Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#101

Post by orangecat »

Retric wrote: post #90
jobeirne wrote: post #20

FTA: ``Google could have fought. It had plenty of tools at its disposal. It could have made phones that worked on all of those networks, and then sued those companies if they didn’t allow users to get fair plans.'' Does this sound at all like a well-thought-out, reasonable, or mature course of action to suggest that Google could have taken? I don't think so. What exactly does ``a fair plan'' mean? $0.50 less for unli…

A 15$ a month price reduction because they are not subsidizing a phone by ~400$?

T-Mobile does that; their unsubsidized (and contract-free!) plans are $20/month less. Of course neither Google nor T-Mobile ever bothered to tell anybody about that.

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#102

Post by FlemishBeeCycle »

pyre wrote: post #80
FlemishBeeCycle wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do we draw the line? At what point is it permissible to suggest that someone should bother to show the slightest bit of interest in a product, technology, or field that they are becoming increasingly dependent on?

There are a lot of people that are dependent on their car, but don't know much more than how to turn the steering wheel and push the gas/brake pedals.

True (I knew that would come up). But I don't need to know how TCP/IP works to write a web page. Likewise, most people know how to put gas in their car, and some can change their oil, antifreeze and tires. There's a difference between zero-knowledge, and working knowledge.

I am not quite sure at what points these types of knowledge are equivalent.

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#103

Post by gizmomagico »

ergo98 wrote: post #99
gizmomagico wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is telling the FCC how they might want to do things precisely because they're just one random company that couldn't possibly influence anything? Also, they know who you are, Mr. ergo98.

>Google is telling the FCC how they might want to do things precisely because they're just one random company that couldn't possibly influence anything? Just as Verizon tells them how they want to do things. As does Microsoft, and Apple, and every other big tech company. You grossly overstate Google's significance.

Google is not there to "get a discussion going" - it's there to guide things towards its own interests, just like Verizon et al.

The point here is that Google is just another huge, evil(1) company among others like it, and that all its recent talk about openness is just PR-bullshit.

(1) Whatever your definition may be.

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#104

Post by j79 »

jpdbaugh wrote: post #85

So from moral prospective is it better to support Android or iOS at this point? Its a fine case of damned if you do damned if you don't.

True. IF I understand the implications of the deal between Google and Verizon correctly (and to be honest, there's a good chance I don't...), I would argue that what they're doing is far worse than Steve Jobs saying, "You're holding it wrong."

At least, the actions of Apple (and Jobs) is limited directly to developers and consumers who choose to use (or develop for) their products.

Verizon and Google? This affects all of us.

Edit: But to answer your question: Let's support the little guy and go webOS!

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#105

Post by jacquesm »

etherael wrote: post #19

Google gave the market the option to go for a completely open environment with the Nexus One, and in the words of this wired article what did it get in return? "Not cool enough." The phone is brilliant, but the market went elsewhere with it's carrier locked subsidised junk models. That's just a market reality, like it or not. Google tried to "do the right thing" and the market went somewhere else. Making all these po…

The replacement cycle of phones should have been the driving factor here, if you're in it for the long haul you learn from your mistakes and you do better next time.

The phone is brilliant but the market would have to get used to seeing google as a hardware supplier rather than an online service provider, so they'll have to establish their brand in that line of business. This takes time.

To expect instant acceptance in such a dramatic departure of your core business is totally unrealistic.

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#106

Post by etherael »

eli wrote: post #98
aresant wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not cool enough was hardly the problem - count instead: 1 - the phone came with waaaay substandard service - no live customer service, barely service via email 2 - no chance for the wide consumer market to play with the phone or interact with the phone with online sales only 3 - mixed reviews from the professional tech review community So while I agree google made an attempt it felt to me much more like a half assed…

You forgot to mention that for most people it cost $529 to buy versus $149 for a competing smartphone.

This is largely just a trick of marketing, if you look at the cost of the phone over it's lifetime it turns out much cheaper to buy up front, My n1 cost me 600 AUD, I then bought a 129 AUD 12gb 12 month SIM card and a VOIP account for 3$ a month for an incoming local call number in the current capital city I'm located in, which will be changed next time I relocate at the end of the year.

Total cost over 12 month period will almost definitely be less than 1k unless I go completely overboard on voip calls, to boot the voip calls are far cheaper than normal mobile operator calls, and work fine over 3g with the sipdroid client.

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#107

Post by nhooey »

eli wrote: post #97
megablast wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did it really try? Did it spend any money on advertising? Did it give the project a chance to succeed? Did it push back at the carriers? Blame the market all you want, but if Google aren't even going to inform the majority, that ain't the markets fault.

Advertising? No, it was just a bad idea. The full-price Nexus One was hundreds of dollars more than a subsidized phone from your carrier. And since you usually pay the same per month whether you take their subsidy or not, it was not a smart financial decision to buy a Nexus One for the overwhelming majority of customers.

I can't believe nobody else mentioned this sooner or that you haven't received many more points for your comment.

Most people don't even think about the fact that they're locked into a contract for 2+ years (in the US), they just think about how the other phones are cheaper. But even for the people who consider the costs of being locked in, they can see that not being locked in provides little advantage.

If the entire market wasn't locked in to their contract, and could trivially take their phone number with them, they would have maximum provider mobility and the competition would get steep. If only a few people do this, it won't actually improve service or make the companies willing to adjust prices to keep these specific customers.

I'm not sure how the market came to this in North America and other select places, but I can see how it's going to be very hard for it to change.

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#108

Post by mralbie »

ergo98 wrote: post #70
mralbie wrote: post #46

Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Google played into the telecoms' hands, they created the first viable competitor to the iPhone and gave it to the telecoms saying "do whatever you want with this, feel free to modify it any way you want". Google's vision of a market in which handsets are independent from carriers is absolutely poisonous to the industry's business model. Even though the iPhone is very successful I…

I'm not quite understanding the "gave it to telecoms" part - The telecoms don't make phones. Companies like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC do. And while Google "gave" it to them, they've all dumped incredible amounts of engineering hours into Android and their derivatives -- any illusion that they just ran a Ubuntu install on their Galaxy S and that was it is utterly asinine around parts like this. Seriously, the "giving…

I find your lack of courtesy to be the embarrassment to HN.

I was simply try to the make the point that by pushing an open source OS (as in manufacturers could alter the OS to include anything the carriers insisted) Google blindsided itself. They expected to create something that would change the handset/carrier/customer relationship, instead they just enabled the next generation of the same thing. The Nexus One is evidence of this.

Re: Why Google Became A Carrier-Humping, Net Neutrality Surrender Monkey

#109

Post by mralbie »

ergo98 wrote: post #70
mralbie wrote: post #46

Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Google played into the telecoms' hands, they created the first viable competitor to the iPhone and gave it to the telecoms saying "do whatever you want with this, feel free to modify it any way you want". Google's vision of a market in which handsets are independent from carriers is absolutely poisonous to the industry's business model. Even though the iPhone is very successful I…

I'm not quite understanding the "gave it to telecoms" part - The telecoms don't make phones. Companies like Motorola, Samsung, and HTC do. And while Google "gave" it to them, they've all dumped incredible amounts of engineering hours into Android and their derivatives -- any illusion that they just ran a Ubuntu install on their Galaxy S and that was it is utterly asinine around parts like this. Seriously, the "giving…

The point I was trying to make is pretty much this: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=5855
Post reply on HN