7335372
story
Comments: 324 +- Mobile: Google Attack On the Mobile Market Rumored on Friday November 27, @06:35PM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Friday November 27, @06:35PM
from the first-the-itablet-and-now-this dept.
from the first-the-itablet-and-now-this dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
xchg writes in with a somewhat speculative, though plausible, piece from WiseAndroid claiming that Google is gearing up for an all-out assault on the mobile-phone market that will include a new, Google-branded handset and the first comprehensive Google phone service with unlimited free calls. "The real breakthrough, however, will come with the marriage of the Googlephone to Google Voice, the Californian company’s high-tech phone service. Google Voice gives US users a free phone number and allows unlimited free calls to any phone in the country — landline or mobile. International calls start from... just over a penny a minute. Google Voice also uses sophisticated voice recognition to turn voicemails into emails, can block telemarketing calls automatically and offers free text messaging. Google sounded its intentions two weeks ago when it purchased a small company called Gizmo5... [E]xperts are predicting that the Googlephone will be launched in the US early next year."
Related Stories
It doesn't much signify whom one marries, for one is sure to find out
next morning it was someone else.
-- Will Rogers
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Creative destruction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate mobile phones and everything about the industry behind them.
This sounds quite a bit less hate-able.
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:4, Insightful)
What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.
They share in common, contempt for the flock they shear.
Google will succeed because of the venality and arrogance of the incumbent carriers. That's why they chose this market. Google will be a company people like, despite the creeping monopoly of their personal information and continuing erosion of their privacy.
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.
What credit card company uses 'contractual lock-in'? I've never seen a credit card that you couldn't cancel at any time.
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... you mean to get out of a loan with a bank (basically what a credit card is)... I have to pay it off?!?
Dear god, they're screwing us!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You have to pay it off, on terms unilaterally adjusted by the lender, on criteria independent of the contract under which you entered the lending agreement.
Christ, talk about a couple of responses to my post taking a tangental discursion from the actual POINT I was making! And then? DEFENDING predatory lenders who abuse their customers!
Where'd I leave my motherfucking cluestick?
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Informative)
That's not true. At any point you can go to the credit card company and say "Here is the $3874 I owe you" and get out of your contract.
The terms are only unilaterally adjusted if you pay it off monthly. In that case, you're still in the loan, so of course your contract holds. They can't ignore the contract. You signify agreement to any changes by not canceling your account. If you've been using your credit responsibly, that shouldn't be too much of a problem. If you've been using it like a second source of income, yeah, you're screwed.
I do think many of the credit card company's practices are horrible, and some should be illegal. In fact, some are now (read: June 1st) thanks to the credit card reform that was passed. But it annoys me that so many people take on so much debt and then complain that they have to pay it off.
I don't see enough people taking responsibility, so I poked at your point that read that way to me.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you know that when you do that, the credit card company reports it as negative credit information that lowers your credit score?
That's right, they penalize you for fulfilling your contract. It's a strategy right out of the loan shark's playbook.
And when you pay off your entire balance every month, do you know what the credit card companies call you?
A "deadbeat".
I'm not
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:4, Insightful)
You're credit score changing doesn't prevent you from leaving the contract. It doesn't force you to keep paying interest.
Also, it's entirely possible to not care about your credit score. It only matters if you want to take on debt all the time.
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you know that when you do that, the credit card company reports it as negative credit information that lowers your credit score?
-1, factually incorrect. They do no such thing. Reporting 'negative' information that isn't true would be a violation of the fair credit reporting act. Paying off your credit card will not lower your score. It can only raise your score, as one of the key factors of your credit score is the amount of debt you owe vs. your total credit limits. Ideally this value should be less than 15%, though it doesn't really start to hurt you until you exceed 40%.
Closing an account may hurt your score, as the score model prefers older accounts to newer ones. But that really doesn't have anything to do with paying off your debt. If you pay off your debt and keep the account open your score can only go up. Whether or not it goes down if you close the account depends on a number of different factors -- how much debt you owe on your other accounts, how old they are, how old the closed one was, etc.
In any case, the credit scores weren't designed by the credit card companies. They were designed by the credit reporting agencies and a company called Fair Issac. None of them happen to be in the credit card business.
A "deadbeat".
Who cares what they call you? I pay off all my accounts in full, every month. I don't care if they think I'm a deadbeat. I'm still getting an interest free loan for 25 to 60 days. I'm also getting liquidity -- I can make a purchase without regard to when my next paycheck happens to be.
The credit card companies are at the top of the list of commercial entities that are openly hostile to their customers
You are painting with a really broad brush there. I had a WaMu account for five years until they went out of business. They were one of the nicest companies I've ever done business with. My credit union offers credit cards with a fixed 7.9% APR and a single page account agreement that doesn't require a law degree to decipher.
As with any business, there are good actors and there are not-so-good actors. It's up to you to give your business to the ones that treat you decently. I have no sympathy for someone who is doing business with a "hostile" credit card company when there are so many alternatives that are only a phone call away. You might find this hard to believe but Citi, Chase and Capital One don't have a monopoly on the credit card market. There are alternatives.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to pay it off, on terms unilaterally adjusted by the lender, on criteria independent of the contract under which you entered the lending agreement.
Incorrect. When they change the terms of your agreement (interest rate, annual fee, etc.) you are able to avoid said changes by closing the card and paying it off under the previously agreed to terms. You don't have to pay it all off at once either -- you can make the minimum payment that was provided for by your previous account agreement.
DEFENDING predatory lenders who abuse their customers!
I don't see them as being predatory. Nobody forced people to run up those credit cards. In fact the new credit card "reform" bill kinda pissed me off. Two of my cre
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have to pay it off, on terms unilaterally adjusted by the lender, on criteria independent of the contract under which you entered the lending agreement.
I don't know about your credit cards, but when I got one of those "The economy is bad, so we're raising your interest rates" letters that wanted to raise my 9% card to 16% there was a clause that I could decline the change and close the card, *KEEPING* my current rate and payoff schedule. So I did that. When a company changes the contract you have a way out. It has been true of everyone who I've heard has received those letters.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's the "pay it off" part that's got people annoyed. It's more to do with the "pay off not only more than you owe, but also enough to pay for huge CC company profits, and the ludicrous incomes of the employees."
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't get to add $500 "you paid off your card" fees. What amount are you talking about?
The high interest rates? You agreed to them in the contract. It was a one sided contract, but you agreed. You can pay off your loan at any time and get out of it.
Should credit cards be able to lend people $25k at 28% interest? Almost certainly not. Does that mean it's OK to take that money and then claim "it was unfair, I demand 7%"? No.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with these "loans" is that they only become a problem when you can no longer pay them off any time. So effectively you are saying that because you made a mistake, and signed a form you did not fully understand the implications of, you deserve to be continuously punished by the entity that fooled you. In fact, once you have been fooled by these companies, your only real chance to improve your situation is to essentially become a slave and funnel the majority of your money to them.
True, these peop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Interesting)
It's more to do with the "pay off not only more than you owe, but also enough to pay for huge CC company profits
The nerve of those for-profit companies turning a profit.
Hey, I got an idea for you if the notion of a credit card company turning a profit bothers you so much: Get a credit card from a credit union. Most Americans are eligible to join one or more credit unions. Why we need to legislate "reform" on the credit card industry when the marketplace has already provided alternatives is beyond me. Maybe if people would spend some time doing basic research on the options available to them we'd all be better off?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
there's 100's of offers out there from super low rates to high rates with interest FREE periods and everything in between
I've had a CC for about 10 years now and i think i've only ever paid $50 in interest and about $1000 in annual fees, and considering a CC is an unsecured loan i think that's amazingly cheap.
That's a lot of annual fees! I've had CCs for 13 years now, and have paid maybe $20 in interest and $0 in annual fees. I have, however, received several hundred dollars from various 'reward' CCs plus I've used the extended warranty coverage provided by many cards. CCs have saved me a nice sum over the years.
This is the only appropriate way to use CCs IMO. You already pay a ~2% credit card tax when you purchase anything in retail, since the retailer has to pay that percentage to the CC company for the pr
Re: (Score:2)
What industry abuses their customers, dangles features and incentives of questionable value in a quid pro quo for contractual lock-in and then produces unilateral unpredictable billing and surcharges to this captive market? No. You are right! That describes Credit Card companies, the only business hated more by their customer base than the mobile phone providers.
Actually, the question could easily apply to the federal government, as well. At least if you consider the actual taxpayers to be "customers". They're getting shafted, and there's even less that can be done for it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Interesting)
People with half a brain are realizing Google is becoming the greatest corporate evil ever.
Um, until I actually see google doing something evil, I'm going to have to not believe you here. AT&T isn't exactly the corporate version of Rainbow Brite [rainbowbrite.net]. Their evil is less theoretical and more actual. Google can do this to the phone companies because they're outrageously overcharging for their products. They pretend to be competing but it's obvious that what's happening is not a free market dynamic.
Like the market for software, cellular services is a space where the cost of the invention is fully paid back several times over and the incumbent providers are engaging in rent-seeking behavior. All Google has to do to threaten that model is not participate in it, and instead offer a value and quality proposition. Maybe after Google rationalizes the cellular networks they will get into content distribution or Pharma. That would be nice. There's no lack of rent-seeking industries for Google to assimilate so this could go on for quite a long time.
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Informative)
Ever since the introduction of 2G mobile technology, we've just been throwing data back and forth between the towers, and yet even in 2009 the telcos still charge us differently for minutes, text messages, and "data."
It was always going to take a disruptive force to get them to recognize data as data and price it as such. Maybe Google will serve as just that disruption.
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Interesting)
Goodness, I hope Google offers a phone.
Today I went to an AT&T store (I'm an AT&T customer) trying to buy a phone, as I've been doing for literally years. I'm a computer programmer, a big nerd, and I still have a crappy candybar phone from 2002. I really want some kind of super smart phone, but no company is apparently willing to sell me one! To me, my constraints all seem reasonable:
Really, are those such unreasonable requests? I'm just not willing to pay money to companies that make me endure shenanigans such as:
So the first company that offers me a smart phone with zero shenanigans is going to get my money. I'm desperate for a new phone, and I'm going to buy the first one that is above the threshold of acceptability! My phone is an embarrassment, and I'm a perfect candidate for an expensive new phone, and I'm really surprised that there is no company that wants my money.
Parent
Re:Creative destruction (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the deal: be realistic. No company's going to offer you a "fully open" cell phone simply because there aren't any fully open operating systems for smart phones out there, and rushing something similar to the market would end up in a support nightmare. Nokia's come a long way with Maemo running on the N900, but the user impressions I've read wrt to the N900 make it clear that the software is beta at best, and is lacking features one would consider standard in a smartphone.
Here's my unsolicited advice: buy an unlocked GSM phone from overseas. My GSM Nokia 5800 can sync over USB or bluetooth, connect me to the Internet over bluetooth using Nokia's Ovi Suite (for Windows) and comes with all the cables you'll need, including the car charger. It's a very affordable smartphone, has great GPS functionality which doesn't require an internet connection to download maps, can play high resolution videos, has a real (albeit kind of slow) web browser and is made by Nokia, which is the most OSS-friendly cell phone manufacturer out there.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
To me, my constraints all seem reasonable:
You want all that, but you don't also want a pony?
The carriers will attempt to unite and squash this (Score:5, Interesting)
This will be very interesting to see how this will work out as every Cell Phone Carrier will do what ever they can to Quash this as its attacks their revenue streams.
This should prove to be an interesting battle as google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
google has the funding to fight tooth and nail to ensure the cell carriers don't lock them out.
and in contrast to all the phone carriers, a large percentage of people like, or at least respect the company. I can pretty much only see some good coming out of this.
if this is true... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wacky mockup (Score:2)
Why does the 3D-rendered "Googlephone" in TFA appear to be running Windows Mobile?
This is a fun rumor, but I don't really get much of a sense of its veracity from this article.
"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been trying to use this service for a while now and it consistently connects me to random numbers in the country I'm calling (yes, I'm dialing the right number and I'm dialing correctly). When I actually do connect to some random person, they can't hear me 4 out of 5 times (and that's being generous).
When calling domestically, I get connected to who I'm calling, but 50% of the time one of us can't hear the other. Very irritating.
So, until they can actually guarantee that their service, you know, WORKS, this isn't something I'm remotely interested in. Google Voice isn't even close to ready for anything beyond a fun little service to play with.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"High-tech phone service?" Maybe if it worked.. (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, but that is not the real story. (Score:3, Funny)
I think that should cover all the conspiracies.
Adapt or else (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Adapt or else (Score:4, Informative)
Google market cap: 183.94 billion [yahoo.com]
Comcast market cap: 42.48 billion [yahoo.com]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Please, for once (Score:2)
Where is the network? (Score:5, Interesting)
At first I thought, whoa, the google phone company, then I broke down and RTFA....You still need a "plan" of some sort from a carrier unless you are using this google phone at some free leeched wifi spot or at home on your network. If you are at home..no need for a special phone, just use your headset and the software like you are now.
If this takes off and people drop voice and go to data only plans, the carriers will just restrict the heck out of them, maybe even dropping the caps from five gigs to one gig, then a hundred bucks a gig after that, whatever they say, or stop offering data only plans, etc. In other words, they aren't going to get "cut out", you will still be horking over ca$h to attverizonsprint whatever.
I am digging on much better quality phones though..eventually I think the mobile phone will more or less be your computer, and at home you'll just have a wireless connected screen and keyboard and mouse, etc with some NAS action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I remember that, but I am also thinking of these things called towers. They ain't cheap and you need thousands and thousands of them along with all the cellular electronic radio doo dads (hi tech speak there). I mean, maybe google could pull it off, but it would take all their spare cash, then some to do it.
Most cell towers are not owned by carriers, the carriers merely rent space on the towers from those who do own them. Often you will see a tower in a prime location has all three carriers hanging off it. This means that if google should chose to do so, jumping in would not be as expensive as you think. The key cost is funding your cell network until you get enough users to pay the rents. Kind of a chicken and egg thing. If you don't have the infrastructure, you wont get the users, but you cen't get the infr
The article may say something incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
The article says
For the first time, a single company will control everything from the software in users’ phones to the services they use to make calls and surf the web.
But wait, every phone I've ever had the hardware, software, and services were controlled 100% by my phone carrier. So in that way, the Google phone would be the same.
To me, the difference is that I trust the hardware, software, and services from Google, but I don't for a second trust AT&T, Sprint, or Verizon. They have proven that they refuse to provide products and services that I want, but Google has proven that they very much understand and want to provide the products and services that I want. I share the privacy concerns about Google, but at this point I'm just being vigilant, watching for Google to violate my trust. So far so good.
Google! Please put the dinosaurs out of business! I want to stop giving them my money! I want to give you my money for better services!
Watch what Google employees are using. (Score:3, Insightful)
-Todd
Two words, "whose network?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's what scares me... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Don't be evil", though, that's getting a bit subjective. Sure, most everyone will agree that evil is bad, at least in theory, but in practice coming to an agreement on the definition of evil is difficult. If Google wins, they're subjecting me to their definition of good, which I may or may not agree with. I like my bad guys to be bad...I like knowing they're trying to rip me off and take advantage of me. I don't want them doing things because they think it's best for me.
In other words, if I'm going to be screwed I want it to be by someone who knows he's screwing me, not by someone who thinks he's doing me a favor.
Re:Google Is the New Borg (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It would just go over the air as data. For example, 1500 minutes of G729a voice uses (4.12kB/s * 60 seconds * 1500 minutes) = 370 MB
The question is what kind deal Google could cut with the carriers to provide nothing more than 370MB a month of data transit.