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

31–40 of 109 posts

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

#31

Post by sprout »

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…

What market? I understand why Google made this agreement, I suspect it might be the best we can get in the current political climate, but I can't believe they put their name on this statement:

>We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wire-line world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly,

The mobile wireless marketplace has basically no competition, except when you compare it to the wired market, where there really is no meaningful competition.

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

#32

Post by etherael »

megablast wrote: post #28
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.

I saw a ridiculous ton of hype for the phone both prior to and after the release of the phone, but I acknowledge that may well be due to the fact that I look in all the places likely to make a huge fuss over such a device.

On the carrier front though, retail stores that were actually marketing to end users, I guess this is as good an illustration of my point as any;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/11/nexus_one_sales/

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

#33

Post by jamesseda »

It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material

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

#34

Post by yummyfajitas »

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…

handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar,

I think it would be great if google created a "genius bar". I'd call it the "let me just google that for you" bar.

Basically, you go to the bar and ask the bartender a question. He types the question into google and then reads you the answer. He might even refer you to the genius bar in the unlikely even that a quick google search doesn't solve your problem.

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

#35

Post by sprout »

moultano wrote: post #17
metachor wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. The status quo is that no one has yet made any binding decisions, and the telecom operators will try to get away with what they can until the FCC slaps them down. Google just succeeded in getting Verizon to agree to net neutrality on the wired internet in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).

>in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet). [citation needed] This is explicitly not true according to the text of the agreement. The agreement says that it is too early to determine whether net-neutrality provisions are necessary for wireless networks, because it's a newer market and there is much more competition.

That kind of "let's wait and see how it looks until it evolves before we regulate" attitude is precisely what caused the current stagnation in the wired market.

The market fundamentally is under heavy regulation; wireless can't work without heavy-handed regulation of who can use what spectrum. We can't just stop at that kind of draconian regulation (which is necessary) and say that a little thing like non-discriminatory access to your absolute monopoly is too much.

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

#36

Post by brown9-2 »

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…

So they gave up after one product, one attempt at shaking up the industry?

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

#37

Post by doron »

megablast wrote: post #29
jsz0 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Apple has only one single carrier in the US, so how many carriers did they exactly change?. Did they start to sell unlocked GSM/CDMA phones to anyone who wanted?

As the article states

"ban cool apps for no real reason (Google Voice on the iPhone for one), cripple apps to protect business models (Skype on the iPhone) and outright ban data-heavy apps from third parties (Slingbox for the iPhone), all the while promoting their own app (MLB’s iPhone app)."

Looks like compromise to me, all in its best interest of course.

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

#38

Post by gamble »

msbarnett wrote: post #26
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

> Except we do get 3G on our Kindles

For a $2 per book fee.

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

#39

Post by etherael »

doron wrote: post #30
etherael wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 com…

Yeah, it's a clearly superior product for me because I haven't called tech support for about 17 years, that's why point 1 & 2 are utterly irrelevant to me.

And yes, the average end users just don't care, they don't understand, they don't think, they don't even want to, as entrepreneurs we already know this through our own experiences most likely, letalone needing to see it demonstrated writ large in this particular instance. Not having all the enabling features for the modern "consumer experience" equals poor market results, no matter the quality of the underlying product.

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

#40

Post by rottencupcakes »

When did our culture shift to this point that everyone puts their problems on the government?

Everyone complains about Apple's closed iPhone ecosystem, then pesters the government to condone jailbreaking and unlocking, which go against the iPhone's terms of service.

Comcast is caught throttling bittorent, and instead of switching providers to satellite or Verizon or anything, everything goes to the government and demands regulation on net neutrality.

Since when did it become the american standard to complain to the government when you don't agree with the terms of service instead of just doing it the old fashioned way and speaking with your money? If high speed internet is so important to you and Comcast is the only carrier in your area, then you are at their mercy - they paid money to expand their service to your region and service you - you don't get to demand that they service you in the most favorable way.

Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it to, and appealing to legislation just seems wrong.

P.S. If you disagree with me and believe that legislation limiting the contacts that can be signed between two parties is necessary, please reply and explain why instead of downvoting an alternate point of view. This isn't reddit.

Post reply on HN