Android News
Google’s Nexus One: What’s the Plan?
January 6, 2010 | by Ed Clark
Android OS, Carriers, Google, Open Handset Alliance, Rumors
After the unveiling of the first and only Google-sold cell phone yesterday, many of us still have more questions than answers. In reading comments on various forums, I keep seeing the same topic over and over: What does Google gain by offering its own phone?
Andy Rubin claims that the Nexus One is an opportunity to broaden the availability of handsets running Android. News flash, Mr. Rubin: plenty of Android handsets are available, and plenty more are in the works for 2010. Not to mention that HTC–the maker of the Nexus One–already has many of their own handsets running Android anyway. Why does the Nexus One need to be sold by Google?
Think about it. There are many potential drawbacks to creating an operating system for the Open Handset Alliance, working with various vendors to get the latest versions of your operating system on their hardware and their networks (Motorola, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc), and then turning around and selling the latest and greatest version of hardware and software yourself. (Yes, Engadget thinks the Droid is better than the Nexus, and yes, Android 2.1 is coming for others, but that’s missing the point.)
I can only speculate that this is some sort of middle step for Google. One popular rumor is that Google wants to become its own carrier. Maybe they do plan to offer a service that would eliminate cell phone carriers somehow. I can’t imagine that T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, and Vodaphone would like that very much.
Another idea is that Google wants to emulate Apple: become a software and hardware vendor and make huge profits with flashy, high-end gear. This would require Google to buy a company like HTC (which may not even be possible), and again, would surely annoy the other hardware makers in the “Alliance.”
You don’t have to look very far to see that Google is OK with blowing up markets for other companies. Just check out Google Navigation and its impact for GPS navigation system vendors for a recent example. But Google should step lightly here. Partners don’t like to be stabbed in the back, and they can certainly impact the profitability and viability of Android in the long run. Of course, it may just be that I don’t understand what the plan is to begin with.
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
More about this app
I agree. I can't really what they have to gain by selling their own hardware. It's going to be interesting to see how this pans out.
Main reason in my opinion: Control of software updates distribution thereby reducing fragmentation. It's no secret that multiple version of the OS, multiple manufacturers, and most carriers with no plans on updating older version of the OS have left developers with a huge mess to deal with when developing apps.
I think they are following Apple. Roll out a new OS version and EVERYONE can update…as opposed to waiting for their clueless carrier to push it out.
From what I can tell, the difference is this: until now, Android handsets are built by, say, Motorola or HTC. They then download the android software, then install and customize it to work with that device. What Google has done here is taken care of the latter part of that process (the installation and customization), so they're 100% in control of the software.
What does this mean for Motorola and HTC? Probably good things as opposed to a stab in the back. It means that Motorola and HTC (and other companies, like Dell, Samsung, and whoever wants to play) can focus on what they do best: build hardware, and let Google do what they do best: build software. Couple this with what @Tom says, and bingo you have a really good formula.
As the owner of a droid, I do feel somewhat threatened that my handset won't be supported in the same way (or as much, or update as frequently as 'Google Phones'), so I'm hope I'm wrong about that.
Also, this is just my perception of what they said. As you point out, they were deliberately vague, so who knows.
I can see the carriers being upset with this move since it undermines a key part of their business model, exclusivity. But Google seems to release updates of Android to manufacturers pretty quickly so I don't see any threat to their business by Google selling phones. If anything I see this as a good thing for manufacturers. They can build a phone, then license it to Google to sell as an unlocked phone. They increase their potential market side, and Google helps mitigate the risks associated with trying to sell an unsubsidized phone.
I think it's easy to understand why they did something like this. It is another way they can bring people into the Android arena, and more people owning more Android devices (wherever they come from or whoever sells them) means good things for all companies behind the platform.
The only ones who are upset about this move are the customers who had bought android devices before this one came out. And this won't be the last time customers will feel jealous about the options available to future customers… the phones will continue to get better and better.
I disagree that Google Maps Navigation is a viable replacement for a dedicated GPS device. Get yourself lost somewhere with no data service available and see just how well that blank google map on your phone guides you back to civilization.
Currently, network service providers control to a significant degree what feature you can have on your mobile and what still works when you change carriers. I think it is high time that someone breaks this stranglehold. I'd rather buy a phone straight from a manufacturer then a crippled version from a network service provider.
If the true intent is to get this phone to as many people as possible why limit where it is sold? Why not sell it at T-mobile or Walmart or where ever? I don't understand this strategy. Most if not all people want to try the phones out first. The phones that are "dummy" phones and aren't plugged in sell poorly because people can't try them. If the plan is to sell unlocked unsubsidized phones good luck. These phones are obsolete in 12 months or less. I am not going to shell out almost 600 bucks for a phone that will seem like crap less than a year latter when I can get a laptop computer for $400. (I know about this personally I own a G1) This whole Nexis One thing has been a HUGE letdown. BOO google
I think it was made to "raise the bar" a bit. Google has seen the fragmentation of the UI for Android via Moto and HTC and are doing this to tell them "Hey we already have a killer interface coming in 2.1. Also look at the Android devices! The Magic, BLOWS! (you have to keep track of this nasty adapter just to use headphones and you cannot listed to music and charge at the same time) The hardware keys at the bottom are so year 2000(like most android devices), and the form factors are not progressive. They all look like WinMo phones running a new OS. All they are missing is a crappy stylus.
You guys are missing the point. The hardware itself is not the announcement. What Google has done by selling its own hardware is make a phone availible on multiple carriers while still selling the phone. Unlike apple. People who want an iPhone have no choice in service. They have to use att. So now I can say, I want a nexus one. But what carrier do I want it for? Verizon? T mobile? Att(no 3g) I now have options.
So is it really such a big deal an unlocked phone in the USA ? It is hard to understand what is the whole fuzz about, being on the other side of the Atlantic.
Is it normal that you have some model only in one company ?
iPhone is really not liked for doing that in Europe. This is not how the market works here.
But the nexus is made by HTC…