Is Anyone Buying the Googlephone? | Hacker News Reader

Is Anyone Buying the Googlephone?

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

19 pointswalterk34 comments

I bought one, and it's awesome. It's obvious, to me, that this is going to be a slow burn product, but burn, it will...in a year, there will be a dozen Android phones, spread from low end to high, and the market will begin to look drastically different. Apple will likely find themselves in the same boat they were in two decades ago going up against the ridiculous variety of PC compatible machines, with a single somewhat pricey product. Apple is about to be engaged in war on a dozen fronts, and I suspect that it won't be able to withstand the onslaught (sales of iPhone may continue upward, since the smart phone market is growing so fast, but I think its market share can only go down from here, if they use the same playbook that used for Macintosh vs. PC).

I've got one too and I'm very happy with it. I've used the iPhone quite a bit and it's ok. So far I like the G1 better. The buttons on the front and the scroll ball make it a little easier to navigate around. The standard applications work well. I like how the notification bar works. I was surprised at how much was already in the Android Market on day one. It seems like some of them are also on the iPhone, but there are some exclusives too. Locale is an especially cool application that isn't possible on the iPhone. There are quite a few that make use of the GPS. One that I found amusing, although still innovative, is iSafe. Among other things it can alert you when you enter a high crime neighborhood or when there is a registered sex offender nearby. Call quality and reception are generally good. I like how the screen automatically locks when I put the phone up to my ear during a call. Overall, I'm impressed by it. I had expected it to be much less polished than it is. It's also not nearly as ugly as it looks in the pictures. It's actually kind of nice looking in a minimalist way.

I do have a few gripes, though. First is battery life. I expected it would be mediocre, but it's downright terrible. I have to recharge it in the middle of the day. The silver lining here is that the battery is removable so I can carry a spare with me. I really hope they come out with a higher capacity battery soon. Another part that could have been better is the keyboard. The keys are just a little too flat and feel just a bit spongy. It's not a bad keyboard by any means, but I would prefer one more like the Sidekick. Multitouch would be a nice plus too.

It's also worth saying something about the first paragraph of the NYT article. The author says there was no one waiting in line at the store for the G1. That's because we didn't need to. People who preordered the G1 had it delivered. I even had mine delivered a day early. I'm not sure that there would be people lining up otherwise, but it's still a little misleading.

The author says there was no one waiting in line at the store for the G1.

This just pisses me off - it encourages companies like Apple to hype up a product and then slowly sell it in three locations in all of NYC. The news isn't that people want an iPhone, the news is that Apple can be a dick to their customers for publicity and they put up with it.

Good point. This has been going on a very long time too. It's not reserved just for Apple products. Video games are a prime example. I remember this stuff going on back when I was playing NES. It really pissed me off when they created artificial shortages when the original Zelda and Double Dragon were released. And don't forget about the GMail launch when it was invitation only. This kind of thing is just another tool in the standard marketing toolbox.

There can be actual shortages. Take Gmail as an example. Such a service requires a lot of resources - storage, computing power, support staff. . . It's a lot easier to provide those things for 100,000 people than for 10M people. The invites provided them a way of ramping up rather than having to meet all of the demand on day 1. It also allowed them to see exactly where they needed to optimize before they got millions of users.

If it was just a marketing thing, why didn't Yahoo and Microsoft roll out their increased storage all at once? No, those two increased their storage gradually because it's the only practical way. By limiting invites, Google got to increase storage in a similar, gradual way.

With Apple, many stores were at fire-code capacity when the iPhone came out. Apple didn't sell out of iPhones at most locations. The lines were due to the fact that Apple can only have so many people in a store at any given time because we can't have two different pieces of matter occupying the same space at the same time. So, trash Apple if you want, but the lines were real. More people wanted to get a peak at the iPhone than the stores had capacity to fit people in.

I think the iPhone is a defective device and want an Android phone when my carrier gets one, but one needs to be objective: the iPhone generated buzz that the G1 isn't. There are many factors including the relative size of T-Mobile and AT&T and the fact that the original iPhone allowed AT&T users to buy new wherever they were in their contract while the G1 mandates in-contract users have to pay an additional $220. The fact remains, the iPhone generated buzz that the G1 hasn't. The lines were real. People were excited.

No one here is trashing anyone. Maybe you misunderstood. I am also aware that there are real shortages, particularly when hardware requiring new manufacturing processes is involved. But the fact is that artificial shortages are a commonly used marketing tactic and that is the point the parent poster and I were trying to make. The article implies that the lack of lines and shortages is the result of a lack of interest. That may not necessarily be the case.

There are plenty of reasons why there isn't much hype around the G1 and you've pointed a couple of them out. I think it's also obvious that Android, and particularly the G1, were not marketed nearly as heavily as the iPhone. It also may be that the iPhone has achieved critical mass and people just aren't interested in the knock-offs that are coming out now.

Your statement about in-contract users having to pay an additional $220 is incorrect - at least it was a few weeks ago when I ordered mine. At the time I preordered I believe it was $199 for new customers. I was still in contract and mine came out to about $338 with some BS activation fee and sales tax. I did notice that the G1 is $179 now so that may have changed.

Keep in mind that unless when personal computers came out Apple was not the first one to release a smartphone. There are already hundreds of devices from Windows Mobile to RIM. I have to admit I haven't been too much attention to Android since I'm perfectly happy at the moment with my iPhone. How does the added competition from Android change anything for Apple?

That's an excellent way of phrasing this situation, actually. Android isn't the only competitor Apple's got. It's not iPhone versus Android. It's that versus Windows Mobile versus Blackberry versus...

I also don't see what open source would have to do with improving sales of the device. If Android succeeds, it'll have to be because it does something very special that RIM and Microsoft - and especially Apple - haven't done yet.

Considering the reports say that within another quarter Apple might have more iPhones out than there are versions of Windows Mobile everywhere, I'd want something a lot bigger than "This is a good product" to suggest Google has a chance of toppling Apple.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers that the iPhone will take over Windows mobile within another quarter. From what I've found, Apple currently has a 2.8% market share in terms of OS use on smartphones and Windows Mobile is up at 12%. Not to mention how far back they all are from Symbian with it's 57.1%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Operating_systems

He's talking about total MS phone vs iPhone sales next year, assuming that iPhone sales double and MS phones sales are flat. Which is pretty pie in the sky, imo. But having said that, I've not seen a windows mobile device I would give a second thought to buying.

http://daringfireball.net/2008/10/the_phone_company

What allowed Apple to compete pretty successfully with zillions of mp3 players?

If mobile devices are the same as MP3 players in the minds of consumers, then that's a great argument. I don't think they are, though. I think mobile devices are going to be a replay of PC history: Specific applications will drive adoption of specific products. The iPhone and the G1 are both vastly more powerful than the first six personal computers I owned, and have better network bandwidth than several subsequent PCs. I think they will continue to get more interesting, and the application selection will become more important. If Apple continues to treat developers as competitors to be occasionally shut out if they get too uppity or too close to competing with Apple in some space, they won't keep those developers. Without the developers, the apps won't exist...without the apps, users will choose an alternative.

Others have mentioned that iPhone was "first" in this particular market (the market for "Buck Rogers magical computing devices that fit in your pocket"), and that has definite value (the PC was on the market for a couple of years before Macintosh), but I don't think it can beat openness in the long run.

In the long run, Apple found that they could get away with "just enough" openness in favor of a highly polished end-user experience. They could just as easily do that with the iPhone and make it the "high-end" choice.

I seriously doubt that the same pressure to consolidate will ever apply in the mobile phone market the way it did to early PCs.

Prior to the Internet, the only thing you could do with a PC was run software written specifically for each platform. The average computer in the late 80s/early 90s cost between $3-5000. It made sense that people would settle on a single standard that let them get the most out of a very large investment.

However, 90% of what people do with smartphones - calls, email, music, web browsing - is inevitably provided with the phone. 3rd-party apps are a nice addition, but hardly necessary. The iPhone and Blackberry got along just fine without them for years, whereas Palm and WiMo are floundering despite having allowed 3rd-party apps for the last decade.

I won't argue with that logic. It's the same market change that has led to Mac making a comeback, and Linux making a (small) move into the consumer desktop space, in ways that simply couldn't have happened in the 90's. If apps continue to move to the web, the key will be who has the best browsing experience--and right now, it's roughly tied, IMHO (and they're based on the same rendering engine, so that makes sense). This also explains why Windows Mobile has had so little impact--in all fairness, it ought to simply rule the roost (and it does have good raw numbers, but I don't think it has much mindshare)--the browser in Windows Mobile sucks dramatically worse than even IE on the desktop. The same can be said for Palm and the Symbian devices that I've seen. A smart phone with a crap browser is just a big ugly phone with some extra fancy crap bolted on.

It'll be interesting to see how cost, and other ancillary features (like GPS, to name just one) will effect buyers decisions. Fashion (as in, "who makes the prettiest accessory for my wardrobe?") may, in fact, rule the day...in which case, Apple still has the upper hand, and, if PC history is any indicator, they will hang on to the upper hand for years to come. Even today, it's pretty much impossible to buy a PC that looks as nice as an Apple (Dell has made a few effective moves in the area, and HP and Sony also seem interested in good design). Then again, PCs still outsell Macs many times over, both in lappies and desktops.

So, maybe you're right, and the market will shake out dramatically differently than the PC market. But, I'd sure hate to bet against history repeating itself given the wide array of similarities (many of the players are even the same, and they do appear to have the same playbooks).

Just a couple talking to a salesman who too was figuring out how to work the new mobile phone which is powered by Google’s new Android operating system.

This line in particular makes me realize something important: All of the media exposure that the iPhone got, including (and especially) the iPhone ads, effectively acted as tutorials on how to use the device long before someone actually bought one.

Pre-launch consumer exposure to the Android interface, however, hasn't been anywhere close to what the iPhone received. That's partly because the iPhone sucked up the novelty factor, but has there even been a memorable advertising campaign for the G1 in which the interface is front and center?

that kind of thing is apple's speciality. Hard to beat them on that turf.

But it's easier (and cheaper) to follow. Once people know (from the iphone) what a phone is supposed to do, they'll be able to get other phones to do it too.

Out of curiosity, are you speaking as somebody who's used Android? I'd like to know how similar the two interfaces are.

They're pretty similar. Both have a home screen with icons for programs, a button to return to it, and a similar touch-screen web-browsing interface.

Notable interface differences are the slide-out keyboard on the G1, two-touch zoom gesture on the iPhone, the hardware "back" button on the G1, and the "system-tray" at the top of the G1 that notifies you when a background process has something to say, like you just got a chat or an email or a download finished.

no. sorry.

This is something I've noticed across all mobile phone ads, not just Android/G1.

- iPhone ads show a giant iPhone and a hand using it.

- Blackberry ads show flying beachballs and photos of puppies and people eating cake and whatnot, with meaningless voiceovers like "Your life! To go!"

As somebody who doesn't even own a cell phone, the message is crystal clear: other phones suck compared to the iPhone, but they feel the need to run ads.

How ridiculously easy to use is the G1? For example, how many clicks does it take to capture a photo and email it to a friend?

On my iPhone I count 6 clicks to get into the "To:" field in the email, and then 1 more click to Send.

And where is the G1's "display" appeal? As O'Reilly once said (when thinking about ringtones), people will pay more for display than consumption. For many (me not included?), the Apple logo on your phone is a personal exhibition of good taste. What does the G1 do for a person in this regard?

It depends on how you have the phone set up and how well you know it. The obvious way:

- One tap to open the menu of applications

- One tap to open the camera application

- One press of the camera button

- One tap to choose to share the picture

- One tap to choose gMail (vs. messaging)

At this point you are in the To field, but you need to slide open the keyboard to type the address in. So it is essentially the same "number of interactions" as the iPhone. If you're a power user or curious, you might have figured out that you can also launch the camera application directly by pressing the camera button, which collapses the first two steps to one.

...Which highlights one of the strengths and weaknesses of the Android platform. While the iPhone has just a few inputs (the screen and main button being the obvious ones), the G1 has many (screen, five main buttons, trackball, the keyboard, and the keyboard slide). This gives the G1 more (and potentially faster) ways to do things, but it also means that the user may not always be able to guess which input is required to accomplish their goals. The G1 apps are pretty good about telling the user when they need to do something out-of-the-ordinary -- the camera app, for example, points out the camera button on the casing -- but third-party applications may not be as careful, or they may neglect to handle all possible inputs in an Android-consistent manner.

I think it's a difference of philosophy, much like the difference between Apple's preference of a one-button mouse versus the preference of multiple-button mice on other platforms. One button is easier for users to learn and developers to implement consistently, but more buttons let you do more stuff.

Not only are my wife and I planning on getting one but I can name about four others who are also planning on getting one.

For a lot of people price is really an issue. But I still think that Andriod is just a better phone system.

What makes you think it's a better system? And what sort of people are those others who want to get the Android? Are they tech-focused? Because it seems to me that Android has the advantage there, but that it's got nothing that appeals to consumers. Not like the iPhone has.

What do you think the iPhone has that Android doesn't have? As someone who has used an iPhone and now owns the G1 I can tell you that they are incredibly similar. A friend and I were comparing the two side by side. Most of the applications are comparable and in some cases we both had installed the same exact applications from the respective App Stores. I doubt most average people would know the difference if they were using Android in an iPhone case or the other way around. The two platforms have far more in common than you may think.

The Android SDK allows for some more possibilities than what is allowed on the iPhone, but this seems to be purely a business decision on the part of Apple. As far as features that appeal to consumers - branding and fads aside - I think it's pretty much a wash. The big difference is Apple's far superior marketing.

Android is a step in the right direction for phone software, hopefully there will be more official devices sporting it.

Umm its on T-Mobile and their 3G coverage pales in comparison to Verizon and At&T.

Definitely want one, but am waiting!

I haven't used Verizon, but I have used ATT and currently have a G1 with T-Mobile. Data speed has always been better with ATT, but the rest leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion. That said, the speed on T-Mobile isn't as bad as I thought it would be. On my old phone data speed was atrocious, but it's pretty usable on the G1. What's interesting is that I live in an area that T-Mobile claims does not have 3G, but in many of the places I go the phone says I'm on 3G.

It's probably worth noting that T-Mobile costs quite a bit less than Verizon and ATT. They also offer some neat features like WiFi calling (not on the G1) that the others don't.

In any case, it really sucks that people who don't like T-Mobile have to wait to get their hands on Android. I guess the bright side is that it will eventually be on other carriers unlike the iPhone. I probably would have gotten one of those long before Android was available had it not been an ATT exclusive. These carrier exclusives are terrible for consumers, but the situation only seems to be getting worse.

no. was interested to read there is no headphone jack. imagine watching YouTube on the bus without headphones! you either can't hear any sound, or bother everyone around you! bzzt - wrong answer, try again Google!

There is no headphone jack, but you can apparently use an adapter to plug standard headphones into the mini-USB jack.

ah, excellent, thank you!

the writing style seems super lax for the nytimes , felt more like reading a blog. The g1 is good the battery is the same issue as the iPhone if you use it to surf for 5 hours it's going to get low, give it a week then it will last all day plus ; after the coolness wears a little .

It is a blog.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com