135 thoughts on “Five Facts About Google Phone”

  1. It’ll be interesting to see if Google allows users to change search providers; and if not, if Yahoo/MS raise as much of a stink as Google did with Vista.

  2. also keep in mind that Google acquired bruNet in DE/CH, a solution provider that developed a WAP/SMS gateway and micropayment platform. all fits nicely into a mobile strategy / Gpay.

  3. I would also assume that an application framework for developers would be included at some stage – like the GWT. Google would definitely like to encourage developers to write apps quickly to its mobile platform, and looking at the mobile widget space – I could guess that google gadgets are likely to be ported in the gphone somehow.

  4. You have to wonder why they bothered if that’s all they’ve done. What will be really interesting is the OS. Can developers access it and add new apps. If not – then I’m not sure why I need one, unless it’s incredibly cheap to make a call.

  5. If you’re in everything, it means you’re doing nothing. Hopefully Google shouldn’t enter into this biz. They should concentrate on what they’re known for. They would rather try to enter into tie-ups with manufacturer than coming on their own. Already corporate America has learnt hell lot of lessons. If Google would like to be adamant like IBM, then we knew the history of IBM. This would exactly happen for Google.

  6. I like the idea of a Google Phone, and it might be a market niche for it, specially if they keep it simpler than the iphone. A lot of people don’t want music and camera on a mobile phone but they will like to have a descent access to the internet.

  7. Hello,

    It looks more of a strategic play like youtube and double-click were meant.

    I don’t think that google is that bothered about selling physical hardware and a decent margin, but more as an enabler and introducer (seeding) of developmental infrastructure into the environment of the google mobile eco-space.

    With so many aspects/components actually being software based, and wi-fi not being unique, I think that this phone is being introduced for focussing marketing hype and as a reference platform, but the whole point of so much java is actually for anyone to be able to download a single environment that will play on any phone that has java, with other handset providers/developers having the gphone (& compatibility) in mind when creating their work.

    I also think that as google rarely cares about the up-front, and has always been about the intersection between search and commerce, they might be willing to literally give away the whole bundle to the commodity manufacturers of the developing world whose products inevitably end up here -just as happened with low cost DVD-players!

    Microsoft’s trojan-horse strategy sophisticated by at least 4 (inc. diffusion).

    Yours kindly,

    Shakir Razak

    like to know what others think of this idea…..

  8. This thing will be polluted with ads, Ads are Googles life blood and everything they do is targeted at expanding their control of digital advertising. Only now Google will know who you CALL! and they will serve you ads based not on just your web browsing but on businesses you call.

  9. What have they rolled out besides search that they own the market on? My bet is against googol on a phone…they have yet to get software right, now they want to focus on something they have no clue about.

  10. Prediction:

    Google will buy Sun Microsystems. Anyone else wonder why Sun changed its stock ticker symbol from SUNW to Java? Could it be “neutralization” of the name (from Sun) so as to reinforce the java aspect of the company? A likely reason, of course, however: WHY.

    Could be some interesting developments for Sun and Google.

  11. It doesn’t matter whether Goog is going into hardware or sticking with software – they intend to go after the mobile market – there are too many opportunities there…

  12. The REAL big move forward, which all are avoiding, conspicuously, is PUSH Email.
    Who, reasonably, wants to pay the horrific cost of Blackberry (£40 per month here in the UK). All this would require is some serious server hard disk space (really cheap now) and something that is not locked on to these blasted telephone service providers who are really just parasitic to the devices and costly to users.
    I can’t think why mobile (cell-phone) technology, which is hardly cutting-edge, electronics/chip wise costs so much. It can only be to protect the restrictive markets of the service providers.
    If Sergy and Larry are really serious GPush at a cheap cost would massacre Microsoft and give Google immense income ($) and freedom from being locked into providing things which only profit service providers.
    Come on. You know you can do it!
    Plus, of course, it would bring out the geek in most blokes, a ‘must have’

  13. would buy it if 1) fast mail 2) fast stock quotes 3) fast search) I don’t give a @$%#
    about looking at pictures/videos or having little fish swim around for a screensaver. I want long battery life, fast simple internet.
    Maybe bluetooth to put next to lappy and connect that way. Please don’t make it a fashion accseory! Just a practical phone, that is quick for business minded people, not a ‘toy’ also thin, light. don’t want to watch movies just want small phone with email and sopme web access. (Wimax or Rev A EVDO minimum speed that is acceptable) .

  14. @Norman Speight

    You don’t need push e-mail. The GMail concept is all about keeping the e-mail on their server. All you need is push e-mail notification, which can be done in a carrier neutral way using SMS. This type of system would also be more battery efficient than push e-mail.

  15. I’d like to file a bug report on your site: The actual content of this page is less than half of the width of the whole page. This is ridiculous!

  16. Om, WebKit as the browser would be a very interesting move. It would force more consolidation in the market at the expense of Microsoft and to the benefit of Apple. Two smartphones with Webkit would drive future development in the smartphone arena. Apple would not be opposed to the competition because they would figure that the halo effect from an increased popularity of their Safari browser would be the big benefit through more desktop, laptop and iphone sales.

  17. Would be great if the google phone looked like T-Mobile Dash (or Samsung X820, for us in Aus).

    But I still don’t like the look of the most recent mockups. I was expecting something more like the old Google Switch mockups.

    Like an iphone, but without the chunk factor.

  18. a google phone would have the best chance to cross the bridge between paid usage and ads for time model. More credit to Google as they clearly provide value in exchange for service.

  19. A “google phone” that synchs up with my “google computer” and their services. Now that is what I’m waiting to see materialize.

    Will never touch windows again, once that happens.

  20. I personally think if Google Yahoo and Microsoft release their own cell hardware it will be over for the big cell companies.

    Whomever get’s the deal to build the phone will do pretty well. But remember I had a touch screen iPaq in 2001 that had a full web browser and that didn’t stick. With more people on the net serving social functions, I think it’s the right time for these devices to hit the market!


  21. Pingback: Confluence: ezmo
  22. Regarding networks – anyone who thinks it will be WiMax are jumping the gun a little. No WiMax network is currently deployed anywhere (certainly not in the USA). Sprint is the first to do so, theirs will be open for business in 12-15 markets throughout 2008. Even if Google were to build their own (over the, presumably, newly acquired 700 MHz spectrum), it will not be available until 2009-2010 at the earliest. The Google Phone is being made NOW, way before any of these offerings. Also, it is being made available internationally, where WiMax deployments are a mixed bag, at best.

    I think we know that the initial version of the phone, at least, would support GSM (because of the agreements with Orange and Vodafone). For the US market, that means an agreement with AT&T/Cingular or T-Mobile (and not Sprint/Nextel or Verizon).

    Second, GSM probably implies WCDMA (UMTS/HSDPA) 3g/3.5g technologies. In the USA, this means a choice between either AT&T (850/1900 MHz) or T-Mobile (1700 + and off-2100 MHz frequency) – most likely the former. Likely, there will be a second version for the international market (like, for instance, the Motorola RAZR2 v9), sporting the 2100MHz frequency – or else the phone will be tri-band UMTS capable (like the forthcoming Sony-Ericsson k850i).

    Finally, it is likely to be Wi-Fi capable. The question will be how well the various Wi-Fi configurations (such as WPA enterprise/PEAP/MSCHAPv2 etc) are supported.

    Long term, I have no doubt that Google will ditch both 2G/GSM and 3G/WCDMA technologies in favor of a forthcoming data-centric 4G technology – let’s say WiMax/802.16e for the sake of argument. They are likely to deploy this network over the newly opened 700MHz frequency – which they are trying to bid on, and in either case will have rights to use (given their successful lobbying of the FCC to require this frequency to remain accessible for 3rd parties, no matter who actually wins the bid). Moreover, to the extent that their (2nd/3rd generation) device is still a phone, it will likely be making its calls over VoIP (Google Talk).

    Compare with Sprint’s new WiMax network, which will be run by a different division from their current cellular business, and offer $59.99/month subscriptions per person, not per device. One of the first devices that Sprint will offer for this new network is a WiMax-enabled version of the Nokia N800 Internet tablet, which is not a phone at all! (But can be used to make calls over VoIP, using Skype, Google Talk, Jabber, etc).

  23. It seems someone dropped the ball on facts. Google already announced its plans for a phone. Out of their Spain branch. And as for the rumor being only a year old. Obviously another ball dropped. John-Hallerism looks as though its becoming commonplace on the internets now.

  24. There’s a lot of talk about whether or not the proposed Google phone will kill the cell phone industry. Personally, I can see it making a dent with people who maybe can’t afford regular cell service plans. HOWEVER, there’s no way that I want my cell phone turned into some advertising venue FOR ANYTHING. I get enough garbage in my email – I’m absolutely willing to pay for ad free phone service and so is everyone that I’ve talked to about this. Unless Google offers up a competitive ad free service option, I won’t even consider switching.

  25. I would like to stake a prediction that the Google phone will achieve a lot of ‘nice to have’ functionalities but will lack the visual appeal required to take the cell phone market from other competitors. As such, it will lag for a long time in the first-adopters market segment. Moreover, many of the early adopter will be individuals like myself, geeky and looking for the next ‘neat’ gadget.

  26. OpenMoko will still be the first real step towards FREEing your phone. With OpenMoko it will be perfectly possible (out of the box more or less) to move your instant messenger from the phone to your work and home machine (depending on where you are).

    The platform and OS on the phone DOES matter. It’s crazy that there are no applications available (or preinstalled) that reports your speed (when going below 30 km/h and volontarily of course) every one minute to some site, which using GPS position and X number of reports instructs other commuters to avoid some road (or part of it) because there’s probably been an accident or something causing a traffic jam.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.