However don't you find it ironic to use windows as an example? Half of windows 8 is decidedly closed by either definition. 100% if talking about windows RT.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Thu 1st Nov 2012 17:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

If Windows is the best example, then it's the best example...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Thu 1st Nov 2012 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

JAlexoid,

"If Windows is the best example, then it's the best example..."


The best example of a humanoid is the mermaid. Well, it is half true ;)

Solaris might have been a better example, it started out closed source, went open source under sun, and has returned to being closed source under oracle, all the while being an open platform for end user apps. Oh well, the example is not important since I think everyone understands the concepts now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by demosthenese on Tue 30th Oct 2012 21:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
demosthenese Member since:
2011-02-01

"I guess openness doesn't include GPU drivers and etc. which are required to run conventional Linux (i.e. non Android) on those devices."

This may interest you:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Nexus7/Installation

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 30th Oct 2012 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

How does it work exactly? Where did they get glibc based drivers?

Reply Score: 2

Why 4G LTE means very little
by amadensor on Tue 30th Oct 2012 22:08 UTC
amadensor
Member since:
2006-04-10

Yes, the new devices have only HSPA+, which will go to 21 or 42 Mbps depending on the flavor, and LTE will go to 300, but I have never seen faster than 10 on an LTE device, so does being capable of better than 21 really matter?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Why 4G LTE means very little
by Morgan on Wed 31st Oct 2012 00:22 UTC in reply to "Why 4G LTE means very little"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Indeed, when I was testing a Nexus S 4G on Sprint I never got better than 8Mbps on 4G (granted, that is WiMAX and not LTE). Prior to that when I was on T-Mobile with a Nokia N900, I was regularly seeing 20-25Mbps, which rivaled my cable connection at home.

Sadly, T-Mobile inexplicably permanently capped my account at 300Kbps just one month after getting that phone, even though I had an unlimited data account and never went over 2GB/month bandwidth (at that time, they would only slow an account down after 5GB/month and would reset the soft cap every billing cycle). When I "upgraded" to a MyTouch 4G (and sold the N900 to finance it), my artificial cap soon disappeared. That was the move that eventually pushed me to Sprint.

Reply Score: 2

The 400 lb gorilla for me...
by kevmoos on Tue 30th Oct 2012 22:08 UTC
kevmoos
Member since:
2010-12-08

...is the artificial restriction placed on memory. Memory is cheap as dirt and with MicroSDHC you can hotswap 32GB cards if you were to reach that large capacity. I see a usage case where I install a music card with all my music apps and use the phone when I go jogging, then sub it out for productivity apps when I go to work. Weekend gets the movie/augmented reality, social apps...you get the picture. Why have the companies chosen such ridiculously low sizes for their storage capacities? Can anyone explain it beyond just pure greed?

Reply Score: 10

RE: The 400 lb gorilla for me...
by JAlexoid on Wed 31st Oct 2012 10:53 UTC in reply to "The 400 lb gorilla for me..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

SD Card Association and their "standards"

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 30th Oct 2012 22:40 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

on products with margins this thin, the extra cost of LTE will significantly change the final price and ruin the whole idea. The reason there are no $350 LTE phones is not because the carriers are closed, but because that would be a stupid money-wasting product.

An LTE phone is a different product. It takes thousands of people to make a different product. And for what? Has anyone paid attention to how expensive, rare, and unpopular LTE phones are? Apple makes the most expensive premium electronics, and they could have done LTE from day one. Their opinion on LTE has been correct.

LTE is the most fringe of fringe phone features. It exists for carriers to extract cash from customers. It is not because people need the speed upgrade, despite what huge nerds think. Eventually the 700mhz band will provide better service, but not yet.

Edited 2012-10-30 22:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Luminair
by tankist on Tue 30th Oct 2012 23:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
tankist Member since:
2007-01-19
RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Morgan on Wed 31st Oct 2012 00:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

And as always, Apple is late to the party. They have a habit of waiting to see whether a new technology will take off before jumping in, with a few specific exceptions*. Just look at their stance on Blu-Ray; it remains a niche on PCs but is gaining ground on the consumer front, and so Apple has chosen to move away from optical media altogether. Personally I can't fault them for it; while I think they should have embraced Blu-Ray I doubt their stance has had a negative effect on sales of Macs.


* USB, FireWire and now Thunderbolt are a few examples where Apple is the leader on a technology, rather than a follower.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Wed 31st Oct 2012 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

yeah that's my point. it took them all this time to make an LTE phone, and now look at the price.

and really, they still couldn't make one phone: there are at least 3 different iphone 5 models, and each costs almost 2-3x the price of nexus 4. are you beginning to see what I'm saying.

google had an LTE phone. verizon galaxy nexus sucked AND didnt sell well AND cost more. now is that why they'd skip making an lte phone, or is it because verizon is a hassle to deal with. come on.

you can't tick the LTE checkbox that nobody cares about anyway, on a phone you're almost giving away.

Reply Score: 2

Drivers, android source, ...
by _xmv on Wed 31st Oct 2012 07:37 UTC
_xmv
Member since:
2008-12-09

As long as drivers are closed source and as long as Google does not push source code live (heck, 4.2 source code is still not there. How's that for a device ALL ABOUT OPENNESS?!)

Sounds like a marketing trick to me, which just means "we don't wanna be bound to carriers", but has nothing to do with openness. Just carrier freedom. Or something.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Drivers, android source, ...
by Radio on Wed 31st Oct 2012 09:33 UTC in reply to "Drivers, android source, ..."
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

and as long as Google does not push source live (heck, 4.2 source code is still not there. How's that for a device ALL ABOUT OPENNESS?!)

Android 4.2 code has already been published.

They just changed the terms of the licence to "you are free to copy, modify and redistribute this code, except _xmv who is a whiny spoilt kid and can go die in a hole (this idiot's not gonna do anything with it anyway)".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Drivers, android source, ...
by jbicha on Wed 31st Oct 2012 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Drivers, android source, ..."
jbicha Member since:
2008-07-10

Android 4.2 code has already been published.


No, not yet. http://source.android.com/

Reply Score: 3