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

41–50 of 109 posts

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

#41

Post by markstahler »

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…

Google didn't give it to us Canadians. Google seems to treat their international customers like second rate citizens. If my carrier picked up the N1 I would have bought it no question. $530USD is out of the question after exchange duty and taxes. Granted I don't know if this is due to Google or our carriers but all I know is we aren't getting any good Android handesets.

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

#42

Post by megablast »

doron wrote: post #37
megablast wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Maybe you are forgetting what it would be like before Apple? Carriers would regularly disable bluetooth or downloading. You could only get apps from their store. You could only get ringtones from their store. etc...

Apple changed all carriers, since they are less locked down. On Android, you can get apps from the google marketplace, not just the carrier store. Ringtones can be had easily.

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

#43

Post by etherael »

brown9-2 wrote: post #36
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?

One attempt where it became abundantly clear that the target audience was largely not interested in being saved from the alternative, all the while they were sabotaging their relationship with their successful retail channel by proceeding.

If Google sets out to do the right thing by consumers despite potentially sabotaging their own market success in the larger picture (people still read google ads on android devices, no matter how carrier crippled the experience is, Apple lose the ability to lock google ads out of the mobile space, Google wins) consumers not only reject the product but emphatically embrace the carrier crippled alternatives to the point where Google succeeds at it's objectives largely because of it's relationship with the carriers, why not tell the end users to get lost and deal with the status quo and start playing ball with the carriers?

Google is just a business, and they may make a case for how they'd like things to go, but at the end of the day if the market pushes them in another direction and they have no desire to adjust their DNA to the fundamental level required in order to pivot on this particular issue, and it ends up that with the direction the market is pushing they win anyway, just in a different way than they would have hoped, why not just go with that flow?

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

#44

Post by tvon »

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…

> 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.

Well, you really have to understand that what is "clearly superior" to you is not "clearly superior" to your typical "clueless end user".

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

#45

Post by moultano »

sprout wrote: post #35
moultano wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-discriminat…

Sure, but isn't it better to legislate net-neutrality for the wired internet than not do anything at all? If this was the only legislation that could conceivably pass, would you vote for it?

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

#46

Post by mralbie »

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 don't think verizon or sprint are interested at all in a world where they are just a "dumb pipe", they won't allow it.

Google lost this war because of their commitment to openness.

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

#47

Post by peterwwillis »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #40

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 dem…

the case in question involves limited licensed spectrums and companies which have legal monopolies over who can use their network and how. it's like bellsouth requiring you to use an Apple for broadband and comcast requiring Microsoft. it's anti-competitive and unfair to both consumers and any company that may want to compete due to the harsh cost of either entering the market or for a consumer to pay for the expensive new devices or contracts. considering this is the most ubiquitous method of communication in the nation (and probably the world) this is something every government should regulate.

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

#48

Post by SamReidHughes »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #40

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 dem…

> 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.

It's perfectly legimate to downvote people who post without thinking. If you want criticisms of anarcho-capitalism, go find them on Wikipedia. The article was not about the problems you have with human behavior.

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

#49

Post by dmnd »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #40

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 dem…

> If high speed internet is so important to you and Comcast is the only carrier in your area

This is usually due to a local monopoly having been granted by local government. I think contracts between corporations and government that have the result of reducing competition in the marketplace should be legislated against.

Take a look at the competition that exists between ISPs in places like Europe or Australia to see how it could be. Capitalism works best when competition exists. Obviously it's in the best interest of corporations to attempt to reduce competition in their industry. That doesn't mean they should be free to do so.

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

#50

Post by spot »

"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."

the networks require different antennas. no phone can work on all of them and be competitive.

google got verizon to agree to neutrality on the wire and can continue to fight for fair treatment on wireless. i call this progress.

Post reply on HN