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.
Thread beginning with comment 540628
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Yeah, right
by gan17 on Wed 31st Oct 2012 02:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yeah, right"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 5

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

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 Parent Score: 2

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

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 Parent Score: 2