Google Plans Its Own Android Phone | Hacker News Reader

Google Plans Its Own Android Phone

thestreet.com

61 pointsalexandros56 comments

I think this could be very detrimental for Android's future. My biggest concerns:

1) Google's implementation is going to instantly become the reference platform for Android. Third party handsets will probably have to conform closely to its screen size, processing power, and input methods to play nicely with third party apps. This is ultimately a good thing for end user experience but will negatively impact the variety of different Android handsets on the market.

2) It's confusing. Android has its own proper name but most people know it's a Google powered/developed project. Is the average consumer going to understand there is a "Google Phone" but also Google phones? Even if Google has no anti-competitive intentions here they are going to cast a shadow on their competitors on their brand strength alone.

3) Google is going to have a huge competitive advantage. They can time the release of their hardware to match up with major Android releases. They will have a clearer understanding of where Android is heading and what types of hardware features will be supported in the long-term. Google's wealth and influence guarantee they will always have first mover advantage. Let's say company X comes out with an amazing new SoC. Google is quick to port Android over and quick to get a handset to market. Competitors get the trickle down support but won't have a product out the door until long after Google.

4) What is Google's motivation? The latest batch of Android phones look fantastic. There is no need for a Google first party device as a supplement to the other handsets on the market. This leads me to believe Google is getting into this space to win. I don't know how they can possibly juggle their multiple roles here. It's a no-win situation. Even if they play this straight the appearance of dishonesty and anti-competitive tactics is going to be a huge problem.

This is an amazing turn of events. A week ago I would have said Android had an inevitable path to Windows-izing mobiles. After this news I feel like these handset makers would be crazy to look at Android as a long term solution. If Google is getting into this market they're doing it to win. They apparently don't want to Windows-ize mobiles, they want to Apple-tize it for themselves. What a crazy turn of events.

Third party handsets will probably have to conform closely to its screen size, processing power, and input methods to play nicely with third party apps.

Isn't the whole point of Android that this isn't required?

Is the average consumer going to understand there is a "Google Phone" but also Google phones?

Very easy to address with branding/marketing. Think Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus.

Google is going to have a huge competitive advantage.

But it's in their DNA to give up a tactical short-term gain for a big long-term strategic win, of the kind involving Open Source.

What is Google's motivation? The latest batch of Android phones look fantastic. There is no need for a Google first party device as a supplement to the other handsets on the market. This leads me to believe Google is getting into this space to win.

I think they're getting in this space precisely because there is no need for their phone to win. It's their platform that needs to win. Therefore they are free to innovate, unencumbered by the pressures that the carriers will face.

I think they're in this space to exert pressure to innovate. Instead of the "public option" think of them as the "innovative option."

1) I doubt that a Google-distributed phone would eclipse the phones distributed by carriers, at least in the US (because of the subsidy model). With new Android tablets, netbooks, phones, and more esoteric devices being released every month, I think a single handset model sold by Google and probably without much marketing (it's against Google's DNA to run television ads, for example) will be just a drop in the bucket.

2) Some of this is already an issue (and already partly addressed). Android handset makers have the option of branding their phones with the Google trademark (like the "T-Mobile G1 with Google"). If they do, then they get to distribute Google's proprietary apps (GMail, Maps, Google Calendar/Contacts sync, etc.) but they also have to agree not to change certain parts of the user experience (e.g. can't restrict access to the Android Market).

My parents already call my G1 "the gPhone" but as dozens of Android handsets come out from every carrier and manufacturer, I'm sure they'll get the picture that it's more like Windows Mobile than the iPhone.

3) Google and the hardware manfacturers already have agreements in place (via the Open Handset Alliance) where the manufacturers can work with Google under NDA on not-yet-published Android releases.

4) I hope that Google's motivation is to sell a device that's more open than the ones from the carriers. Actually, they already sell such a device (the "Android Dev Phone 1" which is the same HTC Dream hardware as the T-Mobile G1) but it's slow and clunky compared to the new generation of hardware. It makes sense for them to offer an Android Dev Phone 2 soon. Right now the ADP1 is the only phone with a supported way for customers to upgrade the OS (i.e. without using a root exploit to jailbreak it). A rootable phone is mostly useful for developers, but just look at the iPhone jailbreaking scene to see that certain consumers want it too.

I don't think this rumor is true.

The US market is not well suited to selling phones retail. I don't see how Google can sell a smartphone that is considered "cheap" without being able to recoup anything in carrier subsidies. HTC smartphones retail for $400 and up without a subsidy. (For example, Google charges $400 for the developer version of the G1, but T-Mobile can sell it for $50 with a new contract)

Secondly, how is one phone going to work on Verizon and AT&T? Even if Google limits itself to GSM networks, AT&T and T-Mobile use different frequencies for 3G. Will they make an edition for each carrier?

I think Google is just creating one or more netbooks or "mobile internet devices" and this analyst (the only source in the story) got confused and thought it was a phone.

This may be true but I don't think this is in the US.

That detail was perhaps assumed but not announced in the article, and this is sourced from "design partners" who wouldn't know.

It would make a lot of sense for Google to sell their own phone in many territories besides the US, though, so I wouldn't discount it as a possibility worldwide. But it's a lot less interesting than what people would assume from the title.

Most phones sold in other parts of the world are available unlocked and supporting multiple 3G frequency bands without much trouble.

Sure, but it also means that people routinely shell out 5x more for a fancy new phone than we do.

And it's not just competing frequency bands, it's competing technologies. AT&T has WCDMA, but Sprint and Verizon do CDMA2000. T-Mobile has HSDPA. These things don't work together. Compare that to Europe and Asia where WCDMA will get you quite far. It's entirely the FCC's fault for letting the "market decide" what 3G standard we should use instead of just mandating one like every other country. But I digress.

We generally pay less for phones than the US, we just pay it up front instead of over time.

It's cheaper because we avoid paying interest and carrier mark up on what is essentially a loan for the hardware.

You wouldn't think it was a good deal buying a computer on punitive finance terms, why is it such a good deal for phones?

Believe me, many of us in the US do understand that. But its not like the major US carriers will offer us a discounted service if we bring our own unlocked phones. So if you pay for your own phone and then buy a standard US service plan, you still end up subsidizing everyone else's handsets...

This is why it's notable when Wal-Mart gets into the no-contract service plan game.

Instead of squeezing netbook features into a cellphone, I think it is prudent to integrate cellphone in netbook.

I envision a cellphone that can be docked inside some kind of a netbook shell. The phone holds all the essential hardware, but the netbook shell provides a bigger battery, a keyboard and a larger screen. Take both or only the phone with you, depending on your needs that day. And you'd never need to sync files and contacts between your phone and netbook, because they'd be the same device.

Something like this can't bee too far off.

That would be really cool! And with e.g. VNC or Remote Desktop you could run more demanding tasks off of your dekstop computer.

Or just use Bluetooth and eliminate the need to physically dock it. You can basically do that now provided you get the right phone and netbook.

I'm afraid you are wrong about GSM network support. Integrated chipsets commonly have support for 4/5 bands and EDGE+HSPDA on board no matter what features the manufacturer turns on.

In fact there are a couple of really cheap phones out there that have chipset support for WiFi and Bluetooth because it's cheaper than getting a custom chip set!

Obviously the antennas (and drivers) supplied change which frequencies/networks you can actually use, but even the iPhone has support for multiple GSM bands - you can jail break it and drop pretty much any GSM sim in it.

GSM vs CDMA is a different matter, although there are a few handsets with enough hardware to do it including some from RIM. Those do tend to be expensive but I imagine that has more to do with licenses than hardware costs these days.

(By the way $400 phone with no contract is cheaper than $50 phone with a typical 2 year $50/month plan. To use the UK as a suitable example a reasonable plan would cost about $50/month with a phone or $25/month without. That's a saving of $600 to put towards the cost of the handset.)

This might just be the next version of the Android Dev Phone. It makes sense for Google to provide a reference for both of its new operating systems, but it that doesn't necessarily mean they want to compete in the retail market.

Why has nobody mentioned the fact that this is not being sold in cooperation with telcos? This is the only interesting thing about this announcement to me, and is very exciting. Telco (and Apple) meddling has kept the entire market very distasteful to me, so seeing a chink in the oligopoly's armour is a ray of hope.

Do the carriers care? Google will still need a carrier and the carriers only care about having the "cool new phone" to the extent that it gets consumers to sign contracts with them.

Why should they care if the phone comes from HTC or Google?

Well carriers do not like Google too much. Remember the pushing of Google for open access in wireless networks?

Indeed, as others pointed out, you can already buy an unlocked phone from google -- the "Android Developer Phone 1" is $400.

Skeptics point out that Google might have a hard time getting the phone out in time for the holidays, since it typically takes a year or more to bring a phone from design to production.

The article's author appears to be totally oblivious to the fact that Google has been selling unlocked phones (rebranded developer G1s) for almost a year now: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/12/google-introduces...

Yes, and it costs $400. Or you can get the same hardware for $50 with a new contract from T-Mobile.

I'm pretty confident this rumor is false. There's no way Google can make a "cheap" smartphone without a kickback from the carrier.

a) According to T-mobile website it costs $130, not $50 b) How do you figure that $130 + $55/mo for two years is cheaper than $400?

How do you figure that $130 + $55/mo for two years is cheaper than $400?

Cognitive bias (I forget which one this is). Also, your monthly bill is generally no cheaper if you bring your own phone, so really it's $130+55x24 vs $400+55x24.

a) Uh, because the article is about selling a phone via retail channels. Consumers will obviously need phone service whether it comes bundled or not.

b) And that because the T-Mobile website rips you off. $50 at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/T-Mobile-G1-Phone-Google-White/dp/B001...

I'm truly excited. Evil or not, Google is today the only big company that instead to have the kind of corporate interests leading to a closed market, has corporate interests breaking the old market and creating a better, free one.

I don't understand. Why would something like this "undercut" other players.

Isn't the whole point of Android? Not have a closed platform with a single player?

I frankly think the more devices we get, the better. More competition means better services and lower cost. And on an open platform like the Android, it also gets much better because it allows other uses for the platform(Archos, and netbooks...etc).

I am not sure either if this is a good idea for Google. Part of the success of Android is that Google is an independent party (well, I guess). Jumping in the HW probably would scare other manufacturers to look for other platforms such as OpenMoko was.

I liked OpenMOKO project and the overall idea very much. It's sad they were not able to break into the market. Does anybody know what's going on with them right now ? Is there any hope ?

Aren't they doing the WikiReader? http://www.thewikireader.com/

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2009/10/openmoko-offline...

I do not know if this is just a prototype or actually a real product that they are going to release.

Think of it this way, if Microsoft came out with the Microsoft PC, how would you feel if you were Dell / HP? Opensource doesn't fix development direction by the project driver. You still need to get your stuff into the main branch to expect decent adoption or keep it separate and pay the delta cost.

More devices is cool, but application testing is going to be interesting. If your device is not as popular and has a different form factor / screen size from the dominant devices, then expect some level of non-support from developers.

It didn't quite work out that way when IBM release the IBM PC

I'm going to assume (yeah I known) you meant the testing part. The problem is that PC input/output is pretty standard (display, keyboard, mouse) with the added advantage of once the screen size gets past a certain point and you have a windows OS, testing on multiple screen sizes is not a real need.

You really need to test on small screen size(s) and check that your program will work on the available input options (keyboard, touch). If a vendor goes outside the box too much then that product becomes a new test case.

But IBM created the de facto standard by coming out with a PC that everyone else cloned!

And your second point is a challenge for any platform with multiple manufacturers. If anything, that's an argument for an Apple model where only one company makes the hardware.

Well, Microsoft and Compaq are more responsible then IBM.

Yeah, I guess, from a testing and support view, the game console maker's and Apple's model is better. There might actually be a business model for testing other people's apps on a variety of devices.

For example, if you have two similar (by functionality) Android based devices, one from Motorola and another from Google, which one will you buy ? Obviously it will undercut Motorola's business because Motorola will not be able to sell Android phones due to availability of a better (more feature-rich, more open, not locked to a particualr carrier) device coming directly from Google.

Or, alternatively, perhaps Google will discover that their business interests are better aligned with Motorola/Verizon and will focus on bugfixes and enhancements for that, ignoring their own phone. Which would leave yet another half-assed Android phone on the market, confusing the customers ("which of the 35 brands of similar-looking phone has that feature I saw in the commercial, again?") and dragging down the brand.

Android is a younger platform than the iPhone and has already implicitly deprecated an entire generation of hardware. Meanwhile, I can attest that the first generation iPhone still works fine -- runs faster than ever, in fact, thanks to the backward-compatible software updates and consistent UI.

This is what people worry about when they worry about too many Android products undercutting each other. And why the arrival of a potential flagship product -- the Droid phone, which even has the right name! -- looks like it could be a good thing for the platform; it could impose some focus. Why on Earth is Google planning to confuse that issue?

Android is fascinating, even without this news. It's the Microsoft Windows to MacOS race all over again (open vs. proprietary, licensed hardware vs. not). I've been trying to come up with "this is why the iPhone is winning this time" but coming up flat. Just first to market, maybe?

Google is patient and the G1 phone was the beta that let Google work out many Android kinks. I was surprised when people declared Android "dead" after "only 1 million phones sold in the first year." This will be a long war and Android will build its user base more quickly than most expected two months ago. Focusing on development for the Android platform is starting to make sense.

I've thought about this a lot, and I think it has to do with the fact that phone hardware doesn't need to be as interchangeable as computer hardware. There's just not that much demand from OEMs for swappable commodity phone hardware. So in a situation where hardware doesn't matter as much, Apple wins by controlling the entire platform and user experience. I think this will probably change, as we are starting to see, now that phone manufacturers can get a smartphone operating system for free.

At this point, Dell should buy Palm instead of using Android.

Jamie Zawinski just drowned that kitten: http://jwz.livejournal.com/1108212.html

How strange. Nokia's growing dominance of Symbian (back when it was a feel good, group hug of competitors) was what made all the other companies in the consortium back away from the platform.

Google might make an awesome Android phone, but I'd guess that if they did, they'd help drive away a lot of hardware manufacturers from the platform.

I wonder why Google has chosen to do this, and if this is the cause of the Apple-Google rift.

Because the other companies already dismissed them?

I don't think google has the expertise in this area like Motorola does. Then again, Motorola hasn't done too well and is betting its future on android. I guess they could outsource all work to HTC, but what would this gain?

Keep in mind that Android is ex-Danger people. They do have expertise. I would still expect some outsourcing, though.

From what I've gathered it will pack a Pixel Qi screen with along with a 200+ DPI when in black and white (sunlight) mode. Google would like to put it's book-scan settlement to good use.

This really isn't good news for the Android OS. I guess we have Zune vs Plays-For-Sure part 3.

Not if they use android like everyone else. In the case you mention, microsoft created an entirely new stack which it didn't license to other parties, and also deprecated the software its vendor ecosystem was using. Hardly the case here, even though the google move may be slightly antagonistic to its partner vendors and telcos.

It is still really hard to go up against the company doing the development of an OS. It just seems like one of those red flags that should be looked at. At the very least, Google's own phone will probably have all the updated software in a more timely manner then outside vendors.

If Google's going to do this right, then they'll Open Source all the nifty stuff they put into this phone!

Strategically speaking, for Google to win, the Google Phone doesn't have to win. Android has to win. If the Google Phone only reaches the digerati and hipsters, but then heavily influences the rest of the Android market by pushing innovative things forward, then Google wins.

I don't think there is going to be a lot of nifty stuff in the phone (if Google is in fact doing this). From Googles perspective, I think they want a phone that delivers the full Android experience without custom OEM 'user experience additions' and carrier application cruft (I'm looking at you T-Mobile).

I would be surprised if you see anything non-standard on a Google phone.

Yes, but they'll also have the opportunity to put in innovative things that the carriers might not think of.

I don't really follow Android too closely, why couldn't they just put that those in the upstream Android distribution rather than just the version for their phone?

The most likely thing is that they'll do that, but that carriers will leave things out.

microsoft created an entirely new stack which it didn't license to other parties, and also deprecated the software its vendor ecosystem was using.

Didn't Microsoft do something similar with MFC? They tell everyone that MFC is the future, and so my last company builds our development environment on top of it. Then we start finding significant bugs in MFC. We later discover that Microsoft is moving on from MFC and using something else.

The more things change...

the ultimate Evil test: will google bend over to the telco overlords?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com