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

"Users don't really know the difference between a Droid and a Nexus One. They're both Google Android phones right?"

To everyday users they are all 'droids'. It doesn't matter if it's the nexus one or a galaxy s phone. Every regular user I have ever talked to about their android phone calls it a 'droid'. Even the original G1. Good for verizon I guess...

This article is absolutely ridiculous. Wired should be ashamed -- it is sensationalist, unrealistic, and absolutely dishonest in its characterization of the Google/Verizon policy proposal. The salient mistakes:

1. "Google and Verizon announced Monday, as part of their bilateral net neutrality trade agreement they want Congress to ratify, that open wireless rules were unneccessary.

“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 joint statement said. “In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless-broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the [Net Neutrality] wire-line principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement.”

That’s fancy language for: Verizon and the nation’s telecoms have yet again won, Google officially became a net neutrality surrender monkey, and you — as an American — have lost."

The proposal[1] specifically notes that the wireless exemption is time-limited-- it is noted that "at this time" these rules would not apply. The proposal includes an annual review of this position, and the transparency requirement attempts to ensure that this review could be conducted fairly and with good information.

2. "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."

Really? And destroyed any hope of Android ending up on those carriers in the future? Does anyone really think this is a sane proposition? (Does anyone believe that Google wouldn't be painted as a litigious bully by the very same critics throwing around such absurd language as "carrier-humping surrender monkeys"?)

3. "The FTC would have had a reason to pry into unfair business practices. Google could have eschewed online-only selling and partnered with the many independently owned mobile phone shops around the country, so that potential customers could play with the device before plunking down $500."

The reasons for the Nexus One's failures are complex, but I certainly think that one of them was that many consumers don't want to pay $500 for a device, and are more than happy to sign multi-year contracts in order to get a subsidy on a smartphone.

4. "Google easily could have attached conditions to all Google-powered Android phones, banning carrier software that can’t be removed just as easily as any other app. (Try getting rid of Sprint’s Nascar app on the EVO — if you don’t have root, it can’t be done.). These conditions also could have banned the blocking of Android 2.2’s built-in ability to be a Wi-Fi hot spot, which both Sprint and Verizon have crippled."

I know the "open" crowd isn't a fan of these management policies-- I'm not either-- but it seems hypocritical to assert that certain kinds of customizations shouldn't be allowed on open-source software. The author essentially wants Google to be the arbiter of what "openness" means, and moreover, to apply an unequal standard to customers versus carriers.

Boo-hoo, right? Verizon certainly can deal with getting the short end of that stick. But the way they would most likely do that is to drop Android altogether. At which point no one gets to customize it at all.

I am continually mystified by the legions of Google critics who expect that, because they are huge, they can do whatever they want-- completely ignoring the fact that they are huge because they often don't do what they want to. Android is a success precisely because it balances openness with pragmatism. At times I disagree on the balance that Google has chosen, but I don't for a minute believe that Google can simply ignore reality and force carriers to accept a model of the internet that they fundamentally disagree with.

We can argue about the merits of particular Google decisions (like, say, the wireless exemption in the current policy proposal), but I don't think we get anywhere by mis-characterizing them and using the kind of polarizing, childish language like "carrier humping surrender monkeys".

[1]: http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.google.com/goog...

On Point 2 (I think this killed it):

I literally stopped by three brick and mortar T-Mobile stores back in May (my family's contract with Sprint was ending) to simply try a Nexus One out and not a single store had one anywhere in site. There were no promotional banners, there were no phones on display, and even when I asked the employees I got one response of "We don't have any in stock" and one response of "We don't show that phone".

All in all a terrible experience, and when confronted with 3 other family members who aren't very tech savvy, a phone they couldn't hold in their hand turned out to be an impossible sell.

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?

I think you're right; I can't seem to find anything that gives them special non-profit-seeking privilege. The only thing related is the "Don't be Evil" statement in their Owners Manual for Shareholders that states:

"Don't be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served-as shareholders and in all other ways-by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains. This is an important aspect of our culture and is broadly shared within the company."

I guess the exceptionally weak phrase "even if we forgo some short term gains" included in a non-legal document isn't really much protection.