Google Phone — Odds Making on What it Is and Isn’t
The blogosphere is buzzing around news of “the Google Phone,” but there still seems to be more questions than answers surrounding such a device. There’s no doubt that “it” is real, but — and sorry to loosely borrow from former President Clinton — “it” depends on what your definition of “it” is. For some, “it” is a phone sold directly from Google to the public. For others, it’s a handset that solely uses voice over IP and cellular data only. And still for some it’s a completely unlocked and carrier agnostic device. Let’s step back and see what we know about “it” and then handicap some odds on what might happen with this new handset, dubbed the “Nexus One.”
From a hardware perspective, the Nexus One didn’t come from left field. Pictures of the phone from Engadget confirm that it’s a design we’ve seen leaked back in October. In fact, the device looks similar to the HTC Bravo that appeared on a leaked roadmap for the first half of 2010. And while all of the specs are still under wraps, the Nexus One is very likely powered by a 1GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor — that’s the platform you can expect to see in higher end Android phones now through next year. So again, nothing too radical or unexpected here. The display could be an AMOLED, but it’s a very safe bet that it has the same 854 x 480 resolution as the latest Android handsets.
And then there’s the radio frequencies. The only truly wild thought is that this GSM device supports both the T-Mobile and AT&T 3G frequencies. That would set this apart as “the” Google Phone over all others, but that’s a bit of an unknown. Other than that aspect, the Nexus One is exactly what we should be — and have been — expecting. All in all, it sounds promising and since I may drop my Palm Pre, this device and others like it are appealing.
But then there’s the other side of the coin — the non-hardware attributes. Will Google sell this directly to the public or is this simply a phone to be sold to Google developers? I’m with Sascha Segan on this front — the latter scenario makes more sense to me because there isn’t another Google development phone that supports WVGA. Google just launched Android 2.0 a few months ago and it was the first version to support higher resolution screens, so making this phone available to developers is a logical progression.
Then there’s the cost of the Nexus One. I have no idea what it is, but if Google sells it without a carrier subsidy, it will either be cost-prohibitive for most consumers or Google will lose money on each. Of course, I’ve said in the past that Google’s currency is information, which could be a subsidy on it’s own. Regardless, most consumers will balk at a $400 or $500 Nexus One when they can very likely get the same handset for $199 with contract through a carrier. Like it or not, that’s the mainstream model here in the U.S.
One last bit about hardware — even though I addressed it above — there’s a difference between “unlocked” and “completely carrier agnostic.” I don’t doubt the Nexus One will be an unlocked handset. But I do have doubts about it supporting the 3G bands for both T-Mobile and AT&T here in the U.S. Unlocked means you can put a SIM card in from either carrier and use the phone. You’ll be able to make voice calls in that scenario, but you won’t have high-speed mobile broadband. If the Nexus One supports T-Mobile’s 3G network — which is my guess — you’ll only get pokey EDGE speeds using an AT&T SIM card in it. So yes, it would be an unlocked phone in that case, but would you really want to use it for data on AT&T’s network?
Having said all that, let’s play oddsmaker on some different scenarios:
- Nexus One will be sold to Google Android developers (1 – 1) — This is a no-brainer to me for reasons mentioned. Android will only continue its success through work of developers, both within and outside of Google. Offering the handset to developers makes it easier for them to take advantage of new features in Android 2.x.
- Nexus One will be sold directly to the public by Google (30 – 1) — I think it’s a long shot. Google doesn’t have much to gain in this case and they’re going to get the carriers worked up, so there’s much to lose. While Google and others would like to see the cellular market mature and change, it doesn’t have enough power to disrupt things just yet.
- Nexus One will be sold by carriers in March or April (5 – 1) — T-Mobile will offer the same handset or one extremely similar to it, possibly in the first quarter of 2010. The device won’t be priced higher than $199 and it will be locked to the carrier. AT&T offering this device isn’t likely, but if it happens, it won’t be until the second half of the year. This will be a T-Mobile flagship phone.
- Nexus One will support both AT&T and T-Mobile’s 3G frequencies (20 – 1) — While not impossible, it’s going to add cost to the device and I can’t see Google wanting to make this handset more expensive. If they do, developers will feel undermined.
- Google is loving all the hype created by the new phone (really? you need me handicap that one? ;) )
Anyone placing bets on the Nexus One or do you think my odds making is out of touch?
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
Google is moving down in the stack to challenge B2C opponents with an open architecture and new sets of standards. In creating a post-revenue business model, Google can only manage success if consumers accept a co-branding and outsourced manufactured device … NQ Logic recommends reading about the rest of the new Google’s mobile strategy at http://www.nqlogic.com
Thank you – this is the sort of perspective I’ve been waiting to see from someone. And nicely explained as well.
Everyone is so convinced that the end game is to sell a carrier neutral phone to the public because they feel they can do it better.
But what if Google wants to simply do a dog food exercise and demonstrate what next gen Android phones should look like? Or what if it even extends past phones to preparation for netbooks and tablets etc? What if…
I don’t know the answer, but the “default” conclusion everyone reaches just doesn’t quite sit right to me. There’s something else going on here, and I don’t think we know yet what it is.
Thanks for the kind words, Bob. For the moment, I’m thinking this Google Phone development isn’t the big news that many are making it out to be. Still a bunch of “what ifs” as you point out before a truly disruptive Google Phone arrives.
Perhaps the real motive is Google’s mobile search engine grew 30 percent in six months this year. Just follow the money to where it leads you and you’ll end up with the Nexus One. All indications point to a phenomenal growth in mobile advertising technology. Is it smart to give the carriers and manufactures total control of this enormous source of money?
I disagree with selling the nexus One ONLY to developers. For the better part of this year, the G1 was both a developer device as well as a end user device. One device can be both. You wouldn’t buy 2 PC’s for OS development would you?
I’m not suggesting the Nexus One will only be sold to developers. I’m suggesting that Google will sell it to developers, but carriers will sell it — with a new name, very likely — to consumers. Subtle, but important difference as Google didn’t sell the G1 directly to consumers either. ;)
Yes they did. They sold unlocked G1′s called Android Dev Phone 1. See the Android developer site for details:
http://developer.android.com/guide/developing/device.html
Last I checked, the phones could run either the T-Mobile image or the ADP image.
OK, so let’s define “selling directly to customers” for a second. While the link does mention that you can buy an unlocked G1, where is that link — on the Android Developer site. That’s not a consumer site and while *technically*, you’re correct, I don’t consider this effort as Google selling handsets directly to consumers. At least not on any scale worth mentioning. The phone isn’t capable of receiving OTA firmware updates, for example.
Put another way, here’s Google’s own words on the page you linked to: “Android Dev Phone 1 devices are not intended for non-developer end-users.”
Based on my definition of selling directly to consumers, this really doesn’t qualify, but I do see your point.
OK, so let me clarify what I said in my odds making and how this applies. I don’t believe Google will sell this phone directly to consumers *on a large scale basis* meaning they’re not going to put up and market a webpage to take consumer orders for this phone. They will sell it directly to developers and carriers will sell it directly to consumers, is where I was going in all this. ;) Might there be a few tech-savvy consumers like yourself that might buy a Nexus One through the Google Android Developer program? Sure. Might the number of those folks be statistically significant in terms of total sales. No.
OK that I buy that Kevin.
One thing though is you CAN load the T-Mobile image on a ADP1. It would not be legal but you can.
The hardware is identical with exception of the removal of T-Mobile branding, some software radio differences (not significant to stop you rom using a ADP1 phone on T-Mobile), the bootloader and the software image itself. Sure on the default image on the ADP1 you won’t get OTA updates but as a developer you don’t need them. However, you can convert a ADP1 to a G1 by simply loading T-Mobile’s image.
As per usual, this is all speculation on the Nexus One. We don’t know anything other than Google handed these out in house and that it has hit the FCC.
The Nexus One that I got to try out today indeed supported 3G on T-Mobile only (and EDGE on AT&T). It was a very impressive handset, incidentally.
A friend of mine works at Google in Santa Monica, CA. I saw the phone last night. It **IS** made by HTC. It is absolutely wonderful – beautiful screen, it does everything!!!! It is VERY FAST, I don’t recall the processor. It is unreal, I don’t switch phones easily, I will leave my blackberry bold for this when it comes out. Oh, and the camera is 5 mega pixel!
How about: It’s really a reference implementation and will only be available in small quantities. It will have the features to match (or beat) for any resepectable product. It will not really try to compete with existing vendors.
Microsoft did this for smaller peripherals (keyboards, mice) to set a standard because a bad product there could really ruin the windows experience, which would have been a disaster for MS. They never tried to undercut vendors or dominate the market. And the strategy mostly worked.
I suspect that Google is doing the same. There are really hideous early implementations of Android coming out if we are to believe some blogs. Google needs to set a standard if it is to avoid this happening on Android.