81–90 of 109 posts
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.
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…
That has always irritated me in its US-centric view of things. They should have kept pushing that phone in Europe, in stores, where it would sit right next to even more expensive iPhone models.
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…
This deal is just a fig leaf. Google supported net neutrality when it suited their business goals. The moment Android took off it became a non-issue for them. If anything, they should be taking more flak. Google's enjoyed an incredibly soft treatment by the press thanks to their positioning as a company that puts ethics before profits. Yet on the issues that matter, it's increasingly clear that Google's ethics are hi…
Everything Google does goes over the internet. Youtube in particular needs high bandwidth and seems like the kind of thing that would be throttled to protect cable TV. Yet everyone in the media is obsessed with the Android link and claiming Google no longer cares about net neutrality as a result of Android. But not actually explaining why this makes any sense.
Is it just because Verizon is pushing Android hardest out of the US carriers? Seems a bit weak.
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…
Wired suggested that Google could have done more to get around this so that the Nexus 1 was available to everyone, but they didn't.
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 irony is that the Nexus One failed to gain support from the major carriers. The carriers instead released competing models using Android. Users don't really know the difference between a Droid and a Nexus One. They're both Google Android phones right? When Google released the Nexus One, I remember thinking they're competing with the carriers whom they depend on adopting Android. No way will ATT/VZN let this in th…
They could have just asked Nokia. This is what Nokia has been trying to do in the US for a decade now.
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 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. That has always irritated me in its US-centric view of things. They should have kept pushing that phone in Europe, in stores, where it would sit right next to even more expensive iPhone models.
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…
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…
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…