Joe Wilcox has an interesting point: that Verizon just slapped Google across the face. I know a lot of geeks gave me heck about my stance on Android, but Google is swimming upstream here. It’ll be interesting to see if Android gets traction. Developers love it, yes, but that’s far from the only thing that determines market success these days. At minimum, though, it’s great to see carriers and other big companies being forced to react to Google’s moves. For that alone we should all cheer Google on.
Did Verizon kneecap Google’s Android?
Published
Scobleizer 
Android is about open devices; verizon is about letting devices on it’s network. To me they coexist wonderfully. Network certification is all that verizon removed (which is a huge deal). Google is bout open hardware and software, a different thing.
LikeLike
Android is about open devices; verizon is about letting devices on it’s network. To me they coexist wonderfully. Network certification is all that verizon removed (which is a huge deal). Google is bout open hardware and software, a different thing.
LikeLike
Verizon = CDMA = essentially useless outside the USA.
I see this more as an attempt for Verizon to remain relevant despite their adoption of the wrong protocol than as a smack at Google.
LikeLike
Verizon = CDMA = essentially useless outside the USA.
I see this more as an attempt for Verizon to remain relevant despite their adoption of the wrong protocol than as a smack at Google.
LikeLike
I don’t see how this is usefull to anyone really, the only phones you could bring over to them are from Sprint. The post that was referenced was saying that you could bring a AT&T Blackjack over to VZ now and thats just flat out not true.
LikeLike
I don’t see how this is usefull to anyone really, the only phones you could bring over to them are from Sprint. The post that was referenced was saying that you could bring a AT&T Blackjack over to VZ now and thats just flat out not true.
LikeLike
I’m with Eric, I don’t see how Verizon opening up their mobile network hurts Google, which is building an open mobile phone platform.
LikeLike
I’m with Eric, I don’t see how Verizon opening up their mobile network hurts Google, which is building an open mobile phone platform.
LikeLike
that guy in article is wrong – Samsung BlackJack II is HSDPA/GSM phone and Verizon is CDMA EVDO so “opening itself” will not bring Samsung BlackJack II – he misses the point.
LikeLike
that guy in article is wrong – Samsung BlackJack II is HSDPA/GSM phone and Verizon is CDMA EVDO so “opening itself” will not bring Samsung BlackJack II – he misses the point.
LikeLike
Wilcox was wrong to give all the credit to Google, and so are you.
What just happened is Verizon announcing something in an attempt to stay relevant in the industry. The iPhone put pressure on everyone (moreso now with it’s clear success), Google is getting plenty of press over vapor that’s unavailable for another year, and into this Verizon’s new “iPhone-killer” Voyager phone was just received with a resounding thud.
So Verizon announces something unheard of pre-iPhone (indeed, it goes against everything U.S. carriers stand for) because if they don’t do something this drastic, they’ll be drowned out in the post-iPhone world.
Make no mistake, this is a Good Thing, but attributing it all to Google’s efforts is ludicrous.
LikeLike
Wilcox was wrong to give all the credit to Google, and so are you.
What just happened is Verizon announcing something in an attempt to stay relevant in the industry. The iPhone put pressure on everyone (moreso now with it’s clear success), Google is getting plenty of press over vapor that’s unavailable for another year, and into this Verizon’s new “iPhone-killer” Voyager phone was just received with a resounding thud.
So Verizon announces something unheard of pre-iPhone (indeed, it goes against everything U.S. carriers stand for) because if they don’t do something this drastic, they’ll be drowned out in the post-iPhone world.
Make no mistake, this is a Good Thing, but attributing it all to Google’s efforts is ludicrous.
LikeLike
Tom
Please explain to me how the iPhone, a closed phone (for now) on a closed network, has anything to do with VZ opening their network. I’m asking this question out of ignorance, because I do not see the connection (I’m slow).
From my perspective, this is a direct response to Google’s Android and their potential bid in the 700MHz spectrum.
I think VZ is afraid of what may happen when Google wins a large chunk of spectrum and opens it up to any device (over simplifying it here, but you get the drift). It will be much more difficult to justify a “walled garden” in the face of true competition.
We both agree this is a good thing, I just want to understand how the iPhone has anything to do with this.
Regards
LikeLike
Tom
Please explain to me how the iPhone, a closed phone (for now) on a closed network, has anything to do with VZ opening their network. I’m asking this question out of ignorance, because I do not see the connection (I’m slow).
From my perspective, this is a direct response to Google’s Android and their potential bid in the 700MHz spectrum.
I think VZ is afraid of what may happen when Google wins a large chunk of spectrum and opens it up to any device (over simplifying it here, but you get the drift). It will be much more difficult to justify a “walled garden” in the face of true competition.
We both agree this is a good thing, I just want to understand how the iPhone has anything to do with this.
Regards
LikeLike
As far as I am concerned, I won’t even care if Google’s Android platform falls flat in the competition with a more open network. Irrespective of what happens to Android, Google deserves the kudos for opening up. It is important that one major player opens up. Once it happens, free market will ensure that we will live in a more “open” world.
LikeLike
As far as I am concerned, I won’t even care if Google’s Android platform falls flat in the competition with a more open network. Irrespective of what happens to Android, Google deserves the kudos for opening up. It is important that one major player opens up. Once it happens, free market will ensure that we will live in a more “open” world.
LikeLike
It’s more Google’s Dalvik vs. Sun, over Google vs. telecom’s. I expect Sun to eventually sue Google.
LikeLike
It’s more Google’s Dalvik vs. Sun, over Google vs. telecom’s. I expect Sun to eventually sue Google.
LikeLike
Steve,
It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where Verizon makes such a drastic announcement a mere 16 DAYS after Google announces its vapor. Not just because this is a mighty big response to an imagined phone a year off (and one most people are dubious about anyway), but also because it’s simply not a decision Verizon made in 16 days.
Further, Google’s initiative is an alliance; one Verizon did not join. If they wanted a piece of that action they could just join the alliance. There was no reason to throw their gates open just for that.
As for the iPhone, it changed the rules for how hardware makers can deal with the carriers. I have no doubt Verizon is getting pressure from hardware makers for more freedom in building phones. And that freedom would reduce the user’s dependence on their network.
Meanwhile, the new phones Verizon’s offered have not been received that well. Heck, Verizon even agreed to pay Broadcom $6 a phone just to sell the super new Razr that was tied up in Qualcomm patents! How desperate do you have to be for new products to pay off patent disputes that were still in court?
It didn’t help anyway. The new Razr is not doing nearly as well as the venerable v3.
Verizon’s (indeed, all U.S. carriers’) world currently revolves around ensuring the phone they sell you can’t do much without their network. They go dirt cheap on the hardware to sell the service. The iPhone broke those rules, Verizon has nothing to counter it, and hardware makers want more freedom. Not a good scenario for Verizon to be in. I give Verizon a ton of credit for seeing this writing on the wall.
Now, consider all the unlocking of iPhones in the U.S. (and now even abroad: T-Mobile in Germany will sell an unlocked iPhone for $1,400!). Verizon sees this all unfold the last few months and thinks maybe they should just sell what they have (the signal), and not care so much what device is on it. Sure, they’ll lose some VCAST revenue, etc., but if they sign up that many more people on their network (which by all accounts is the best in the U.S.) it’s worth it. In my opinion this is what all U.S. carriers should do.
I don’t claim the iPhone by itself is the cause of all this, but it was absolutely the first hole in the dyke. And I believe it’s not unrealistic to refer to the U.S. carriers in terms of what they did pre-iPhone and what they’ll do post-iPhone.
LikeLike
Steve,
It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where Verizon makes such a drastic announcement a mere 16 DAYS after Google announces its vapor. Not just because this is a mighty big response to an imagined phone a year off (and one most people are dubious about anyway), but also because it’s simply not a decision Verizon made in 16 days.
Further, Google’s initiative is an alliance; one Verizon did not join. If they wanted a piece of that action they could just join the alliance. There was no reason to throw their gates open just for that.
As for the iPhone, it changed the rules for how hardware makers can deal with the carriers. I have no doubt Verizon is getting pressure from hardware makers for more freedom in building phones. And that freedom would reduce the user’s dependence on their network.
Meanwhile, the new phones Verizon’s offered have not been received that well. Heck, Verizon even agreed to pay Broadcom $6 a phone just to sell the super new Razr that was tied up in Qualcomm patents! How desperate do you have to be for new products to pay off patent disputes that were still in court?
It didn’t help anyway. The new Razr is not doing nearly as well as the venerable v3.
Verizon’s (indeed, all U.S. carriers’) world currently revolves around ensuring the phone they sell you can’t do much without their network. They go dirt cheap on the hardware to sell the service. The iPhone broke those rules, Verizon has nothing to counter it, and hardware makers want more freedom. Not a good scenario for Verizon to be in. I give Verizon a ton of credit for seeing this writing on the wall.
Now, consider all the unlocking of iPhones in the U.S. (and now even abroad: T-Mobile in Germany will sell an unlocked iPhone for $1,400!). Verizon sees this all unfold the last few months and thinks maybe they should just sell what they have (the signal), and not care so much what device is on it. Sure, they’ll lose some VCAST revenue, etc., but if they sign up that many more people on their network (which by all accounts is the best in the U.S.) it’s worth it. In my opinion this is what all U.S. carriers should do.
I don’t claim the iPhone by itself is the cause of all this, but it was absolutely the first hole in the dyke. And I believe it’s not unrealistic to refer to the U.S. carriers in terms of what they did pre-iPhone and what they’ll do post-iPhone.
LikeLike
In the UK the only phone that I can think of that is exclusive to a network is the iPhone to O2, and Android is relevant here… choice is good.
LikeLike
In the UK the only phone that I can think of that is exclusive to a network is the iPhone to O2, and Android is relevant here… choice is good.
LikeLike
Wrong! The real winner is the open movement. You should know that. Who benefits the most? Consumers. If you remember not too long ago, Verizon vehemently objected before the FCC to any notion of open networks. Anyone who’s been involved with the U.S. telco market and disparate networks, knows it will a lot more than a press release to achieve the European model. Tens of billions and decades of upgrade. As we all know, irrespective of open software, things don’t automatically plug and play. However, the mobile device will be more transparent and richer. My hat to Google and the open movement for smashing Verizon’s walled garden. Read my blog post on the topic.
Kameran Ahari
http://gotastrategy.typepad.com
LikeLike
Wrong! The real winner is the open movement. You should know that. Who benefits the most? Consumers. If you remember not too long ago, Verizon vehemently objected before the FCC to any notion of open networks. Anyone who’s been involved with the U.S. telco market and disparate networks, knows it will a lot more than a press release to achieve the European model. Tens of billions and decades of upgrade. As we all know, irrespective of open software, things don’t automatically plug and play. However, the mobile device will be more transparent and richer. My hat to Google and the open movement for smashing Verizon’s walled garden. Read my blog post on the topic.
Kameran Ahari
http://gotastrategy.typepad.com
LikeLike
I cannot wait until my mobile phone subscription with Sprint is over next summer.
I’m figuring out what to do when that time comes.
I’m not impressed with any of the players out there. I might go with one of the pay-as-you-go plans that require no contract, etc.
LikeLike
I cannot wait until my mobile phone subscription with Sprint is over next summer.
I’m figuring out what to do when that time comes.
I’m not impressed with any of the players out there. I might go with one of the pay-as-you-go plans that require no contract, etc.
LikeLike
“Joe Wilcox …”
Stopped reading here. The man is a moron, period.
LikeLike
“Joe Wilcox …”
Stopped reading here. The man is a moron, period.
LikeLike
It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where Verizon makes such a drastic announcement a mere 16 DAYS after Google announces its vapor.
Really? It was more a reaction to the upcoming FCC potential restrictions per the 700MHz spectrum auction and to squash bidding on the ‘C’ block. It really had nothing to do with Google, trust me, I know insiders, the FCC was the driving action here. It may make a nice tech drama story, but as usual, not even close to the full truth. Besides, it’s actually sort of the way the market is headed.
LikeLike
It’s difficult to imagine a scenario where Verizon makes such a drastic announcement a mere 16 DAYS after Google announces its vapor.
Really? It was more a reaction to the upcoming FCC potential restrictions per the 700MHz spectrum auction and to squash bidding on the ‘C’ block. It really had nothing to do with Google, trust me, I know insiders, the FCC was the driving action here. It may make a nice tech drama story, but as usual, not even close to the full truth. Besides, it’s actually sort of the way the market is headed.
LikeLike
So what does all this Android stuff do to BREW and Qualcomm’s profits out of CDMA phones. If we port ANDROID to CDMA phones, who would want BREW, which is controlled by Qualcomm.
So why did Google choose GSM first while being in the US, and not too far away from Qualcomm.
Maybe you all know the answers to these questions.
LikeLike
So what does all this Android stuff do to BREW and Qualcomm’s profits out of CDMA phones. If we port ANDROID to CDMA phones, who would want BREW, which is controlled by Qualcomm.
So why did Google choose GSM first while being in the US, and not too far away from Qualcomm.
Maybe you all know the answers to these questions.
LikeLike
So what does all this Android stuff do to BREW and Qualcomm’s profits out of CDMA phones. If we port ANDROID to CDMA phones, who would want BREW, which is controlled by Qualcomm.
So why did Google choose GSM first while being in the US, and not too far away from Qualcomm.
Maybe you all know the answers to these questions
LikeLike
So what does all this Android stuff do to BREW and Qualcomm’s profits out of CDMA phones. If we port ANDROID to CDMA phones, who would want BREW, which is controlled by Qualcomm.
So why did Google choose GSM first while being in the US, and not too far away from Qualcomm.
Maybe you all know the answers to these questions
LikeLike
google is improving their market to lot of stuff. will this world belong to google later?
* jordy, programmer of fsbo Virginia
LikeLike
google is improving their market to lot of stuff. will this world belong to google later?
* jordy, programmer of fsbo Virginia
LikeLike