Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Google Wireless Networking

Ads To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone? 161

Posted by timothy
from the fine-with-me dept.
CWmike writes "Google isn't talking publicly about reported plans to sell a powerful Android-based smartphone called the Nexus One directly to consumers next year, but the idea is already raising eyebrows with analysts. The chief concern is that selling an unlocked phone directly to consumers, probably online, could be twice as expensive as buying one through a carrier. The unlocked approach has largely failed in the US, with the world's biggest phone manufacturer, Nokia, doing poorly with the concept. Nokia recently announced that its two direct-sales stores in Chicago and New York will close early next year, while online sales of unlocked devices will continue. Conceivably, Google could offer its phone at a price comparable to a subsidized phone from a carrier — as long as customers agree to receive mobile ads on the devices. Since advertising is central to Google's revenue model, that approach might make some sense, analysts said. 'Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads,' said Kevin Burden, an analyst at ABI Research. In one mobile advertising model being tested in Germany, users agree to receive a certain number of ads on their phones to reduce their monthly cellular and texting rates, although reducing the up-front cost of the actual device is relatively novel. Reinforcing the idea of using mobile advertising with direct sales of unlocked phones, Google bought AdMob in November."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ads To Offset Cost of Unlocked Google Phone?

Comments Filter:
  • No No No No!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by h4rm0ny (722443) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:19PM (#30447566) Journal

    I am sick of everything trying to sell me things all the fucking time. STOP!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:22PM (#30447594)

      I am sick of everything trying to sell me things all the fucking time. STOP!

      I understand and I sympathize with you. That's why I'm here to offer you an amazing ad blocking technology for the low low price of $19.95.

      • I understand and I sympathize with you. That's why I'm here to offer you an amazing ad blocking technology for the low low price of $19.95.

        Do you also happen to offer anything ABSOLUTELY FREE with that?

        • Do you also happen to offer anything ABSOLUTELY FREE with that?

          Yes, at no extra charge you are automatically opted in to receive periodic information about upgrading to a premium product!

    • by oldspewey (1303305) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:24PM (#30447616)
      Ads got you down? Need some refreshment? Try Brawndo! The Thirst Mutilator!
      • by FSWKU (551325)
        "BrawndoBlock: The Ad Mutilator! Fortified with electrolytes! It's got what phones crave!"
    • You're in a minority group, mostly consisting of /.ers
      The market has spoken, and it wants maximum fr33 st00f pl0x, subsidised by wasting time viewing ads.

    • Re:No No No No!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @03:06PM (#30448256) Homepage Journal

      then don't buy it.
      Pretty simple, eh?

    • This could be a *great* thing, if Google does this right.

      Imagine having an option in the menu called "Local Deals".

      Opening this shows coupons and sales for the nearest stores to your location... things you may *actually want*.

      ^_^ If they did this, I know many people who would buy the phone *JUST FOR THE ADS*.

      Advertisers would get people coming into the stores, users would get discounts and coupons, and Google would get statistics on what kind of price drops bring people into the store off the
  • I can only see this approach working if Google gives buyers a choice. Pay full retail for the phone, or pay the reduced price in exchange for having ads sent to it. However, even that will only work if the ads are unobtrusive, and in no way interfere with normal operation of the device. That means NO having to click through a banner ad to make a call or send a text, NO interstitial ads between pages while browsing, NO watermarking of pictures sent via MMS, etc. A banner along the top I could deal with and i
    • by Albanach (527650)

      I'm thinking they might light to monetize calls through Google's 411 service.

      By integrating that right into the phone, you can lookup business numbers and then, in theory, charge businesses to have customer calls placed to them.

      That way you get a revenue stream, and the only adverts are the ones the customer requests when performing a search.

      No idea what the revenue potential would be though.

    • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:37PM (#30447788) Journal

      I see a problem here. Not for you, but for the advertisers. You're willing to pay not to see the ads. That's almost a good thing for those positioning themselves in the middle, such as Google, as they can essentially extort money from you: "pay up or be blasted by ads." But it's really bad for the actual people selling products because the people with disposable income and the willingness to use it are the ones who've just spent a few quid to avoid all the ads. They're even, as demonstrated by their willingness to pay, the ones who notice ads or are concerned they may be affected by them.

      It's one of those stupid situations. Like Slashdot that I have actually previously been a subscriber to (stopped because they only accept PayPal now), which has their inducement to subscribe be eliminating the ads - on one of the few sites where I'm actually occasionally interested by the ads.
      • by Dare nMc (468959)

        the people with disposable income

        you can stop their, no matter the pay those with disposable income are the (minority) who consistently spend less than they earn. The target audience are generally the ones who you can convince to juggle one more monthly expense and only cut back when someone finally cuts their credit card in half.

      • by Lumpy (12016)

        I see a problem for the non tech savvy.

        I guarantee that a crack+adblocker will show up minutes after the phone is available.

      • by Urza9814 (883915)

        Avoiding ads isn't the primary reason for subscribing to slashdot - I don't and never have but I can still kill the ads if I want to.

        • by h4rm0ny (722443)

          That's my point - one of the few places I am willing to subscribe to is one of the few places I'm not actually bothered by the ads.
      • by shentino (1139071)

        there's only 2 reasons I take advantage of the disable ads option.

        1. I have no disposable income to spend anyway.
        2. The ads slow the site down.

  • Something Else (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MozeeToby (1163751) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:27PM (#30447670)

    Google doesn't want to be in the phone business or the mobile carrier business, so this must be about something else, and that's the advertising business, since Google is in the business of selling ads.

    This is just my guess, and I'm not highly paid analyst, but isn't it possible that Google understands that it is in their best interests to have a more open cell phone market. I thought from the start that it was obvious that that was the purpose; originally they were going to do it by strong arming the bandwidth auctions but that fell through and they weren't prepared to actually bid and implement the system themselves. Now they've moved on to working within the system, opening what is arguably one of the best mobile OS's to any manufacturer that wants it, provided they play by certain rules including a minumum level of openness.

    • by fermion (181285)
      Google is in the business of dominating online advertising. It is unclear whether the purpose of chrome is to create 'open' smartphones or to create a browsing experience that can compete with MS. We hear much talk about the number of chrome based phones we expect, but so far it is just talk. Chrome itself is not developed in an open manner, but is only released as a finished product, which means that person who want to develop with perhaps have a a more difficult situation developing timely than some cl
      • by timbck2 (233967)

        s/chrome/android/g

        There, fixed that for you...

      • by Wiarumas (919682)
        I disagree. I don't think Google is entirely hell bent on dominating the online advertising industry with every little thing they release/announce. Sure, it may be one of their priority goals, but I'm pretty sure they are wanting to diversify themselves to ensure that when competition comes around, they don't have all their eggs in one basket. I really think that they are just trying to capture a small niche of the market just as a branding effort - not a big brother/advertising scheme. Its a new pond a
        • It'll be some sort of voip phone that uses some sort of national WAN they set up when we were sleeping. Stop that. I don't need you vocalizing my hopes and aspirations for the future of cell phones, adding to it, and not promising that it'll happen. Jerk.
  • Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)

    by watanabe (27967) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:27PM (#30447678)

    I think it unlikely that Google would use on-device ads to help phone costs: their traditional strategy has been to use ads to monetize core offerings, not ancillary ones. Ancillary offerings bring you back to the core offerings, where ads are effectively placed.

    There's so much speculation right now on the market, but I think that it's clear that Google could do something really interesting without the use of on-device monetization right now, e.g. the $199 unlocked super-phone that's being discussed in the more rumor-mill-ish blogs right now. If they could be cash-neutral doing that, and simultaneously disintermediate wireless carriers (a side-goal they've had for some time now), AND double Android's market share in the US, the mobile device group will be getting large bonuses, mark my words.

    A totally new business model which likely reduces the amount of uptake from consumers: not so likely right now; Google has lots of cash and wants lots of market share. It's not a time to futz around with stuff like this: consumers would generally LOVE an iphone-a-like which costs $30 a month for unlimited calling and only costs $199. If Google can get that out the door, they'll have done plenty already in the last eighteen months.

    • Which means that if they aren't delivering ads directly on the device, they are almost certainly using it to collect data about everything you do and everywhere you go in order to increase your value to advertisers through search and mail.

  • by mlts (1038732) * on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:30PM (#30447706)

    As it stands in the US, there are two well entrenched market niches for smartphones. The first of which are the unlocked phones (or the phones one pays full retail price for from a provider.) This is about $400-$600. The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract. The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $200.

    The ads wouldn't be welcomed in the unlocked phone arena. If I pay the premium price tag for an unlocked phone, I won't be buying one that slings ads at me. If the contract changes while I have the phone, I'll be rooting the device and yanking that "functionality" out, or not accepting the changes in my contract and will toss the phone in the garbage. Then I will go with a provider who wouldn't pull that on me.

    If I were paying for a phone subsidized over 2 years, ads are not welcome here either. If my phone gets an OTA update to become an ad vomiter, that is a change in my contract that I do not have to accept, and I will trash the phone and change providers.

    So, where would the ad-supported device model come to play? I see only one place, and that is the low end market, such as the prepaid phones one sees for sale for $15-$30, or the "free" phones that come with a 1-2 year contract. Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for, where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $20.

    • by westlake (615356)

      Maybe this market is what Google might be aiming for, where people would tolerate ads in return for a smartphone that costs $20.

      The $20 cell phone appeals to the poor, elderly and disabled. Not the most promising market for the advertiser.

    • ... The second is the provider sponsored phone where one pays the cost of the phone via a contract. The price ceiling in the US is effectively set for this by Apple at around $200.

      I believe I saw some subsidized smart phones that were at-or-around 200 USD before the iPhone came out. I know definitely before the 3Gs came out, but only vaguely remember some from before the regular iPhone so I might be mistaken. It was probably AT&T or Verizon since T-Mobile likes to act on the cheap.

      Perhaps some BlackBerries or some of the Motorola ones.

      Given the choice I'd rather buy a full priced unlocked and unrestricted phone directly from the manufacturer, which is why I used to like buying

    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      More importantly, what good does it do me in the U.S. to have an unlocked phone if it's GSM only? That effectively means that, instead of being locked into one carrier, I get to choose from *2* carriers (one of which is AT&T, which no one in their right mind would choose anyway). Whoopty do!
      • by mlts (1038732) *

        If one travels abroad, GSM capability does mean a lot. One can either use a GSM provider such as T-Mobile that has towers in the destination country, or if the phone is unlocked, swap the SIM card out for a local provider and go that route. A number of countries tend to go with pay-as-you-go SIM cards where one buys the SIM at a store with x amount of time on it and uses that until it is depleted.

        Even in the US, there isn't a real alternative. Until both the CDMA providers here support R-UIM cards (unlik

    • It won't be a separate model. It will be the standard model, just like Google and Gmail. The ads will be unobtrusive to the majority of consumers, but still valuable to advertisers. Google will no more offer this without personal data collection and advertising than they do Google and Gmail. Sure, they'll give you some privacy options, but they won't give you options that have a meaningful negative impact on the value of their services to advertisers.

      If you run AdBlock, you are a minority. This isn't the ph

  • Do not want! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ickleberry (864871) <web@pineapple.vg> on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:34PM (#30447754) Homepage
    I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone. I know we are in a recession and all, but an ad-supported phone seems going a bit far.

    If after a year I want a new phone I will sell the unlocked phone for significantly more than an identical phone that is locked, but given that the 'average Joe' would rather pay 50 a month for 2 years than 500 upfront I will be one of the few, which is unfortunately making it harder for me to source my unlocked phones

    The whole point of having a phone that runs Linux is the freedom of being able to customise and 'hack' it, not have it make sure I'm looking at the required number of ads. Far too often these days a Linux-based device only runs Linux because it saves the manufacturer the trouble of licensing a kernel or writing their own.
    • I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd rather pay the full whack for an unlocked Maemo phone.

      That's the way it works in most of the rest of the world :
      - You can either buy any phone for it's listing price in any electronics shop.

      If you sign a contract, or extend a previous, the service provider simply gives you the equivalent of a virtual "cheque" that you can use to buy any phone of your choosing in the same electronics shop where you signed for said contract. The phone is not locked and it's entirely up to you, the end user, to decide whether to use this contract SIM in this phone, or give the ph

  • by iamapizza (1312801) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:37PM (#30447796)
    AFAIK (in the UK at least), with a contract, you're paying x per month, and you're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months. That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone. For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone [vodafone.co.uk] Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone. Or am I missing something that's US-specific?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by westlake (615356)

      For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone

      But aren't you also paying for your baseline cell phone service?

    • AFAIK (in the UK at least), with a contract, you're paying x per month, and you're tied in for a contract of usually about 18 months. That 18x comes out to more than the cost of the phone. For example, look at the HTC Magic from Vodafone [vodafone.co.uk] Total: 720 GBP which is obviously more than the cost of the phone. Or am I missing something that's US-specific?

      Pretty much, you're right.

      I read some past threads on either Slashdot or elsewhere that had people reporting that they were able to successfully renegotiate their contract with customer service when the contract was up for this specific reason, but I'd never met anyone in person that's done that.

      In the US you get tied to a contract, but you're typically paying the same price whether-or-not you subsidize the phone. So you're paying the same monthly fee whether you're using a new subsidized phone or an old p

    • by limaxray (1292094)
      You're missing the key point that the contract price includes cellular service. If you buy the phone outright, you don't get service. The service costs much more (and has greater profit margins) than the phone, which is why carriers are willing to subsidize phones like this.

      I personally don't understand why anyone (in the US at least) would want to buy a phone out of contract. You're almost always guaranteed to pay more for the phone compared to taking the contract, even if you decide to bail and pay th
    • Nope! you're not missing a thing!

      It's just the Americans are not used to forcing their Mobile Telcos to provide them with good "value for service".

      If a lot of people go "Sim Free" then the Telcos' will have to adapt, since more of their users are not handcuffed to their service and can move at any time...

      Which is a GOOD thing, as it promotes competition. In the end, you are getting a better service...
  • 1. most android devices are tightly coupled with google services. if you get someone using google mail, calendar, etc on the phone, of course they will use the web interface at some point and be subjected to ads.

    2. many android apps already make use of admob for the "free" version.

    i doubt google would make adds an inherent part of the phone experience.

  • Why are analysts always so effin' dense? Google is in the "no one gets between us and our ad-clicking users" business. They're one of the largest collections of smart people on the planet. They wanted in the mobile phone business, so they got in the mobile phone business. They own an ass-ton of fiber and manipulated the wireless auctions in their favor. They're not just an advertising company, they're the "we're the god damn Internet" company.

    No one bought unlocked Nokia smartphones because nobody in Americ

  • No newcomer on any marked really understand (without experience) the price tag for playing as a part of the game. Google is a giant, but not in every area, Nokia is a giant too, but as google..not in every area, they're both players in their own area of expertise - and the price for entering into each others pissing fields - could be very expensive, such as . eg. Microsoft experienced when they ventured into the area of console gaming.

    (read between the lines, before you reply!)

  • My question is where Google will put the ads so that they are actually seen. If they build it into software, it's only a matter of time before the phone is rooted/jailbroken/HardSPL'd and ad-free firmware ends up on Rapidshare. Then it's just a matter of simplifying the process down to making it feasible for anyone sick enough of the ads to make the gamble of performing a warranty-voiding process on their phone, and unless ads live unobtrusively in the browser, Google will end up right next to the iPhone, s

  • Phone cost subsidies (Score:4, Informative)

    by gehrehmee (16338) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:50PM (#30447984) Homepage

    I look at telecom subsidation of phone costs as a small loan. Can't/won't buy the phone with your own cash up-front? We'll loan you that money, and you pay it back a little bit every month on your bill. This breaks down because if you buy a plan without getting subsidized, you pay a higher price per month for your phone service (ie, the same monthly payment, but with none of it going to a loan repayment).

    The workaround for this: If I sign up for a 3-year contract, you can either give me a cheaper monthly rate, OR give me a phone-up front, OR give me a cash bonus upfront, approximately the same amount the subsidy would cost. That way I can take that cash and buy whatever I want with it (if it happens to be a smart phone, awesome).

    THIS breaks down because the telecom wants to have absolute control over what I can and can't do on their network, and won't budge to give up any leeway there. I don't have a workaround for that one yet :)

    • by gehrehmee (16338)

      Of course, recouping cost via advertising is another spin... but ultimately comes down to repayment. If we really want to subject ourselves to ads, we should be able to do it for straight-up cash, or payment on our loan (of cash or phone-lease).

      The word "lease" just clarified this issue a bit for me. Leasing equipment from our phone provider is really an old idea... and one we've fought hard against. Why are we so anxious to get back into that situation?

      • by PitaBred (632671)
        Leases make sense when you want something new every few years. They don't if you want to actually own the thing and use it for more than a short period of time. Different goals in mind... most people like getting a new cell phone every two years, all the new gadgets and features and stuff.
        • by gehrehmee (16338)

          Assuming that leases are a good idea for phones (I don't think they are. Even a $1000 phone isn't so expensive that it should require a 2-3 year payment plan. At the end of a "lease", you return the item with value to its owner, or buy it out. But phones depreciate way too fast for that to be reasonable), why would you lease your phone from the person running the telecom network?

          • by PitaBred (632671)
            Look at it more like a small loan than a lease. That's basically all it is... not everyone has $1000 on hand for a phone. Lots of people need phone service but their budgets are stretched as it is. It's the same reason that those payday loan places exist... you shouldn't need them, but lots of people just do.
  • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:51PM (#30448008) Homepage Journal

    All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system. Within a year, I predict that you'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you're having while you're still having it. "It's been ages since I've had good sushi!" -> ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.

    • This will take phone sex to a whole other level!

    • All of us using GOOG-411 and Google Voice have done a splendid job training their voice recognition system. Within a year, I predict that you'll be seeing ads relevant to the conversation you're having while you're still having it. "It's been ages since I've had good sushi!" -> ad for nearby expensive sushi restaurants.

      It's kind of hard to see the screen when it's next to your ear, but yes, when you hang up, that's reasonable. I rather expect good ads for YouTube is easier to handle.

  • twice as much? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by farble1670 (803356) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:55PM (#30448086)

    the price of an unlocked phone always seemed wrong to me. these are cheap, mass produced, underpowered devices using yesterday's technology for the most part. why do they cost $600?

    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @03:34PM (#30448632)

      these are cheap, mass produced, underpowered devices using yesterday's technology for the most part. why do they cost $600?

      Because even "yesterdays technology" costs a lot to produce when you have to shrink it by a factor of 10 and at the same time make it use far less power.

      • the okay, so verizon eats $400+ every time they offer a discounted phone for $99? unless you can point me to contract-less plan that makes up $400 over 2 years. the only provider i know of that offers such plans are t-mobile, and the contract-less option is about $10 cheaper a month.

        • the okay, so verizon eats $400+ every time they offer a discounted phone for $99?

          Yes, absolutely. That's why they do multi-year contracts and you get a phone cheaper. Look up the word "subsidized".

          And Verizon is not "eating" anything, except money from you. They make far more over the life of the contract than the $400 they "ate". If you want to look with suspicion at costs devices are the wrong place to start, instead try looking at the cost of maintaining a network compared to how much they charge cus

      • The iPhone costs around $200-$300 to manufacture. Look at the iPod touch - it's largely the same hardware, minus the GSM/UMTS chipset (around $10), camera (another $10) and GPS (another $10). Yet the 32GB iPod Touch costs $300, with a healthy bit of profit for Apple.

        So why the hell does the 32GB iPhone run $600 unlocked?

    • The difference being when I had a phone with a 450mhz processor, the phone wasn't much bigger than the 450 mhz processor in my previously owned desktop machine. It costs money to shrink that stuff down.
  • Android-AdBlock (Score:5, Interesting)

    by C_Kode (102755) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @02:57PM (#30448106) Journal

    It's unlocked. How soon to Ad-Block for Android comes out?

    • by Bogtha (906264)

      Unlocked merely means you can use it with any compatible service provider; it's not artificially locked to a single provider. Just because a phone is unlocked, it doesn't mean you have root access on it.

      • by sponga (739683)

        But for sakes of argument, lets just say 'unlocked' is a general term to use on a lot of things.

        I have all my Iphone friends who *freak* out when you use the term unlock instead of jailbreak, its like take at easy you know what I mean.
        The term jailbroken got a lot of us by surprise, although most people were taken by surprise of how Apple would lock it down and create new terms

    • by Krneki (1192201)
      This will be something funny to see how it ends.

      You buy something discounted by agreeing they can send you ads. Then you reinstall a hacked OS and filter the ads out.

      I wonder if they can successfully sue you. Maybe in the US they can, but in the EU they don't have a fucking chance.
  • If this was truly an "unlocked" phone, especially if it's meant to be a developer-friendly phone, I don't see how they could add on-device ads that I couldn't remove.

    • Presuming you can in fact root the device, they'd be relying on being Google, and having ads that don't piss off the majority of users and accordingly being less likely to be blocked. Imagine if they crossed this with some voice recognition and a bit of their search tech.

      You talk about catching a movie, the screen on the phone provides a list of nearby theaters/current schedules automatically, default ordering based on advertising revenue.

      You talk about planning to eat out, it hears "grabbing" "dinner" "Ch

      • if done wrong will result in Hulk-like rage.

        I doubt it. Much more likely, it will result in hilarity, much like contextual ads [thedailywtf.com]. I don't know, I can see how that would inspire rage, but it just makes me laugh.

  • Right now I dual-wield. I have a Tracfone & iPod Touch. I don't talk or text a lot. I spend $6 per month for 60 minutes. I got an LG600G [tracfone.com], which is pretty plain-vanilla. I'd be willing to pay a few hundred for an iPhone or Android Phone that just let me pre-pay for talk time & texting & web access. There's plenty of prepaid feature phones available, but their rates are ridiculous compared to Tracfone's. I can't imagine buying the phone, pay for a contract with somebody AND having to view ads (eve
    • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      You can buy a G1 or MyTouch from T-Mobile for $400.00 or so. You can get it unlocked from T-Mobile if you wish.

      You can use it with pre-paid service from any GSM provider.

      But, the data access will be expensive.

  • Is there any bit more official or trusted source that is actually confirming that google is bringing out its own phone?

    Eldar Murtazin which I would consider a moderately trustworthy source regarding mobiles says that he has talked about it with a google employee and it's a fake. [phandroid.com]

    So many news and comments that seem to think this is real that I can't really form an opinion myself. If google does do this, it is a bit of a slap on the face for it's Android allies. Google is suddenly a competitor with a cl
  • about 20 years ago.

    I was discussing the problems of getting phone service to people with little or no income, and the political difficulties of cutting peoples phone service.

    I suggested they give people the option of getting advertising in exchange for free or discounted service.

    Like after being on the phone for 30 seconds you would hear a one time ad like "Drink Coca-cola" or some such.

    I wish I could remember the CEOs exact quote. It was something like "small ads in a lot of place will never generate incom

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Overzeetop (214511)

      That's alright, A friend and I had a way cool idea about 27-28 years ago about a map you could carry around and the "you are here" spot would mark your location as you moved around. Cool but impossible. Just a couple of years before, we openly mocked a fellow classmate who wanted to write a program to automatically turn on the computer. What a fool, he was. I'll say it here: Amrit (Paul) Rishi - I apologize for thinking your idea was idiotic - several of my computers now use wake-on-lan, and scheduling that

  • Apple patent pending (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MouseR (3264) on Tuesday December 15, 2009 @03:21PM (#30448464) Homepage

    This is precisely why Apple filed for a patent on this recently.

    It's a way for them to block potential ad revenues from Android, protecting the high price of their iPhone.

  • So Nokia's little Apple-wannabe store(s) somewhere near er... Chicago, or something, falls flat and that means no one wants unlocked phones? Whatever.

    If you would like to participate in the failing unlocked phone market don't lament the poor performance of Nokia's fail brick-and-mortar outlets. Just head over here [newegg.com] and buy a perfectly good unlocked Nokia 5530 GSM or any one of 105 other unlocked phones of all levels of capability. Need a cheap unlocked phone that works well with no monthly bill? Buy a RA

  • It's amusing and sad to see "industry pundits" guess at what Google might be planning. After all, this is a company which has grown huge and leads in many areas of technology and business by virtue of its ethics, good governance, foresight, and research.

    If the pundits could predict what Google was doing, they'd be rich corporate heads, not writers trying to guess what's going on.

    I personally think that just maybe Google is going to offer a "free" phone.. not free as in beer, free as in speech.. where i

  • Will Goolge pay the data bill for the adds as with out a plan the cost is very high even more so if you go out side of the usa. Canada is about $71 for 35meg.

    • by DaveV1.0 (203135)

      I don't have a contract with T-Mobile, but I have a month to month unlimited voice, text, and data plan for $85/month.

  • It doesn't have a keyboard. No thanks.

  • there is a company selling data only/VOIP cell phones through AT&T and there was a rumor that Google was going to sell a data only cell phone for $20 a month through AT&T. abovethecrowd.com had a nice post about Google's business model and how they share add revenues.

    I bet this phone will be data only and use Google Voice for everything. AT&T doesn't care since they want to be a dumb pipe. Google will make money because everything you do on the internet will be logged in their servers and they w

  • What I am most interested about regarding this phone was the article I read that said you could use the phone carrier-free over existing WiFi networks. Combined with a Google Voice phone #, you could use this phone without having a carrier at all. Of course you would need WiFi to use it this way, so you may not always have coverage, but for city dwellers, this is an interesting option. Add to the fact that you could primarily use the phone this way, and carry a pre-paid SIM with you for the times you need t
  • for anyone who's willing to do some basic math (which may or may not describe the "average" American.) Verizon has a low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data plan for $100 a month. T-Mobile has the "Even More Plus" plan with low-talk-minutes, unlimited text and "unlimited" data for $60 a month. Over the course of a year you'll have saved $480 with a T-Mobile phone (like the Nexus One, supposedly) vs a Verizon Phone (like the Droid.) I expect that's more than the discount you'd be getting from V
  • Just like the people who used to buy those ultra-cheap/free PCs from those shady startups that inundated them with ads, then complained that they were getting spammed.

    First data mining...now constant ads. You have to also take into account that various apps are also ad supported as well. That's ads on top of ads...and that's part of the reason those shady startups didn't go on to profit like they thought they would.

    Sure, wait for the phone to come out and THEN review the security policy. I get the
  • by drijen (919269)
    Now, I didn't read TFA (who does) but based on the summary, the authors are idiots (water is also wet).
    Few buy unlocked phones because the unwashed masses, for the most part, don't know any better.
    I have long been of the opinion that it should be unlawful for a cellular company to bundle phones with plans, and tie them to their network.
    If people were forced to buy their own cell phone, and have companies forced to service it (I said service, not support) it would solve a lot of problems including:
  • I'm not sure if this is still the case but last time I lived in the US you had to pay to receive a call which is a scam in itself. But seems in most cases you're tied to a 2 year contract, you still often have to pay something for the phone and then at least sometimes the cost of data, calling and texting is separated. That would be fine if it could work out cheaper but it certainly doesn't seem that way.

    Take the very popular iPhone.

    For 2 years, I could get a 16gig iPhone 3Gs with 1200 minutes, 500 te
  • I just bought a unlocked blackberry clone for 100. Id say that was cheaper for me then getting one subsided thru a carrier, and be locked into them forever.

  • The Nexus one is most likely the ADP 3. IE the third generation developer phone. IE Purchasable on Google's developer site. IE Not marketed to fucking consumers.

    What makes me think this is that Google has given out the ADP1 at their Christmas party last year, the ADP2 at IO, and the Nexus-One (presumed ADP3) at their Christmas party this year.
    There is no more or less magic to this.

    • by mjwx (966435)

      The Nexus one is most likely the ADP 3

      Yes and no.

      Google have openly said they are planning to sell this thing to consumers. There will likely be a developer version with a pre-rooted ADP rom on the device but this version will be sold through their existing channels. Google intends for the Nexus One to be the ultimate Google Experience(TM) phone.

  • When Google isn't making money by brining more people to ads, they're making money by increasing the value to advertisers of the people they do bring to ads.

    This platform will allow Google to directly collect data about where you live, travel, work, eat, and shop.

    It will allow Google to sell time and location sensitive ads, e.g. it will allow Google to sell ads for the deli on 34th street when you're within a quarter mile of 34th street.

    And if Google decides to do it, it won't be an option. When Google adve

Consultants are mystical people who ask a company for a number and then give it back to them.

Working...