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 403030
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Actually you're missing it!
by bousozoku on Thu 7th Jan 2010 17:28 UTC in reply to "Actually you're missing it!"
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

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

"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.
"

That's not a fair comparison because Australia's population is mostly clustered around its eastern coast. America has a ton of people living in the boons and in small towns. Population density is only part of the equation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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