Yawn, Google Introduces iPhone Clone | Hacker News Reader

Yawn, Google Introduces iPhone Clone

wired.com

25 pointssid-34 comments

I really hate these arguments. The argument basically comes down to this:

  No one should make *any* smartphones unless they can
  immediately top the iPhone. If you can't top the iPhone
  on day one, then just don't bother competing at all.

It's one thing to call out hype. It's another thing entirely to say, "X is over-hyped therefore it shouldn't exist."

> But it’s still effectively tied to the smallish T-Mobile cell phone network.

No it's not. So far as I can tell, you can use it on AT&T's network. The only catch is the you can't use AT&T's 3G with it. But this seems to be a one or the other choice. AT&T and T-Mobile apparently use different frequencies for their 3G (T-Mobile's is non-standard), and no one seems to be putting out phone that support both (in my limited research on the topic). This leads me to believe that there must only be chips that support one or the other. In that case, there's no pleasing everyone. If you choose AT&T, you'll piss off a bunch of people, but you'll also piss off a bunch of people if you choose T-Mobile.

> And the Nexus One lacks the convenience of being connected to iTunes.

So... the only phone that will ever appease you will, by definition, need to be an Apple-branded phone.

> The Android app store is a fifth the size of Apple’s.

It's the quality, not the quantity of the apps that matters. Comparing on size alone is useless. There have been a number of articles on the number of crappy and rehashed apps that get poured into the AppStore marketplace by people hoping to use the shotgun approach to AppStore success. And how exactly is Google supposed to remedy this with the launch of a phone? Make the phone iPhone-compatible and hack their way into AppStore access?

> Meanwhile, Apple is getting ready to announce an entirely new iteration of its iPhone in three weeks — the tablet — that will likely make every other player in the market look like a laggard — again.

This is the stupidest thing I have read lately.

> Why didn’t Google offer a phone with both a GSM and a CDMA radio that would work on any U.S. cell phone network?

It's not that simple. See the GSM 3G comments above. I thought that there used to be GSM/CDMA chips. Maybe they were part of that whole Qualcomm lawsuit a few years ago?

"The only catch is the you can't use AT&T's 3G with it."

That would effectively cripple the phone. So while it may be possible to use on other networks, it's really only practical to use on T-Mobile.

EDGE would still work. People bought the non-3G iPhone.

It's definitely a disadvantage though, but to say that it will not work with AT&T is false.

Well, there were nothing like iPhone back then. Now we have 3G and 3GS. And on EDGE "web meets phone" will happen veeeery slowly.

People still stuck it out though. Personally I would rather have a phone that could be used on any cell carrier's network though (except maybe Japanese carriers, IIRC they use network tech that no one else in the world uses).

Why are T-Mo and AT&T the only options? Couldn't you use this on say, Verizon?

(I don't live in the US)

Verizon & Sprint use CDMA instead of GSM, which AT&T & T-Mobile use.

Sadly, AT&T and T-Mobile are the only nationwide GSM carriers in the United States. Every other major player uses CDMA.

Man that sucks. I can understand all of the US using a different standard from the rest of the world (like with NTSC and imperial measurement) but having the US use two standards at once is clearly not in their own interest.

Canadian carriers are the same. The only difference is that all of the smaller carriers have been swallowed up and you basically have the choice of 'The GSM Carrier' (i.e. Rogers who grew their empire out of cable tv) or 'The CDMA Carrier' (i.e. Bell -- the government mandated telephone monopoly).

Not yet. Verizon and Vodafone coming in Spring '10.

Cripple the phone? Only T-Mobile?

You can use it on almost any GSM/3G network in the world (instead on only AT&T). How is that crippling the phone?

I actually use my phone primarily to make calls and texts. Access to a 3G network is nice, but it's an accouterment. For many people, the slower data speed is not too big of a hassle when you only need to use it occasionally.

I don't quite understand what you mean by T-mobile's 3G frequency being non-standard? Care to explain?

It is standard for everywhere except the USA; mobile usage has been traditionally significantly higher in Europe than USA, so you wouldn't really want to miss out on that market!

Ok, I was under the impression it was the opposite. But I wasn't able to find much material explicitly discussing the differences (pros/cons) of AT&T's 3G network vs T-Mobile's.

Guess I should also add that AT&T's 3G is compatible with Telus 3G in Canada... at least according to an article that I read, the Droid/Motorola Milestone that will be sold for Telus will only be compatible with AT&T 3G, and not T-Mobile.

> This leads me to believe that there must only be chips that support one or the other.

IIRC, Qualcomm are preparing the very first baseband/radio chip(s) that can support both. I believe it's a soft-radio, so you can reprogram it for whichever frequencies and protocols you need to support.

So, could this also support CDMA in addition? That would be awesome if we could make it to the point where phone don't have to be 'one or the other' anymore.

That would still depend on Verizon letting you use a phone they didn't sell you, without a crippled branded OS and locked hardware. The Droid is the first un-fucked-with phone they've ever sold.

They've promised some 'open network' changes, but the most that's come out of that is the ability to use data cards that come built-in to laptops.

True, but Verizon isn't the only CDMA carrier.

It's the quality, not the quantity of the apps that matters. Comparing on size alone is useless.

OK, but of course if we make a default assumption that the same percentage of apps are actually good on both platforms, you'll end up with five times as many good apps on the iPhone. So unless you're suggesting that Android has better quality apps on average, I really don't see what your point is.

Honestly, I'd personally expect to find better quality apps on the AppStore - Apple vets them for UI coherence and basic functionality. Plus devs don't have to try and target multiple types of device, all iPhones share the same basic functionality in terms of screen size, input devices etc.

> And the Nexus One lacks the convenience of being connected to iTunes.

So... the only phone that will ever appease you will, by definition, need to be an Apple-branded phone.

Also, Apple purposefully breaks this compatibility if it's there.

A couple of things in that article stood out as particularly flawed:

"Meanwhile, Apple is getting ready to announce an entirely new iteration of its iPhone in three weeks — the tablet — that will likely make every other player in the market look like a laggard — again."

The tablet is aimed at a different niche than the "mobile phone/mp3 player" space. Very few are going to buy a tablet and ditch their phone.

"Why didn’t Google subsidize the Nexus One so it was half the price of an iPhone, instead of the same price?"

Perhaps because they like making money?

Perhaps because they like making money?

It is probably more likely that they don't see apple and the iphone as a direct threat and are instead trying to corner the market on the other three major phone networks in the US.

You could also argue that the tablet market is already interesting despite Apple -- e.g. Lenovo's Skylight, ChromeOS, other Android tablets (e.g. Archos') and even Nokia's venerable N800 series.

And that's ignoring fully Windows/Linux capable systems like Samsung's Q1's, and Viliv's range.

True. Although if Apple produces as much of a leap forward with its tablet as it did with the iPhone it'll probably make most of the existing market look archaic.

I'm really really excited to get mine. I've had the 3g Iphone for almost 2 years now, and I cannot wait to stop using it.

Maybe its just the developer inside me screaming, but I cannot deal with Apple and how they deal with the guys who are really making the iphone popular -- the programmers.

I guess one just had to make his "counter-article" to the flow of "wow, amazing google phone!!" we see recently.

Of course in itself it's pretty much only a rant, with fallacious arguments, but it fulfills its goal of generating a lot of "how can you say that it's stupid" answers.

I mean, I even clicked on it just for the sake of the title, like probably many did. Mission accomplished, so, people click and react on it.

Sort of like "Yawn, Microsoft introduces clone of Mac called 'Windows'". But with less evil and more open source.

No, with more evil. They introduced open source so Intellectual Ventures could sue the writers for patent infringement.

It's a smartphone. They existed before the iPhone. Even app stores existed before the iPhone - at least in Europe, some companies made millions by selling J2ME apps for "classic phones". They discredited themselves by exploiting gullible teenagers, but still. For all I know, they might still be raking in the big money - they certainly still do TV ads.

What exactly makes a phone an iPhone clone?

The iPhone is a smartphone with a touch screen, The Nexus is a smartphone with a touch screen, Therefore the Nexus is an iPhone :)

Gotta admit. I want one, not because I see it better than X, but rather because on it's own it's an awesome phone. I just had hoped that it would be released with a version compatible with AT&T's 3G network. HTC is manufacturing a CDMA capable phone, and do make phones for AT&T so why not produce a second GSM version compatible with AT&T? Unless AT&T works hard to get a very nice android phone soon, I'm likely to switch carriers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com