Slashdot Log In
Verizon Embraces Google's Android
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:43 PM
from the hard-to-hug-a-robot dept.
from the hard-to-hug-a-robot dept.
An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek has up an article on Verizon's decision to fully support Android. After passing on the iPhone, the company says they're going to open their network to more devices, move their network to GSM-based radio technology (LTE), and now support Android. 'In an open-access model, though, Verizon Wireless won't offer the same level of customer service as it does for the roughly 50 phone models featured in its handset lineup. Though the company will insist on testing all phones developed to run on its network in the open-access program, Verizon plans only to ensure the wireless connection is working for customers who buy those devices.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Google's Open Source Mobile Platform 199 comments
As expected, today Google took the wraps off of the gPhone (as the media have for months been referring to the rumored project). Google is "leading a broad industry alliance to transform mobile phones into powerful mobile computers," and will be licensing its software to all comers on an open source basis under the Apache license. (The Wall Street Journal's Ben Worthen demonstrates a miserable grasp of what "open source" means.) Google's US partners include Nextel and Sprint, but not AT&T nor Verizon. Phones will be available in the second half of 2008 — not the spring as earlier reports had speculated. News.com's analysis warns that Google won't take over the mobile market overnight, though they quote Forrester in the opinion that Google may be one of the three biggest mobile players after several years of shakeout.
[+]
Hardware: Verizon Wireless To Open Network 286 comments
A number of readers are letting us know about Verizon's plans, announced today, to open their nationwide wireless network to devices that they don't sell. A NYTimes blog posting puts VZW's announcement in industry context. From the press release: "In early 2008, the company will publish the technical standards the development community will need to design products to interface with the Verizon Wireless network. Any device that meets the minimum technical standard will be activated on the network. Devices will be tested and approved in a $20 million state-of-the-art testing lab which received an additional investment this year to gear up for the anticipated new demand. Any application the customer chooses will be allowed on these devices."
Submission: Verizon Embraces Google's Android by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Linux: Verizon Joins Linux Mobile Foundation 100 comments
An anonymous reader brings news that Verizon Wireless has announced plans to use a Linux-based software platform for phones on its network. Verizon is the first US mobile carrier to join the Linux Mobile Foundation, the goal of which is to "collaboratively develop a comprehensive Linux-based mobile software stack that can be modified easily and used at no cost on a wide range of hardware devices." Many had expected Verizon to go with Android, but according to the Register, Verizon feels Android "isn't as open as it would prefer." Continuing:
"Yes, Google bills Android as open. And, yes, it's backed by the Open Handset Alliance, another industry consortium calling for the open development of mobile apps. But [Verizon spokesman Jeffrey] Nelson argues that at this point, Google is calling the shots. 'Google said "Here's the plan. Sign on the dotted line if you support." It may end up being collaborative. It may end up being collegial. But it need not be.' He actually has a point. But maybe Verizon just wants more control over the situation. It should be noted that the company made sure it has a place on the LiMo board. In any event, Verizon says that customers will be free to attach any device and any application to its network by the end of the year - provided those devices and applications met certain minimum specifications. So, in theory, you'll have free rein to attach an Android phone even if you don't buy it from Verizon."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I Feel A Sudden Pain (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I Feel A Sudden Pain (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
wary (Score:5, Insightful)
Something tells me they're just trying to lure us in so they can get a better swing with their magazine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wary (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just PR, as they don't want to publicly admit you could already have access to phones TODAY [as Verizon has already certified t
This is good news (Score:5, Interesting)
LTE is especially good news. It's an open standard, it similar underlying technologies to WiMAX and like WiMAX is all-IP - you can run any protocol over it you can run over the Internet, because your LTE device is an Internet connected terminal. Unlike WiMAX various protocols are standardized on top of it, so an LTE "phone" is still charge up, and plug in the SIM card, and go in much the same way as a GSM phone is today.
It's going to be hard for me to shake my impression of Verizon as a bunch of psychotic control freaks: maybe the Vodafone influence is finally having an affect. It'll be nice to have a third national operator with a genuinely open network that's worth considering. Being stuck with two GSM operators, one stuck with poor spectrum, the other barely giving a rats-ass about quality of service, sucks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This is good news (Score:5, Informative)
It's hard to tell what the long term future of IS-95/CDMA2000 (TIA standards) is. The 4G road map is a technology called Ultra Mobile Broadband, this is the TIA world's equivalent of LTE, but nobody has, thus far, expressed any interest in it.
Sprint is dabbling in WiMAX, though its deprecated its projects in that area of late. It did, at one point, experiment with a version of UMTS (GSM) called UMTS-TDD but ultimately rejected it in favor of WiMAX, so they're open-minded enough to consider things that fall outside of the narrow TIA systems.
Alltel, I believe, hasn't made any decisions or said anything about 4G. Between them, Alltel, Verizon, and Sprint are the three major CDMA2000 operators. As long as one of those operators remains tied to CDMA2000, it's unlikely the system will die completely.
Frequencies is an issue of local legislation and doesn't have much to do with standards. It's going to get worse in Europe too, as phones currently support GSM on 1800 and 900, and UMTS on 2100/1900, and are now going to have to support GSM on 450MHz and UMTS on 900 and 1800. As time goes by, the number of frequencies every handset supports is just going to go through the roof, even if the phone is only supposed to work in one region.
I think this is going to end up being a fight between WiMAX and LTE, with UMB getting relatively little support. While WiMAX is better known to geeks, it's no more open nor more efficient than LTE. LTE is arguably slightly better in supporting SIM cards, so ultimately if I had a choice, I'd prefer the latter to "win". But both are likely to have wide support across the world, it's unlikely that the same ideological differences that caused the CDMA vs GSM thing to be a mess will happen this time.
Parent
Ok, I get it now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I get it now. I've been trying to figure out why a company that is so closed and so anti-consumer most of the time (I happen to be a current subscriber and hate them, especially after they automatically extended my contract when I got married and wanted to consolidate cell phone plans with my wife, who was also a Verizon customer) would be suddenly opening up their network, not restricting software, etc. After reading these quotes from the article, though, I do get it now.
Reading between the lines, you can tell they don't like the fact that they have to support their customers. Things were great when they were just signing up customers right and left and didn't have to do much support, but now that they have to actually support their subscribers they don't like it. So basically, this "opening" is just a way for them to support their customers even less, and dump as much of the support on the handset providers as possible. The company strategy is still about helping the consumer as little as possible and screwing them over as much as possible; it just happens that that is now most easily done with an open network.
Parent
Re:Ok, I get it now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If something like a calendar application on your phone is buggy, why should Verizon be trying to deal with it.
While I have no sympathy whatever for the bloodsucking carriers, I agree that the underlying problems is that there's some really complex software on the phones and all users needs can't be met by customer service at any one company. I don't think the OEMs can do it either though. Just like computer software the only way to really scale it is by letting users help users. And open platforms make that easier to do than closed ones.
I've been messing around with Android and I'm really looking forward to
Re:Ok, I get it now... (Score:5, Informative)
Verizon had to 'deal with it' because they insist on using non-standard firmware to disable features that circumvent their revenue stream model. Why do you think my Razr can't transfer images and ringtones via Bluetooth? Because that would get around their silly "Get It Now" storefront. Same for Java - no free apps; everything must go thru their store.
I don't blame the manufacturers one bit for punishing these clowns for crippling their phones - in fact, I'd love for the manufacturers to forbid resellers from ruining the manufacturers reputation by flashing sketchy custom firmware and still calling it a 'Company X, Brand Y' phone.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That applies the other way around, too. I heard a fellow just yesterday mention the heavy metal band "Queen-Sryche"
Re:Ok, I get it now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And worst of all, its ugly. Who the hell makes an OS with a bright-red themed GUI?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've known many people, including myself, that have had to hard-reset their phones over the last year or two, losing ring tones, games, pictures and contacts. Aside from
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok, I get it now... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can always go to another provider... competition should cause the value you get to increase.
The problem isn't Verizon... the problem is the oligarchy of cell phone providers. With too few participants on their side of the market, they do not face enough competitive pressure to make your cell phone experience better. The answer is to either regulate them better, or to open up the market to more competitors (which probably wouldn't work, due to high barriers to entry).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's VoIP, but that doesn't mean the carrier can't charge for them separately. MultiMedia Messaging (MMS) is also done over IP using current platforms, and people aren't generally charged data charges for using it (the operator usually pricing MMS messages at a fixed rate.)
That said, it would surprise me if operators don't generally move to a flatter business model. That's what's going on in the US already (most of the "minutes packages" are considerably higher than anyone generally needs taking into acc
Verizon Embraces Google's Android (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad androids are only able to return the gesture of affection with a cold, dead indifference.
Fully Functional (Score:2, Informative)
A Java-ish success? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A Java-ish success? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Relevent and Hip (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The one big deal is when putting in their fiber infrastructure they damaged bu sprinklers. It took 1 5 minute phone call at 4PM and they were out the next day and fixed it.
They cut my DSL monthly fee in half, mid contract.
Quite frankly, I don't understand the Verizon hate. Yes they area large company, but overall they seem to play well.
Now that they see that the telecom industry is on
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't doubt their land line service is great. I've gotten excellent service with the cell phone section of the company too. But the moves just seem more marketing driven than market driven.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, quite frankly, when I had DSL through Verizon I was supposed to be getting 768/128 and was instead getting 350/70 during off-peak times and 250/50 during on-peak (and it was a college town so the off-peak times were limited). Latency was high with round-trip averages in the 200ms range and spikes to 350+ (my 53k dialup through icontech.com at home in PA was steady at 175ms to 180ms).
You know what's a better way to get me to sign up? (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon's Data-Plan is 80 per month base (with no option for not buying voice time), versus T Mobile's 40 a month (with no Voice plan). That doesn't include the use of wifi spots, which comes standard for t-mobile but is extra on Verizon. I'm an open-source guy, but I'll take a locked proprietary phone that works as a bluetooth modem for my (soon to own, hopefully) Nokia n810 over a google android phone on an open network any day of the week, when it's going to cost me 40 less a month.
Ingenious corporate spin (Score:4, Insightful)
. . . Verizon Wireless won't offer the same level of customer service as it does for the roughly 50 phone models featured in its handset lineup . . . Verizon plans only to ensure the wireless connection is working for customers who buy those devices. "They have to talk to their handset provider or their application provider if they have particular issues," McAdam says.
So, who's to say if "the wirelss connection is working" - The customer? Verizon? The device itself? Application support? What kind of sense does THAT make? I can't hold a call for 5 blocks in a downtown urban area, but because my 'phone provider says the coverage maps report solid coverage, the problem of course must be my handset -- which of course they can replace with a "newer, better model" for just $199.95.
Add to that their sudden outbreak of common sense regarding their business model, in that
. . . the bulk of their energy goes to helping current subscribers with questions and problems. McAdam & Co. decided the business model was not sustainable."
What a great opportunity for Verizon to reduce their already phenomenally bad customer service and imply that it's not their fault that they must do.
That might be the most ingenious corporate spin I've ever heard. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ingenious corporate spin (Score:4, Interesting)
So, who's to say if "the internet connection is working" - the customer? Comcast? the computer itself? Windows/Linux support? Makes sense to me, we deal with this all the time! Would you rather that ISP's sold rigorously tested locked down PCs that they could give customer support on? Or would you rather that connection and your computer remained separate, so you contact them when your internet SERVICE doesn't work, and contact the computer/application developers for support when the device doesn't work.
I think the problem is that people are so used to being fucked by phone companies, its hard to see how things should be. Ideally, service should be completely separate from the device. Yes, you would now have to trust two different entities, the service company for connectivity and the device maker for a robust device, but we seem to do this just fine with TV and computers.
It looks like they are trying to move away from the locked down phones for greedy reasons, but if it works out that way its better for us. If they are actually doing this, I see it as a good thing for competition and the abysmal situation in the US for cell service. Whether or not they actually go through with it only time will tell
Parent
Better off (Score:2)
As a Verizon Customer... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looking forward to Android phones... (Score:2)
I'm glad that a major provider is jumping on. From a development perspective at least, Android is a breath of fresh air in the mobile phone industry. Hopefully it will be for end users as well, but I suppose that remains to be seen. =)
CDMA and GSM protocol support (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
UMTS has caught on with most GSM operators - their major issue isn't any "forklift" upgrade (I think you're saying a switch to an entirely unrelated technology, but that's not the case, the upper levels of GSMv2 and UMTS are very similar) but the spectrum issues it has coupled with regulatory challenges. W-CDMA and TD-CDMA, the two major UMTS air interfaces, require 5 MHz of spectrum in either direction to work properly which has been a problem for US operators as many only have 5MHz of spectrum in various
somebody had to (Score:5, Funny)
level up (Score:2)
Embrace!? (Score:3, Insightful)
All this talk of Verizon "openness" is just talk. Right in time for all the publicity around the 700MHz auction.
I have no idea what their strategy is, but I can assure you being more open is not their goal.
Is this Vondafone vs Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a big chunk of Verizon owned by Vodafone?
A big chunk of Verizon Wireless is owned by them, not Verizon itself.
Wikipedia is your friend [wikipedia.org]: Verizon Wireless is a joint venture of Verizon Communications and Vodafone Group, with 55 and 45 percent ownership respectively.
So yeah, Vodafone owns 45% of it. But Verizon has majority ownership and control. It's a good relationship for Vodafone in that they get dividends from Verizon Wireless. It's a bad relationship in that they are completely at the mercy of Verizon management as to what those dividen
Re:not yet an iphone killer... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent