The Google Phone... Everything You Expected And Less (For Now)

from the and-that's-it? dept

After Apple finally announced its iPhone, all the folks who spent years and years passing around rumors about it needed to move onto something else. The first easy target was the gPhone from Google, which has been rumored to be all different things over the past year. However, in the last couple of months, Google and its partners started leaking out a lot more info to tamp down expectations. They stated a few times that they were not building hardware, and then it came out that it was really just software that device manufacturers and mobile operators could offer that would be more "open," but would clearly promote various Google services. Not quite as exciting as some of the earlier rumors. Today Google finally put out the official announcement and there are no real surprises. It appears to be exactly what the lowered expectations set it to be: an operating system built on Linux, that is open source and free for anyone to use. That is, it's not a phone at all, but simply a platform for others to use.

Sprint and T-Mobile have signed up as partners agreeing to offer it -- but it isn't expected on handsets until the latter half of 2008. Despite some rumors that Verizon Wireless would put aside its dislike of Google and participate, so far it is staying on the sidelines. This isn't surprising both given Verizon Wireless' distaste for Google and its insistence on walled gardens over anything open. Also staying away is AT&T, which is hardly surprising at all, given its investment in the iPhone. The big handset partners are HTC and Motorola -- again, no surprise. Motorola has dabbled around with Linux phones before and knows that it needs some kind of differentiator after getting clobbered by others in the market. HTC is a huge producer of Windows Mobile phones but has long had a pretty rocky relationship with Microsoft, so seeing a way to potentially get out from under that yoke must be appealing.

All in all, this is a good step forward for the mobile industry -- offering a more open alternative with some big name backers. However, it's not a revolutionary leap forward just yet. It's an enabling move that hopefully will drive more innovation and potentially push operators towards a more open, more innovative world, but it's going to be an incremental process. Even though it clearly wasn't for everyone, the iPhone redefined what mobile phones could be overnight. Almost every company in the space has adjusted at least some part of their strategy to deal with the iPhone. The Google phone platform won't have that same overnight impact, and depending on how well it works, it may never have that kind of impact. There will be a number of powerful forces working against Google in this space -- and unlike Apple, since Google isn't controlling the initial rollout and everything around it, it may make things tougher to fight through the initial noise. However, if it can get through any initial troubles towards adoption, then its openness and Google's commitment to push it forward could lead to mobile devices and services that are a lot more powerful. So, while it's not the flashy overnight sensation that the iPhone was, it has the potential to have a much larger long-term impact, though done so in a more typical understated manner.

Filed Under: gphone, open systems, operating systems
Companies: google, htc, sprint, t-mobile

FCC Releases Its Bogus Broadband Data Once Again

from the must-be-that-time-of-year dept

By this point, everyone knows that the FCC's data on broadband penetration in the US is totally bogus. Early in 2006, a GAO report slammed the FCC for using such bogus data. It uses a very low hurdle for what counts as "broadband" and then measures broadband based on zipcodes only. So if one broadband provider provides 200kbps service to a single house in that zipcode, the FCC considers broadband to be available to everyone in that zipcode. That, of course, is ridiculous -- as even right here in the heart of Silicon Valley it's difficult for some people to get broadband. When the FCC did little to respond, the GAO came out with a second report slamming the FCC again. When the FCC still did nothing, Congress got into the act, pushing forward a bill that would require the FCC to more accurately count broadband penetration. How did the FCC respond? By writing an editorial insisting that there's competition... even if it doesn't have any numbers to back it up.

With all that as background, it should come as no surprise whatsoever that the latest FCC report on broadband penetration appears to use the same bogus methodology. It makes you wonder who they think they're fooling. With such a pointless methodology the results are pretty meaningless. After all, it suggests that 80% of zipcodes have at least four broadband service providers. Those who want to say that there's strong competition in broadband will falsely assume this means 80% of households have four providers to choose from, but it would probably be pretty difficult to find very many people who have four different providers available. There is one amusing point in the report. The FCC used to insist that after handing over monopolies to incumbents, new broadband options would come from other technologies, with broadband over powerlines being the "great hope" for broadband competition despite years and years of failed trials. It seems the FCC isn't talking much about broadband over powerlines any more... perhaps because its own report shows fewer subscribers than at the beginning of the year. So much for that plan.

Filed Under: bogus data, broadband, broadband penetration, fcc

Wi-LAN Follows New Patent Hoarder Strategy: Sue Everyone All At Once

from the this-is-innovation? dept

Three and a half years ago, I wrote an article about the coming WiFi patent problem, focusing on the Canadian company Wi-LAN who claimed a bunch of patents related to WiFi technology. The company started off by suing Cisco. That lawsuit was eventually settled, but Wi-LAN clearly wasn't done yet. The company has now sued 22 different companies for violating its patents. This strategy seems to be the new strategy of patent holders: sue a ton of high profile companies all at once. It's what Sandisk did for example. Why is it becoming more popular? Because these patent holders are afraid that one of the potential targets might sue them first, seeking a declaratory judgment saying they don't infringe, and do so in a court other than the patent friendly court in Marshall, Texas. Oh yeah, Wi-LAN also notes that it's more economical to sue everyone at once. How nice of them.

Of course, Wi-LAN is hardly the only company that claims patents having to do with WiFi. It's a true patent thicket. If all these patents were actually valid and needed to be licensed no one could afford WiFi and it would be worthless. It's also worth noting that Wi-LAN's target list is somewhat ridiculous as well. It appears to be suing up and down the supply chain from chip suppliers like Broadcom and Intel to computer makers like Apple, Dell, Lenovo and Sony all the way to retailers like Best Buy and Circuit City. Assuming that all are somehow responsible for paying Wi-LAN the company could conceivably get license fees three or four times for the same computer. It's not hard to start adding up the questionable things going on here: (1) broad patents that are claimed to be important for a standard long after that standard has become widespread (2) these patents are one of many, many patents that claim to cover WiFi technology (3) filing the lawsuit against many companies at once (4) filing the lawsuit in east Texas and (5) filing the patents up and down the supply chain. This isn't what the patent system was designed to do and patent attorneys know it.

Filed Under: patents, wifi
Companies: acer, apple, best buy, broadcom, circuit city, dell, intel, lenovo, sony, texas instruments, wi-lan

Frienemies? Now Verizon Wireless And Google Will Work Together?

from the funny-what-a-little-competition-will-do dept

There's lots of talk in the news today saying that Google is pretty close on a deal to have Verizon Wireless be the first to offer Google's new wireless bundle of software that many people are referring to as the "GPhone" (which still hasn't officially been announced). This might seem like an odd pairing to some. After all, it seems like the two companies are pretty vehement in disagreeing on some key telecom issues concerning things like 700 MHz spectrum and network neutrality. Besides, Verizon Wireless is infamous for being the US carrier most focused on walled gardens, while a big part of the supposed point of the GPhone is to force more openness into the wireless arena. So why the pairing? It's actually fairly simple. Blame Apple. Verizon Wireless famously turned down the chance to be Apple's partner for the iPhone, claiming that Apple had too many strict rules to make it worthwhile. So how do you fight back against the juggernaut of the iPhone? Yup, with the GPhone. It's got nothing to do with openness, the features the Gphone provides or any of the other disputes. It's all about Google's brand and the fact that it's, perhaps, the one brand on a phone that will attract enough attention to (maybe) come close to the hype surrounding the iPhone.

Filed Under: competition, gphone
Companies: apple, at&t, google, verizon wireless

Suggestion For Mobile Phone Operators: Be Upfront And Honest About Plans

from the and-people-might-actually-like-you dept

It's no secret that many, many people dislike mobile phone operators. Why? Well, beyond the issue of dropped calls, it appears that people are sick and tired of of the way mobile services are pitched to them. The operators hate giving people a clear picture of what they're actually getting. Details of the plans remain hidden or not clearly explained and there are always hidden gotchas -- like how your "unlimited" service isn't really unlimited. So, here's a simple suggestion for mobile operators: Be the first to be totally upfront about your plans and services, remove any high pressure sales techniques, stop making it difficult to compare plans, phones and service and dub yourself as the customer friendly mobile operator. Then see what happens. Of course, some mobile operators have taken steps in this direction over the years. They're a lot more open about where various deadspots are than before and they've tried to be more open about specific features and plans -- but the problem is that this "secretive" mentality exists up and down throughout the organization. If a company makes it clear policy from top to bottom that openness, clarity and customer satisfaction are keys, it would capture the interest of an awful lot of people.

Filed Under: mobile operators, sales

Apple Doesn't Want Your Cash (Credit Only, Please)

from the cash-not-wanted-here dept

With reports of huge numbers of iPhones being purchased to be unlocked and resold, it looks like Apple trying to clamp down a bit on the process by changing the rules for purchasers: requiring credit cards for purchases and limiting order to only 2 iPhones at a time. This is similar to what the original "launch day" limitations were. The credit cards let Apple track purchases more carefully (though, you have to wonder what good that really does) and the two person limit makes life harder for unlocker/resellers -- but also makes it more likely that parents will be able to pick up iPhones for their kids this holiday season. As for whether or not it's legal to turn down someone handing over the requisite amount of cash, we'll just let the US Treasury Department explain that it's perfectly fine. The whole "legal tender" bit doesn't mean anyone has to accept your cash.

A bigger question, though, is why Apple would bother? The resellers are likely to figure out ways around these limitations anyway, and it just seems more likely to cause problems for legitimate purchasers (especially younger ones who might not have a credit card yet). And, while it is true that Apple makes money from every iPhone with AT&T service, it's silly to completely shut off unlockers, who still are giving Apple plenty of money that they might not hand over if they were forced to go with AT&T service (especially those from foreign countries where iPhone service is not offered). This really seems like an unnecessary restriction that isn't likely to help Apple very much.

Filed Under: cash, credit, iphone, unlocking
Companies: apple

Aruba Launches Counter-Offensive To Patent Suit

from the i'll-show-you-mine dept

The latest chapter in the tech patent saga comes in the form of a lawsuit by Aruba Networks against Motorola subsidiaries Symbol Technologies and Wireless Valley Communications. Aruba's lawsuit is actually a counter-offensive to a lawsuit filed in August by Symbol and Wireless Valley that accuses Aruba of infringing upon several of their patents. The punch line of the counter-suit is the revelation that, in 2003, Aruba opened its robes to Symbol during due diligence for a potential acquisition. Now, after chewing for four years on what it learned about Aruba's system, Symbol suddenly claims that Aruba's technology has, since the beginning, infringed upon Symbol's patents.

In how many ways does this case illustrate some of the insanities of the patent system? For one, patents applied for by Symbol in February 2001 were not granted by USPTO until February 2007. While prudence in patent examination is expected, six years is a lifetime in technology years. Making the assumption that the technology in question is justifiably patentable, the USPTO clearly failed Symbol: its market share in WLAN hardware has dwindled in the intervening years while Aruba's has grown strongly. Checking that assumption, it's difficult to see how technology that was simultaneously developed by no fewer than four different companies (Symbol, Aruba, Airespace, Trapeze Networks) qualifies as novel, non-obvious, and therefore patentable. But it's the entire timeline that perhaps best illustrates the lunacy. In 2001 Symbol had an idea, and Aruba Networks didn't yet exist. By 2003, Aruba was delivering its product to customers but Symbol still hadn't made it to market and was kicking the tires at Aruba. Fast forward to 2007, Symbol's market share has fallen to third place and fading behind Aruba (even holding that position largely due to sales of legacy WLAN hardware, I suspect) and suddenly it discovers that all along Aruba has been infringing upon its "invention".

It's a sad but popular refrain made possible by the soft protectionism that is the current patent system.

Filed Under: patents, wireless
Companies: aruba, motorola, symbol

Verizon Fined For Pretending That Limited Service Was Unlimited

from the watch-out-comcast... dept

Back in 2005, we noted that Verizon Wireless was following the tactics of others in advertising "unlimited" wireless broadband services, while the truth was they were quite limited. As people later worked out, despite the claim of "unlimited," VZW was cutting off anyone who used more than 5 gigs of data per month. That's pretty limited, actually. When confronted about this, the company tried to argue that by "unlimited" it really meant "It's unlimited amounts of data for certain types of data." And they followed it up with this gem: "It's very clear in all the legal materials we put out." Right, see, that's the legal materials -- the stuff you know no one reads. Yet in the marketing materials it's quite clear that you're claiming "unlimited" and that has a pretty clear meaning. After many such complaints, Verizon Wireless finally started to back down from the false claim of "unlimited" earlier this year. Turns out that it wasn't because of any realization that lying to your customers is a bad idea, but because NY State was investigating the practice. NY has now fined Verizon Wirelss $1 million to be given out to customers who had their service unfairly terminated for actually believing that "unlimited" meant "unlimited." Of course, Comcast might want to start paying attention right about now. While lawyers everywhere are rushing to file lawsuits over its decision to jam broadband user accounts, before that happened Comcast was famous for many, many years for being one of the biggest ISPs to lie about offering unlimited service. It's a story that comes up in the press every year or so, and every year Comcast gives its own doublespeak about how it only cuts off the worst "abusers." However, it's still false advertising to claim unlimited service when that's not what you supply -- and it's hardly "abuse" if people are merely doing what you told them they could do.

Filed Under: fines, limited, unlimited
Companies: comcast, verizon

And Now It's Time For The Bogus Class Action Lawsuits Against Facebook

from the pick-your-popular-company-and-sue dept

At this point, it's just an unfortunate fact of life that as a company becomes more well known it will soon be targeted by totally random lawsuits. We've already seen all sorts of random people suing to take credit for the idea of Facebook (all of whom ignored that Facebook's success had nothing to do with the idea and everything to do with the execution). Now it's time for random users and their lawyers to come up with all sorts of odd lawsuit ideas. For example, we've now got a woman and her lawyer trying to create a class action lawsuit against Facebook because the woman got a new mobile phone number, and that number is receiving too many unwanted text messages that were sent through Facebook and intended for the previous owner of the number. Why is this Facebook's fault? That's not clear, but it's a hot company worth billions, so might as well sue and hope to get some cash out of it. This is a problem that plenty of people face if they get a new phone number that's been "recycled" but it's hardly the fault of the companies who are simply forwarding the messages as directed.

Filed Under: class action, recycled numbers, text messaging
Companies: facebook

Psst: People Still Want Mobile Phones To Be Phones First

from the kitchen-sink,-second dept

Jeremy Wagstaff makes an important point that is important to repeat every once in a while: for all the fancy new smartphones out there, many people still want a mobile phone to just be a phone that works. Wagstaff makes his point by saying how an unnamed top mobile phone exec told him off-the-record (hence the lack of identification) that despite all the fancy feature-filled smartphones he was out trying to convince the world to buy, his favorite phone was the simple Nokia 1100. It's a simple, straight-forward phone. No camera. No video. No internet. Not even a color screen. But, it works. This reminds me that until only about a year ago, my main mobile phone was a Samsung SCH-3500, which I'd used for about six years or so. Sure I'd tried this or that smart phone, but none of them seemed to do the most basic thing (act as a phone) nearly as well. It was only earlier this year that I finally switched to a smart phone full time, but it still doesn't work nearly as well as that old 3500 for just making and receiving calls. I, like many people, certainly like the idea of the various features found in a smartphone, but if it can't work well as a phone, it's really not particularly useful.

Filed Under: feature creep, mobile phones, smartphones