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 402927
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Actually you're missing it!
by kaiwai on Thu 7th Jan 2010 00:15 UTC 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

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

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.


Depends your carrier and your plan, but, yeah, that happens.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Yeah, but what if that other guys gets the unlimited text messaging and sends you a thousand texts.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Text is bad.. data is even worse. Exactly what justifies $2.00 per meg of transfer? Don't pay 40$ a month for the data plan and your 50 meg of iPhone usage will be a 100$ extra on next month's bill.. and that's if your lucky enough to notice that it's using the cell towers instead of local wifi as desired.

Let's all say it together:

"What the market - because alone, none of us is as stupid as we are together - will bare."

(what ever happened to fair markup.)

Reply Parent Score: 2

erak Member since:
2006-09-24

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

Any sources on that?

AFAIK, the most widely spread standard, GSM, was developed in Europe. And 3G was first used in Japan.

Reply Parent Score: 1