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

21–30 of 109 posts

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

#21

Post by aresant »

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…

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 try in the context of this thread

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

#22

Post by pkaler »

lkjhgfhjk wrote: post #7

We didn't need no net neutrality in Canada. We have two network providers and you have a free choice to get your phone, cable and wireless from whichever one of them operates in your town. Sure we don't get 3G on our kindles and we got the iPhone a year after uzbekistan and we pay twice as much as you do for the data - but that's our choice as Canadian consumers.

3 network providers: Rogers, Bell, Telus.

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

#23

Post by etherael »

aresant wrote: post #21
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…

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…

Points 1 & 2 are what I was referring to when I pointed out that google just doesn't work that way, they're not going to open a plexiglass cube in the local megamall and handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar, it's simply not in their DNA. I acknowledge that that is in fact apparently an essential part of the path to market success in this arena as evidenced by the sales numbers, but I'm personally underwhelmed by it and simultaneously completely grok why Google has no interest in doing this.

Point 3 is news to me, every review I read on the N1 prior to purchasing one was a "this beats the snot out of the iPhone" level heaping of glowing praise, and now having had one myself for two months I see why; it's completely true. It's the Ubuntu story in a phone form factor all over again; having the clearly superior product does not mean that you end up with significant market share or business success.

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

#25

Post by aikinai »

cma wrote: post #8
eschulte wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely changing your stated principles on the importance of net neutrality and openness in the wireless sphere, because it suites your financial situation, is not "compromise" it's hypocrisy.

In the U.S. companies can't have principles that don't suit their financial situation. If they try to, the board is exposed to shareholder class-action lawsuits.

I was under the impression that Google put a special clause in their charter(?) that gave them special permission to make decisions that appear to go against their bottom line.

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

#26

Post by msbarnett »

lkjhgfhjk wrote: post #7

We didn't need no net neutrality in Canada. We have two network providers and you have a free choice to get your phone, cable and wireless from whichever one of them operates in your town. Sure we don't get 3G on our kindles and we got the iPhone a year after uzbekistan and we pay twice as much as you do for the data - but that's our choice as Canadian consumers.

Except we do get 3G on our Kindles, we got the iPhone years ago, and our 6 gig data plan is a better deal than AT&T's 2 gig top-end plan

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

#27

Post by lkjhgfhjk »

pkaler wrote: post #22
lkjhgfhjk wrote: post #7

We didn't need no net neutrality in Canada. We have two network providers and you have a free choice to get your phone, cable and wireless from whichever one of them operates in your town. Sure we don't get 3G on our kindles and we got the iPhone a year after uzbekistan and we pay twice as much as you do for the data - but that's our choice as Canadian consumers.

3 network providers: Rogers, Bell, Telus.

And by ruthlessly competing with each other () they achieve the highest profitabilty in the world http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/04/tech-profit.ht...

they do compete ruthlessly, you should see the golf games when their chief execs get together at their price fixing meetings.

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

#28

Post by megablast »

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…

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.

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

#29

Post by megablast »

jsz0 wrote: post #5
yanw wrote: post #2

Google spokeswoman: “We have taken a backseat to no one in our support for an open internet. We offered this proposal in the spirit of compromise. Others might have done it differently, but we think locking in key enforceable protections for consumers is progress and preferable to no protection.” I have to agree, Google is getting flak here although they are the only company that stood for net neutrality. They are be…

I don't believe you can get into bed with a US telecom and stay clean. It's impossible.

Except for Apple, who have done very well. They have not compromised to most carrier concerns, you don't find an ATT logo on the iPhone, or dodgy software apps you can't remove, or hardware switched off. Apple has done more to change the carriers than anyone else.

Sure, they have had to pull some apps (although both ATT and Apple deny it was due to the carrier).

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

#30

Post by doron »

etherael wrote: post #23
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…

Points 1 & 2 are what I was referring to when I pointed out that google just doesn't work that way, they're not going to open a plexiglass cube in the local megamall and handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar, it's simply not in their DNA. I acknowledge that that is in fact apparently an essential part of the path to market success in this arena as evidenced by the sales numbers, but…

"Clearly superior product" apparently require in the context of the market point 1, 2 to be present. Nevertheless your point is taken, and i agree with it overall.

All these issues of late, this pact, Facebook privacy, Apple Locks on products, hinge on the premise of an uncaring public as long it gets its fix of the day.

So many times you hear a commentator use the line "the regular user doesn't care". I saw many comments along that line on HN. And you can say this, because it is true, the public does not care.

consumers flocked to a locked relationship with ATT to get the iphone, few left facebook over its privacy issues, consumers will flock to get superior preferential access to the net via Droid's on Verizon wireless.

Post reply on HN