Why So Many Are So Wrong on the 'Google Phone' | Hacker News Reader

Why So Many Are So Wrong on the 'Google Phone'

pcmag.com

41 pointstokenadult19 comments

I had my hands on one for about a minute from a friend who's a Google employee. The screen was gorgeous and looked to be a little larger than the iPhone's. There's a row of 4 touch buttons at the base of the screen and the phone vibrates briefly when you push them.

I was completely baffled as to the purpose of the trackball. It could click, point, and roll-to-scroll, but you can do all those things via gestures on the screen.

It has a cute white icon on the back; a little android waving a semacode flag.

Re: the touch buttons -- their design is a serious mistake that makes me question the vision behind the entire operation. Why? Look at the purpose of each of the buttons:

* The Back Button (leftmost) -- the operation of this button is context sensitive (Am I going back a web page, back to the previous app? It depends on how I got to where I am now.) and it is so unfortunately right beside the backspace button in the landscape keyboard. This wouldn't be a problem for a physical button, but since it's touch-sensitive it's very easy to brush by back and lose all the form data you just entered on the webpage.

* The Menu Button (center-left): Hidden functionality is a bad idea. One of the nice things about the iPhone is that it's very rare the application has a capability that you cannot discover by looking at the contents of the screen. Android, on the other hand, routinely hides functionality in a menu. Worse, the type of functionality hidden is different in every application. You will never be able to guess where the "Accounts" menu button is going to be without looking at it.

* The Home Button (center-right): I have no problem with this button aside from its touch sensitivity.

* The Search Button (rightmost): On iPhones, we know this button as "hit the home button twice."

Re: the trackball -- it's because they don't have long-click precise targeting for the cursor on Android phones like they do on the iPhone.

I agree the Android buttons are a bit of a problem. I dislike how every handset maker seems to implement them differently. HTC is a funny example because they use at least 4 different button layouts/orders. More than a dozen if you count clickable buttons versus touch buttons. That's a bit much. I'm not looking forward to upgrading to a device with a different layout in the future. I don't really care which layout is the best I just want some consistency.

The other issue which you eluded to is Back versus Menu -> Quit. I'm always a bit paranoid that Back isn't really closing an application and my battery will be dead so I often re-launch the app and look for a Menu -> Quit option. I have a little mental spreadsheet of which apps I can use Back on and which ones I need to Menu -> Quit on. Android really needs a more sensible way of handling multi-tasking.

their design is a serious mistake that makes me question the vision behind the entire operation

IMHO, you're in the weeds about the vision of this device, the true disruptive potential doesn't have to do with out-designing Apple.

I also got to see a few of these throughout the weekend...there are ~15,000+ and they are unlocked. If Google goes to market (direct-to-consumer), priced above true cost & free from contract - instead of the absolute BS games that wireless providers have been stringing out - that is seriously disrupting the market.

To be honest, buttons are the last thing I would be worried about if Google turns the market on it's head. That said, they might, they might not, but the possibility has me curious until the actual release.

There is a reason why all the carriers in the US subsidize phones with long contracts. The reason is that Americans like to spread out their purchases. Offering the opportunity to not do so isn't going to have a major impact because too few people want to buy their phone outright for it to matter.

In any case, the vision I'm questioning is the design vision. If the sales method were the only novel thing about this device, Google could as easily have paid another company to release their newest phone through Google's portal instead of directly through the network.

'I was completely baffled as to the purpose of the trackball. It could click, point, and roll-to-scroll, but you can do all those things via gestures on the screen.'

This helps you read web pages while you scroll them.

Some good points, the key one being there's no evidence yet suggesting this is actually a major play from Google.

I've been wondering about the "SIM-free only" strategy. In the UK, SIM-free is an established but niche sector. You only buy SIM-free if the phone model is the differentiator, and that's only true for power users. (The iPhone has started to push hardware-as-differentiator toward the mainstream, but I don't think it's there yet.)

There are different kinds of power users, but one identifiable segment is the messaging-centric user, who wants a physical keyboard, which this phone doesn't have. From that perspective SIM-free is an odd choice. Maybe the multimedia / entertainment / "cloud services" power user segments are big enough to justify it, though.

If the article's wrong and this is a big move by Google, it could be an attempt by them to promote SIM-free as an option. It would make it a lot easier for their Android partners and themselves to compete on handset hardware if consumers actually have a choice of handsets (and aren't restricted by which carrier has coverage in their area).

I disagree with the article's conclusion on pricing though:

> The iPhone actually costs $599, but what most people see is the $199 price after its carrier subsidy. Google could release a truly $199 phone, but they'd lose a huge amount of money on every sale.

Not all phones cost that much SIM-free. High-end Nokia phones have comparable hardware and build quality to the iPhone, but some of them (e.g. E series) sell for £200 unlocked.

For one thing, the iPhone might well cost significantly more to manufacture than the Nexus One. Apple had no prior experience of manufacturing phone hardware, whereas HTC have lots; HTC also probably have lots of efficient supply lines Apple don't yet have. Also, it's 2.5 years since the iPhone release; even assuming the hardware and build quality are comparable, costs should be lower by now.

Also, offering subsidised products to drive advertising traffic is sort of Google's thing.

Maybe someday. Right now Google would have to offer at least 2 different handsets (GSM/CDMA) and would need to strike a deal with Verizon/Sprint because they do not activate unapproved handsets. Sprint might be more flexible on this because they're desperate for customers but Verizon will flat out refuse your money if you want to use an unapproved, unlocked, phone.

Right now Google would have to offer at least 2 different handsets (GSM/CDMA) and would need to strike a deal with Verizon/Sprint

Curious if that becomes a non-issue once Verizon rolls out 4G next year? Sprint is the only provider not behind that platform (WiMax).

Verizon will flat out refuse your money if you want to use an unapproved, unlocked, phone They've never had pressure from a 800 pound gorilla...could be interesting.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=VZ http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG

My experience is that unlocked phones with pay as you go are very common here in Italy. In Austria, not so much... I'd say about 50/50 in the stores.

I kind of like seeing the real price for things, without having to figure out whatever monkey business the provider wants to foist off on you.

   Quick Summary:

..Americans' desperate wish to see the iPhone on a carrier other than AT&T. Americans have for years felt that their wireless carriers are holding them back.. ..Americans feel abandoned by supposedly customer-friendly Apple, who did so much to advance the state of handheld technology but just can't quit AT&T. So now they're looking to Google, whose motto is "don't be evil," to liberate them..

..This is unlikely to happen..

..The U.S. uses two incompatible radio standards on three different spectrum bands..

..Americans rely on carrier subsidies to make device prices look palatable. The iPhone actually costs $599, but what most people see is the $199 price..

..I hate America's addiction to phone subsidies..

..Remember, unlocked smartphones have been available here for years.. Almost nobody buys them..

..An anti-carrier line would compromise their great success so far at getting Android phones into major carriers..

..Another boat Google would be rocking is their Open Handset Alliance..

..Google's goal is to get their software in front of as many eyeballs as possible..

..Back in 2007, there was a lot of speculation behind how Apple would sell the iPhone. One exciting idea was that Apple would start its own wireless carrier, which would show the other carriers how to do customer service...

Nice summary, but I think the call to action is needed:

"It's clear that American consumers want some sort of messiah to save them from the structure of our wireless industry...write to your Congressional representative - that's the only way things will change any time soon. "

I can't remember where but someone was claiming that the subsidized model is bad for carriers too, but they feel trapped in it.

Google pushing against the model may have the same effect as Apple pushing the record companies to sell music online (and then later) DRM free i.e. more money for everyone.

I think these arguments are weak.

1) "Never mind that while you can build a phone that supports 3G on three carriers, I've never seen a chipset that supports all four."

Maybe (or maybe not) all carriers, but netbooks are already sold that let you choose from several major carriers, GSM and CDMA. A phone could do the same, and even let you activate the device on multiple carriers simultaenously. Use whichever has coverage where you are.

What, you don't like having 3 phone numbers? Just give out your Google Voice number and have it ring them all, with a single, unified voice mail.

2) "If Google releases an unlocked GSM phone in the U.S., it's unlikely to sell many units, because it will be seen as prohibitively expensive."

...unless someone finances it. Seriously, if carriers can finance phones, why can't manufacturers, or third parties? They can, and they would if it looked profitable. And as phones becomes more central as computing platforms, it will look profitable. Just a matter of time.

I don't know whether Google will do this first or not. It would be a good theatrical move for Apple to do it first - and make all their fans who hate AT&T pee their pants with joy. But somebody will do it sometime, and it will be a great day for phone service.

From the article: 'which many reports say is a variant of HTC's HD2 phone.'

The HD2 has a 4 inch screen, I don't think anyone is saying the phone looks like a HD2. From all reports, this is simpyl the HTC Passion, distributed internally amongst Google employees the same way the Dream and Magic were. Which were (and are) also called 'Google phone' by Google employees.

In short: nothing to see here.

I've also heard it called the Passion by Googlers as well.

Here in Europe we have subsidized mobile phones that are not SIM-locked. You have to sign a 2-year (or more) contract though.

Why is that not possible in the US?

T-Mobile US does that. If you have a contract in good standing you can request a SIM unlock code.

I agree with most of the points in this article. This phone is not going to stand up to an iPhone in the eyes of anyone lucky enough to be able to use both for a few days. I encourage anyone to take with skepticism the frantic praise from Googlers who just got the phone. Their questionable taste in user interface is well documented in the literature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com