Linked by snydeq on Wed 6th Jan 2010 20:08 UTC
Google InfoWorld's Galen Gruman writes that the main potential game-changing attribute of the Nexus One - that Google is selling the device direct - does nothing to move the industry past carrier lock-in. "At first, I wanted to credit Google for making a tentative step in the direction of smartphone freedom. But that step is so tentative and ineffectual that frankly I think it's a cynical fig leaf covering the usual practices," Gruman writes. At issue is a political battle regarding walled gardens in the U.S. cellular market, a fight that will take years to result in any true consumer freedom. "The only way we'll ever get the ability to choose a smartphone and carrier independently is for the platform providers that count - Apple, Google, and RIM - to first develop only multiband 'world' smartphones and then refuse to sell their devices (or in Google's case, use its Android license to forbid the sale of devices) to carriers that block or interfere with device portability."
Thread beginning with comment 402913
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Actually you're missing it!
by vreporter on Wed 6th Jan 2010 22:44 UTC
vreporter
Member since:
2010-01-06

Google has no interest in addressing the current cellphone carrier strategy of the dark ages as Apple did. Go read up on something called "Whitespaces" and maybe you will see the light. The US is one of the most antiquated communications environments in the world. Google is way ahead of bothering with that. This is NOT an iPhone killer even though it may end up looking like one. Go fish!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Actually you're missing it!
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Jan 2010 00:15 in reply to "Actually you're missing it!"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Google has no interest in addressing the current cellphone carrier strategy of the dark ages as Apple did. Go read up on something called "Whitespaces" and maybe you will see the light. The US is one of the most antiquated communications environments in the world. Google is way ahead of bothering with that. This is NOT an iPhone killer even though it may end up looking like one. Go fish!


Agreed! I always thought New Zealand was backwards and antiquated but Jesus H Christ - come on, a country with 2 times the GDP per capita of New Zealand and has a mobile phone network of a third world country. Hell, I'm sure there are third world countries who look at the American mobile phone network and can't help but laugh until their sides hurt.

What is even more pathetic is this idea that both the sender AND the receiver are charged for calls and text messages- what the f*ck is up with that? who the hell started such a stupid screwed up system like that? If I ever did move to the US the one thing I wouldn't be getting is a mobile phone if I am forced to pay for every jack ass who sends me a text message or rings me up! its as pathetic as in Australia where one pays something like a 17cent charge everyone one makes a local call!

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

and has a mobile phone network of a third world country.


Now, that is just not true. Most third world countries have more advanced and more free mobile networks than the U.S.

What is even more pathetic is this idea that both the sender AND the receiver are charged for calls and text messages- what the f*ck is up with that?


Hold on, wait. Rewind a bit.
BOTH get charged? So if someone I don't like send my hundreds of messages I get to pay? For fscking real?
Surely you must be making that up cuz I find it astonishing that something that retarded could ever be put into practice.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

who the hell started such a stupid screwed up system like that? If I ever did move to the US the one thing I wouldn't be getting is a mobile phone if I am forced to pay for every jack ass who sends me a text message or rings me up!


The system comes from ye old cellular network in the 80's when wireless data transmission was very expensive so they charged whenever the cell was in use.

The US system has been more of an innovative wild west while other countries have been able to design their systems around our experiences.

You only get screwed if you have a plan that isn't designed around your habits. For example send a thousand texts without getting the $5 a month unlimited texting.

As a percentage of living costs the cell phone bill isn't much. Most of the day labor Mexicans have cell phones.

Reply Parent Score: 1

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

Google has no interest in addressing the current cellphone carrier strategy of the dark ages as Apple did. Go read up on something called "Whitespaces" and maybe you will see the light. The US is one of the most antiquated communications environments in the world. Google is way ahead of bothering with that. This is NOT an iPhone killer even though it may end up looking like one. Go fish!


It's tough to be first. It's antiquated because of very early progress and that it's so expensive to replace equipment over such a vast nation. Tell me that roughly 4000 km east to west is not huge.

Google should have gone with one of Qualcomm's new chipsets that has both GSM and CDMA and related technologies as part of the phone to make sure the phone would work everywhere. That is, if they were really expecting to sell many.

I suspect the lack of AT&T-compatible 3G frequencies had to do with a squabble, rather than anything else.

Reply Parent Score: 2

ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

It's tough to be first. It's antiquated because of very early progress and that it's so expensive to replace equipment over such a vast nation. Tell me that roughly 4000 km east to west is not huge.


We have the same excuse over here in Australia. Our mobile phone networks still suck less than the US ones.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Ikshaar Member since:
2005-07-14

I suspect the lack of AT&T-compatible 3G frequencies had to do with a squabble, rather than anything else.

Mostly becuase the 850/1900 3G band of AT&T is only use in the Americas and by few operators. Almost all Europe/Asia/Africa is 2100. So this phone will work wonders in many countries, just not in the fragmented market that is US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UMTS_networks

Edited 2010-01-07 21:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


I suspect the lack of AT&T-compatible 3G frequencies had to do with a squabble, rather than anything else.


I agree that it likely isn't technical.

Verizon wants a competitor to the iphone and Google probably took advantage of this and made a deal with them to help bring the cost down.

Reply Parent Score: 2