Google Shakes Up Android OEM Strategy Expands Direct to Consumer Phone Sales Options Wednesday May 16 2012 12:18 EDT While Google's Nexus One phone was supposed to rattle the wireless status quo by offering users unsubsidized phones via a Google store, the promised revolution never arrived. That was due to a number of factors, including the fact that the phone came with 3G bugs and annoying fees -- but not with phone support (Google fixed the latter two eventually). But the idea of buying your phone first then shopping for your carrier (more common in Europe) never took off because, well, the phone only worked on T-Mobile. In a reversal last April, the company started selling unlocked HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus phones direct to consumers again via the company's website. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal today reported that Google plans to give multiple mobile-device makers early access to new releases of Android so they can sell those devices directly to consumers. That's a shift from the previous system, where Google would work with only one OEM at a time to on "lead devices," before releasing the software to other OEMs. Says the Journal of Google's reasons : quote: The expansion of direct sales marks a bid to exert more control over key features and apps that run on Android-powered phones and tablets, thus reducing the influence of wireless carriers over such devices, these people said. Wireless carriers typically handle marketing and sales of devices and thus can exert some control over the services that run on them. The plan also aims to assuage concerns of smartphone and tablet makers that build devices using Android, many of whom are wary of Google because of its pending acquisition of device-maker Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., MMI +0.15% these people said.
The source tells the Journal Google will work with as many as five manufacturers at a time to create a portfolio of "Nexus" lead devices, including smartphones and tablets, all directly available to consumers without having to buy it from a carrier. |
Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2012-May-16 12:39 pm
Holding off on phone purchaseUp till yesterday, I was totally going to buy a Galaxy Nexus to replace my 18 month old phone. Now, I'm going to wait! | |
| | Lark3po Premium Member join:2003-08-05 Madison, AL |
Lark3po
Premium Member
2012-May-16 12:47 pm
Re: Holding off on phone purchasesaid by Gbcue:Up till yesterday, I was totally going to buy a Galaxy Nexus to replace my 18 month old phone. Now, I'm going to wait! Same here. I had one in the cart last night but decided to do a little more research before pulling the trigger. Glad I didn't now. | |
|
|
And this time it will be different because...What exactly? The problems with support might be resolved, but "unlocked" generally means "manufacturer's made-up price" and it narrows down the potential buyers considerably. Yes, it might be somewhat economical if you get unlocked phone and then T-Mobile no-commitment plan. But what about Sprint (won't activate anything that doesn't have Sprint on it) or Verizon? Either one won't give you any breaks. Virtual operators on either one of those are also restricted to "pre-approved" device list. AT&T also doesn't really have cheap "no phone" plan (Go Phone is rather expensive though a bit cheaper than regular contract plans) And until there are real plans that are cheap and available on each carrier the fate will be the same as current Nexus -- some people will buy it (and will be happy, which is great), but overall sales will be a tiny bleep on the radar and won't make much of a difference Now, if Google were to buy Sprint.... I can dream | |
| | ropeguru Premium Member join:2001-01-25 Mechanicsville, VA |
ropeguru
Premium Member
2012-May-16 12:52 pm
Re: And this time it will be different because...Maybe, and that is a BIG maybe, Google will start to push the now dead issue of BYOD to all carriers. Wasn't it a few years back that the large carriers agreed to do this with all the media hype around it and then it just died? | |
| | | GuspazGuspaz MVM join:2001-11-05 Montreal, QC |
Guspaz
MVM
2012-May-16 1:24 pm
Re: And this time it will be different because...I don't know about in the US, but BYOD is alive and well in Canada. If the phone vendor has relations with the carrier, it's usually free to do (like if you buy an Apple phone unlocked from Apple, you can use it with any carrier), and for others there's usually a nominal fee for the SIM card. Fido, for example, charges $10. | |
| | |
1 recommendation |
to ropeguru
Well, the problem is that they don't give you a price break if you bring your phone. Yes, you can bring some other Verizon compatible phone to Verizon. No, you will pay the same price, which defies the purpose. And even not having a contract would be difficult (they used to allow you to get a 1 year contract in-store with "your device" but that isn't an option any more, as far as I know)
So in the end user: - has to pony up $400+ for a device - still needs to sign a contract - still pays the full price
Which, reasonably, leads to most users just shrugging and getting a subsidized version for $199 instead. I mean for an average user, if you're still locked into contract, do you really care about device being unlocked? You can't take it to another operator without breaking contract anyway.
Yes, I'd love Google to convince all carriers to have no-contract BYOD plans with reasonable prices. But I'm somewhat skeptical. Cause it's like going to carriers and saying "Well could you just charge a bit less, and add unlimited data?". Without some incentive carriers aren't interested. | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2012-May-16 4:36 pm
Re: And this time it will be different because...That's the big gotcha. They want you to pay the same price as the people who have subsidized phones, and they want you to be locked into the same 2 year framework and even have the same ETF's which of course is just criminal on many levels.
The advantages are if you use the phone on a pre-paid no contract basis. | |
|
| morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
to bugabuga
Unlocked means no bloatware installed by the carrier, no crippling of the device (hotspot ability/tethering), etc. It also means "no contract" so you can take your business elsewhere.
Another point is that you can bring your phone to service providers that offer lower monthly rates, since they aren't subsidizing the cost of the phone over 2 years. | |
| | | |
jhboro
Anon
2012-May-17 8:44 pm
Re: And this time it will be different because...said by morbo:Unlocked means no bloatware installed by the carrier, no crippling of the device (hotspot ability/tethering), etc. Partially correct. Though the tethering function might be fully functional, using it without paying the carrier their 'double-dip' fee will be against the TOS and make you liable. said by morbo:It also means "no contract" so you can take your business elsewhere. Not quite. You can't activate a device intended for Sprint with Verizon, ATT or Tmobile and vice-versa. The closest ones to interoperability are ATT and T-mobile and even then, depending on the GSM frequencies supported by the device, you might not be able to take full advantage of the data connectivity. said by morbo:Another point is that you can bring your phone to service providers that offer lower monthly rates, since they aren't subsidizing the cost of the phone over 2 years. That would imply that there is healthy competition in the cell phone industry, which in the US is not the case. And you don't get a lower monthly rate by BYOD nor are you necessarily exempt from contract requirements. With Sprint, for example, if you already have an active account and are under no contract, you can swap your EXISTING device to a BYOD and not incur in a contract renewal. You cannot, however, BYOD and open a new service account or add a line to an existing account without a contract. They require the same 2-year commitment and you'll be subject to the same ETFs as subsidized phones and the same monthly fee. Which is why the argument that contracts exists because of phone subsidies is such a fallacy. I'm sure the other carriers in the US are similar. All of your points are most likely true in Europe. Here in the US though, there is no competition, just the appearance of it. There is simply no economical incentive whatsoever to BYOD in the US. | |
|
| 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
to bugabuga
It won't take off. That is the problem here. The majority of people will always buy the discounted promo phone due to the cost up front. People look at what it will cost them NOW not later. And that per-approved device list is what will hurt Google, again with Sprint and VZW. If this country was SIM like Canada and Europe it would be different but this country didn't move to a world standard that that point. And Google will NEVER buy Spent due to they'd have to actually operate a customer service center, and not a FAQ site and email address that is NEVER helpful. Google doesn't even provide the customers that give them money any support. But nothing is stopping Google from creating an MVNO. | |
| | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
to bugabuga
said by bugabuga:What exactly? The problems with support might be resolved, but "unlocked" generally means "manufacturer's made-up price" and it narrows down the potential buyers considerably.
"manufacturer's made up price" being what Dell, Apple, Microsoft, Nike, etc all sell their products... I'm not exactly sure what's so absurd about that. Yes, it might be somewhat economical if you get unlocked phone and then T-Mobile no-commitment plan. But what about Sprint (won't activate anything that doesn't have Sprint on it) or Verizon? Either one won't give you any breaks. Virtual operators on either one of those are also restricted to "pre-approved" device list. AT&T also doesn't really have cheap "no phone" plan (Go Phone is rather expensive though a bit cheaper than regular contract plans)
And until there are real plans that are cheap and available on each carrier the fate will be the same as current Nexus -- some people will buy it (and will be happy, which is great), but overall sales will be a tiny bleep on the radar and won't make much of a difference
Now, if Google were to buy Sprint.... I can dream » forum.xda-developers.com ··· =1455014Have a read at that. There are a broad number of GSM MVNO's that run on both ATT and T-Mobile and a wide number of price points. The most popular being Straight-Talk which allows you to bring your own phone and select which SIM card you want to use. You're right, CDMA carriers need not apply. They don't want you to have that sort of freedom, and things won't change until LTE-voice becomes ubiquitous in 5-10 years. | |
| | | 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
25139889 (banned)
Member
2012-May-16 7:01 pm
Re: And this time it will be different because...Only StraightTalk in select markets will allow you to BYOD. I considered that before purchasing a CDMA phone from them as I had a TMO Gravity Smart. It said my area was NOT able to use the sim card from either carrier.
And if CDMA carriers do not sign on to this BYOD it will fail as it has already here. Two of the largest carriers are CDMA they control that and this makes this fail completely. | |
| | | | |
petemitchell
Anon
2012-May-17 12:10 am
Re: And this time it will be different because...I see you're still on your anti-Google rant. | |
| | | | tiger72SexaT duorP Premium Member join:2001-03-28 Saint Louis, MO |
to 25139889
said by 25139889:Only StraightTalk in select markets will allow you to BYOD. I considered that before purchasing a CDMA phone from them as I had a TMO Gravity Smart. It said my area was NOT able to use the sim card from either carrier.
And if CDMA carriers do not sign on to this BYOD it will fail as it has already here. Two of the largest carriers are CDMA they control that and this makes this fail completely. Yep. Either it takes over the entire industry and causes a massive change in how the US cellular industry works overnight, or "it fails completely". Those are of course the only two options. Nope. No middle ground there. Not at all. Just that one simple objective. LOL. | |
|
|
Google needs a standard reference platformGoogle needs to develop a standard reference platform and have a policy that if hardware makers do not follow, they cannot call it an Android phone. The platform doesn't need to limit options, but set some boundaries to reduce fragmentation. Android version fragmentation is probably more of a problem though.
Whatever the solution, Google needs to get hardware makers on the same page so that all Android apps can be run on any device. There should be no such thing as apps (even games) that only run on certain devices (except if hardware features are lacking, like no NFC or no Bluetooth, etc). | |
| | Vchat20Landing is the REAL challenge Premium Member join:2003-09-16 Columbus, OH |
Vchat20
Premium Member
2012-May-16 1:16 pm
Re: Google needs a standard reference platformIndeed on the fragmentation part. The one part that particularly bugs me is the lack of decent hardware accessories across the line of Android devices that aren't model specific. This is probably the ONLY area I am jealous of iDevices on. Virtually every accessory works on every modern model iDevice with little trouble. Doesn't need a huge change in device design on the Android side, just a standardized port type/size/location that would make accessories interchangeable. PLEASE Google, fix this. | |
| | MaxoYour tax dollars at work. Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL |
to xenophon
said by xenophon:Google needs to develop a standard reference platform and have a policy that if hardware makers do not follow, they cannot call it an Android phone. They do. Google has a test suite of the standard features that make an Android OS an Android OS. Before a carrier can call it "Android" it must pass this test and receive the green light from Google. Beyond these tests manufacturers are free to do as they please. If one doesn't care to slap the Android label on it, then they can do any modifications they want without Google's approval. | |
| | | |
Re: Google needs a standard reference platform^Doesn't seem to be specific enough as there are apps that run on some devices but not on others. Now I do agree that Android 'based' devices not called Android (like Fire) do not apply, since they don't call it an Android device. | |
| | | | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2012-May-16 2:30 pm
Re: Google needs a standard reference platformsaid by xenophon:^Doesn't seem to be specific enough as there are apps that run on some devices but not on others. Now I do agree that Android 'based' devices not called Android (like Fire) do not apply, since they don't call it an Android device. It's because app developers don't want to design their app for 3 different versions of Android. Sure, there are old devices out there, just like there are old iDevices. They get left in the dust in terms of support (OS and Applications). | |
| | | | | MaxoYour tax dollars at work. Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL |
Maxo
Premium Member
2012-May-16 5:17 pm
Re: Google needs a standard reference platformsaid by Gbcue:said by xenophon:^Doesn't seem to be specific enough as there are apps that run on some devices but not on others. Now I do agree that Android 'based' devices not called Android (like Fire) do not apply, since they don't call it an Android device. It's because app developers don't want to design their app for 3 different versions of Android. Sure, there are old devices out there, just like there are old iDevices. They get left in the dust in terms of support (OS and Applications). Exactly. When you create an Android app you declare two things, what versions of Android your app will run on, and what hardware components it needs to run. This is not "fragmentation" this is Android being smart. If the application needs GPS functionality, and your Android device doesn't have a GPS chip, then it will not be available for your device. The only other solution would be for Android to require certain hardware, which would cause more problems than it would solve. | |
|
| | 25139889 (banned) join:2011-10-25 Toledo, OH |
to Maxo
Not fully true. There are several tablets that run Android and are marketed as that- but do not fully function nor have a lot of the same suites as others. Many of those are the lower end ones you purchase for under $200. The only real thing they take away from the device is the Android market place but you can create a back door to that- or at least you used to be able to. | |
| | | | MaxoYour tax dollars at work. Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL |
Maxo
Premium Member
2012-May-17 8:07 am
Re: Google needs a standard reference platformsaid by 25139889:Not fully true. There are several tablets that run Android and are marketed as that- but do not fully function nor have a lot of the same suites as others. Many of those are the lower end ones you purchase for under $200. The only real thing they take away from the device is the Android market place but you can create a back door to that- or at least you used to be able to. Not true. Those devices either ship with the Android name illegally, or they pass the Android test suite. The Android marketplace is not a part of the Android baseline. Google does not lock you in to their marketplace and they do not require their marketplace. This is a key benefit over iOS, where Apple is the lone gatekeeper that stands in between iOS users and iOS developers, dictating what is and isn't allowed, often with unpredictable or anti-consumer outcomes. | |
|
| | |
talz13
Member
2012-May-16 1:37 pm
Re: pardon meCEO was complaining that his customers had to wait ages for "Google" to release updates for their phone models, but in reality, the phone manufacturers have to release the updates, and they just don't care that much about their phones that aren't just nearing their release date... | |
| | |
MaxoYour tax dollars at work. Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL |
Maxo
Premium Member
2012-May-16 1:55 pm
No CDMAGoogle's unlocked Nexus is GSM, not CDMA so us Verizon customer's do not benefit from buying it directly from Google. The phone is available through Verizon, but with the usual nonsense. I hope Google starts selling phones like this that work on all carrier's networks. | |
| | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2012-May-16 2:30 pm
Re: No CDMAThey'll go after the world standard first, GSM. | |
| | | swintec Premium Member join:2003-12-19 Alfred, ME |
swintec
Premium Member
2012-May-16 3:32 pm
Re: No CDMAsaid by Gbcue:They'll go after the world standard first, GSM. You would think they would just make an UNLOCKED CDMA/GSM world phone and be done with it. Blackberry and Apple did it. Then they wouldnt need to have different variants. BUT..they would obviously need to get Sprint and Verizon on board to allow it on the network. | |
| | | | David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2012-May-16 5:13 pm
Re: No CDMAsaid by swintec:said by Gbcue:They'll go after the world standard first, GSM. You would think they would just make an UNLOCKED CDMA/GSM world phone and be done with it. Blackberry and Apple did it. Then they wouldnt need to have different variants. BUT..they would obviously need to get Sprint and Verizon on board to allow it on the network. I found one on ALIexpress.com $204... android based if memory serves... saw it when at lunch. | |
|
| fuziwuziNot born yesterday Premium Member join:2005-07-01 Palm Springs, CA Hitron EN2251 Nest H2D
|
to Maxo
said by Maxo:Google's unlocked Nexus is GSM, not CDMA so us Verizon customer's do not benefit from buying it directly from Google. The phone is available through Verizon, but with the usual nonsense. I hope Google starts selling phones like this that work on all carrier's networks. They can no longer offer CDMA because of open-source license restrictions. Therefore, only the manufacturer (who holds a license) can add the CDMA code to the Android base and offer a phone. Blame licensing restrictions, not Google. » mobile.slashdot.org/stor ··· -devices | |
| | | MaxoYour tax dollars at work. Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL |
Maxo
Premium Member
2012-May-17 10:31 am
Re: No CDMAsaid by fuziwuzi:said by Maxo:Google's unlocked Nexus is GSM, not CDMA so us Verizon customer's do not benefit from buying it directly from Google. The phone is available through Verizon, but with the usual nonsense. I hope Google starts selling phones like this that work on all carrier's networks. They can no longer offer CDMA because of open-source license restrictions. Therefore, only the manufacturer (who holds a license) can add the CDMA code to the Android base and offer a phone. Blame licensing restrictions, not Google. » mobile.slashdot.org/stor ··· -devices I don't see why Verizon can purchase a CDMA license, incorporate the software, and ship a phone, but Google cannot purchase a CDMA license, incorporate the software, and ship a phone. | |
| | | | ••••••
| pkorx8 join:2003-06-19 San Francisco, CA |
pkorx8
Member
2012-May-16 3:39 pm
Good try, but not a shake up.I don't think this is any different from when Google tried it the first time around. The available carriers are the same as before.
Google has established in the past that CDMA bands will require carrier integration, so I don't see the new Nexus becoming available for Verizon, Sprint, Sprints MVNO's (boost, virgin), metro, etc.
So we will see the new line of GSM Nexus limited for use on ATT or Tmobile. (Ok, maybe this time they will put in the AWS band radio, so its will truly work on both ATT and Tmo, like the current Tmo SG2 and others.)
How is that an industry shake-up? | |
|
1 recommendation |
This is smartThe US is one of the ONLY countries that heavily subsidizes phones, and that is coming to an end. Pooling plans will kill it. That means Apple is in trouble because their phones are way overpriced. So google seeds each carrier with a phone, and makes it universal so it can swap among carriers. Now current LTE chipsets are capable of doing this, however the 2G/3G radios will need consolidation (I think that is on broadcom's list or very soon). So now you have a phone which can ride on any carrier in north america. BYOD because goog phones are way cheaper than Apple phones, and this neuters the carriers on data pricing. Already in the last few months Android is slamming it home, because RIM and Nokia imploded and non-subsidized very few are going to pay $700 for an iphone when a better Android can be had for half that amount. If they simultaneously seed 5 vendors, then the carriers can't erect paywalls/lockdown because ultimately one of the others (say sprint) will get creative and let the ecosystem thrive. So rather than buying my phone from Verizon, I walk into a Samsung or Apple store and get my phone there. Now as subsidies erode w/ family plans it will be the death of Apple stock, because let's face it the carriers are not going to continue to pad Apples bottom line, and Android is taking the Windows model. This is almost a pure repeat of the 80's when Microsoft neutered Apple the first time. The only issue for GOOG (a big one) is that their TV and tablet story needs consolidation w/ the phone platform (say ICS) and we are off to the races. GOOG must be loving that AAPL hasn't done anything w/ the AppleTV--this gives them a window to consolidate. I remember back in 1990 my dorm roommate had a $4k macintosh monochrome small screen, and I had my $1,800 x286 with a color monitor, more memory, more storage, and FASTER. He too back in those days use the same line used today "but my Mac is more stable", until the chimes of death would wipe out his document I will admit though my iphone 4s is way more stable than my droid... I cry when I have to squint on my iphone 4s that my employer made me give up for my droid which was faster, more memory, a replacable battery, and had a nice big screen. Oh, and it was cheaper too. Remind you of the 80's | |
| | |
Walt French
Anon
2012-May-16 9:23 pm
Re: This is smartThe US is one of the ONLY countries that heavily subsidizes phones, and that is coming to an end.
That means Apple is in trouble because their phones are way overpriced.
Let me spell this out in a bit more detail.
Apple, which in 2007 turned the US mobile market upside down with its easy-to-use touchscreen phone, and then quickly pivoted to the subsidized model with AT&T, and has now gone on to arrange deals with some 250 carriers worldwide, is incapable of responding to hypothetical changes in carriers' policies. It has hopelessly fallen back into the pit of uncompetitiveness that it was in during the late 80's and 90's; it has no idea how to compete despite introducing ground-breaking products like the iPad that totally thumped Microsoft, and continue to stymie the 100 or so Android tablet competitors.
It would be impossible for it to cut its profit margin to compete, despite having incredible economies of scale and estimated costs well in line. The company holds grudges and refuses to work with Verizon because Verizon dissed them in 2006. Despite selling 2/3 of its phones overseas, it is impossibly expensive for all but a few over-privileged one-percenters in the US.
Think maybe you should back off the Kool-Aid just a bit? | |
| | steven s Premium Member join:2002-09-14 Dearborn, MI |
to elefante72
said by elefante72:The US is one of the ONLY countries that heavily subsidizes phones, and that is coming to an end. In Europe they are starting to subsidize phones in exchange for a 2-year contract (which makes sense, because now that carriers are pushing smartphones/data plans, phones can cost $4-600 without a contract, and who has that much money to spend on a phone?). Although the subsidies are decreasing, the trend is definitely moving towards subsidized phones and long contracts, not the other way around. | |
|
| |
|
|