Summary: Google should bow down to the big telcos and not spend 2.86% to 6.22% of their market cap to open up a gigantic market because there's a danger that Google will hurt the telcos' feelings and cause the big telcos to no longer do special deals with Google.
Google is entrenched enough that they aren't going to wither and die just because they don't get preferential placement on the default landing page for the cell phone's browser. If Cringely is saying that the telcos would actually block Google, that would be an indicator of much bigger problems with the telco cartel.
Sounds like it's Cringely who needs to put down the crack pipe.
Many suggest Google's mobile plans exceed the cell phone's browser however, which is why the carrier control issue really is of importance to them. I agree with the article in this regard. Several respectable analysts believe a Google phone is ~6-12 months from being unveiled, and that Google has interests in more advanced on-deck applications such as context sensitive searching (based on location, time, etc). Both of these objectives are definitely "blockable" by the telcos under current conditions.
isn't the iphone a google phone? i thought SJ and ES were on each other's boards. google is trying to create the platform and capitalise on the traffic (by betting it can build better products) - that's their business space. apple makes consumer devices which use traffic. sounds like a pretty solid proposition to me.
I think that if Google does have a phone in the works, it will be a no-frills, inexpensive phone that will cost a lot less than the iphone. That way, google won't compete with the high end of the market that iphone has covered.
I don't agree with this article's conclusions, incidentally. I doubt there's much the telcos can do to Google, no matter how vengeful they feel. But the article helped me understand what this controversy is about.
I also dont think the demands set by google were a brash mistake like this article suggests.
The general public is becoming more aware that the carrier's chokehold on them is stunting innovation and choice. The iPhone is a perfect example. When the iPhone was released, groves of people with existing contracts signed the 2yr AT&T contract anyway, but not without a feeling of bitterness. Everyone wants the Apple iPhone, not an AT&T phone. Everything AT&T about it is a downright annoyance.
Statements like the one made by Google over the spectrum restrictions reach the ears of the public. Google is saying: "We will stop the telcos from raping you over the coals if the FCC will accept our rules to help you, the end user, by giving you freedom of choice". I think now, more than ever before, people are standing up and demanding action like this. Google is shown as "good cop" who will help fight back the oppression that the telcos have imposed.
Regardless of the outcome of the 700Mhz auction, the carrier's restrictions will crumble, its just a matter of time. Just like Ma Bell and so many other examples in history, you can only hold back innovation and competition for so long. By making their stance known, Google is positioning themselves as the company who will be active to do things right, just like they have done in the internet space.
The issue at hand though is the importance of this spectrum in particular... Yes there are talks of utilizing the "white space" spectrums to get every inch out of available wireless freqencies (which Google is also interested in), but 700Mhz is the real meat. It is a BIG deal. Not only is it the last "prime real estate" that will likely come available in a long time, it is a lower frequency than the other wireless phone bands and therefore propagates better. Google owning this spectrum is far more important than internet search, and I know they realize it. I just hope they put their money where their mouth is because like the article suggests, now they have stirred up the bee hive by pissing off the carriers.
Yah, it all seems pretty paranoid. Talk of Facebook being a "walled-garden" really doesn't compare to what we have to deal with on mobile platforms. I heard on the radio someone mention the days of "phone rental", where there were the exact same concerns you hear today about security and control. But then it was monolithic AT&T saying only the three models of phones it designed could possibly be safe to use. Ridiculous.
Look at net neutrality. All it would take are a few telcos to decide to cripple bandwidth to and from google & googles adsense. This would scare off websites from adsense, make google slow and unusable, This would kill googles only real revenue source.
Maybe the whole spectrum thing is just a bargaining chip to use against the telcos.
I think Cringely makes some valid points about the risks Google is taking but I think he is being overly paranoid. Even if he is not and the world is run by the telcos, I still say good on Google. Even if only some of the rules Google is proposing are adopted for this new frequency band we would be looking at a new way to network. A better way. An open way.
They voted in favor of "Open Access" for 1/3 of the spectrum, which is a win for Google, but they did not enforce the other rules such as open network access. Google said they wouldnt bid unless all the rules were enforced but some speculate they might anyway...
Only people who have had experience in dealing with telcos know how evil they are. And any company, no matter how much of an outsider they are at first, eventually becomes corrupted and also evil (see: Sprint as one example).
Google would have to specifically and repeatedly and publicly repudiate the status quo of telco behavior in order to have even a chance of avoiding the same fate, should they get into telco-like services.
Google is a stack of contracts and IP; they're made of very ephemeral stuff. The telco's have enduring physical assets. Now, some P2P wireless topology might eventually kill the telco's, but I doubt it.
Sure hope Google gets what it is asking for here. We need this kind of network. I would love to give away a phone which carries my applications on its "desktop" straight out of the box. Imagine the possibilities. Free cellular for anyone willing to purchase $200 bucks a month worth of widgets from my sponsor.
Talk to Verizon about an idea now and your sure to see your idea pooped on or stolen. An open system would let everyone have a hack, and talk about investors opening wallets for companies with ideas. Deja Vu, the internet reborn yet again....
..the author is on crack.The whole article is nothing better than a soap opera:
"Google, the "little search giant" feels like bidding. Doesnt have enough cash to win the bid. Rolls out evil plan in sheep's disguise demanding 'openness' ,so that the winning bidder will have to Open up everything.Auction day.As expected Google doesn't win the bid.The winner and gangs in retaliation blocks Google.com from the service. Google dies ."
Cringley mentioned the precariousness of Google's position as the #1 search engine. I switched away from google to search.yahoo.com months ago. Every now and then I run queries on both and I am consistently getting better results from yahoo. I'm failing to remember the specific examples, but twice in the last week google failed to provide a relevant link on the first page at all but yahoo succeeded.
Has anyone else found that google search has degraded?
Google is entrenched enough that they aren't going to wither and die just because they don't get preferential placement on the default landing page for the cell phone's browser. If Cringely is saying that the telcos would actually block Google, that would be an indicator of much bigger problems with the telco cartel.
Sounds like it's Cringely who needs to put down the crack pipe.