I feel it's worth pointing out that they haven't killed the phone, just their retail channel. Theoretically the thing could finally become available in carrier stores now, although they probably won't bother after Google's rather poor handling of the marketing and publicity.
Sad to see them giving up on challenging the carriers, but with no retail 'Google stores' where people could examine the thing before paying ~$500 for it that's not very surprising. I still like mine, even though I might have saved a few $ by buying a Droid or something.
I was going to pick one up for cross platform game development with Unity3D, but this was before I found out that developers in Australia still can't sell apps on the Android Marketplace. I thought Google would have their shit together with this by now.
I can make meaningless statements too! "Here's the list of iPhone apps I can install on my iPhone without Apple's permission: {}"
Incidentally, 2.2 (via the CM6 test) runs just fine on my Sapphire. The joy of Free Software is that I can fix my own device that is no longer the flavor of the month. T-Mobile will never give that device an Android > 2.0. But the community can, and it works much better than the stock image.
(Android 2.2 sort of works on my EVO 4G. The 4G doesn't work, but then again, since the EVO came out, Sprint's 4G hasn't worked in Chicago anyway. So I guess 2.2 works fine on the EVO, actually.)
Anyway, it all comes down to how you define supported. If you mean, "in the form of a bloatware ROM filled with ads for your carrier", you're right, Android 2.2 is not supported by anything. If you mean, "I can check it out from git, compile it, and load it onto my phone", well, pretty much everything supports 2.2 now. Pretty awesome, if you ask me.
That is great for you, but for 99% of the rest of the planet that doesn't give a flying f* about open source or couldn't care less about hacking a phone, the fragmentation of the Android market is only going to piss them off when they eventually encounter the day where their friends can do some cool thing on their Android phones, and they can't. With the iPhone the path of progression from one phone to another is simple and clear. Not the case with Android.
Uh, there are obvious differences between different versions of the iPhone and/or iPod Touch that lead to new version envy. Otherwise why would anyone upgrade?
The thing is though--if you go into a store and by an iPhone, you're guaranteed to have the newest version. If you go and buy an Android phone, you never quite know what you're getting.
And that's kind of a tautology. You're tied to one manufacturer and one carrier. I can walk into the Verizon store and purchase the most expensive HTC phone and I know that I have the latest HTC on Verizon just like you know you have the latest Apple device on AT&T. A lack of choice doesn't mean you automatically have something better in your hands.
Sorry, I should have been clearer: you can't buy an iPhone that isn't running iOS 4. Yes, it may be older hardware, but you're guaranteed to have the newest version of the software.
Actually, they sell the 3GS which is a year old and is running iOS4. So there is a difference in the way that the two operating systems are being adopted.
99% of the market for smart phones, before the iPhone were corporate customers.
We do care about what our users can install on OUR phones, we also don't want to only be able to install OUR software on OUR phones for OUR users with Steve Job's permission.
Apple's corporate side-load program requires you to prove that you have 250 employees. Running a local service company with 120 employees? Sorry, you're too small to qualify for side-loading. Build your custom competitive advantage apps and load them into the iTunes store for everyone or go without.
I couldn't believe this when I read your post, but it turns out there is a minimum employee count requirement, and it's now 500 employees.
Just wow.
Now, to be fair, the non-enterprise developer program lets you distribute your app to 100 devices too, but you need to pre-enter those devices's IDs beforehand. There's no way to hit between 100-500 devices.
If you want to install on more than 100 devices, it might be cheap to just buy a second SDK license. But yeah, beyond that its probably less painful to just submit your app to the app store.
Yes, exactly. With Android, they can be upset, do a Google search, and have the same software as their friends. With iOS, they're out $600 for a new phone, sorry.
With all due respect, you're going off another tangent.
Froyo, aka Android 2.2, was released on May 20. It's now July 19th, almost two months later. The fact that only one phone will support an OS for more than two months is a problem.
Froyo was not released on May 20th. It was formally announced at Google I/O at around that time. I don't know the exact release date but a quick Google reveals a staff member denying that it had reached final realease as recently as June 23rd.
Why you (or Mr. Gruber) would consider it a problem that one phone model would receive updates sooner than others is something of a mystery to me, particularly on such a short timescale. It's not even out for the Nexus One in my country yet.
I hope Google learns from this and doesn't announce future new version until the day they can ship the code. Android bashers have been complaining that 'it's taking months to get 2.2 deployed' which is a complete misrepresentation of the facts.
I wouldn't call it a problem; it's an artifact of a completely different ecosystem. If it wasn't an open platform, and was all built by only one company, it wouldn't have been announced until just before it was shipped.
I'm sure some people are frustrated by it, but following "publish early and often", and all that goes with it, is how open source works.
Indeed. The "with Google" mark carries meaning; it means you are getting AOSP (the consistent version of Android that is actually usable), instead of the handset's bastardized version of Android. (HTC Nonsense, Moto-durrr, etc.)
Do you use Linux? Every Linux distro comes with a Linux kernel. Yet none of the distros are supported by the kernel team. It's a different task. In OSS world there is a concept of upstream, where cool newstuff happens and the package maintainers who pack the released software. The two almost never happen together. If you care to go into business of testing and delivering Android OS for every single phone out there - go ahead. You might even make $$ off of it. But in the mean time the official maintainers are the manufacturers and they are nit going to all agree on when to release the next update - it is a competitive advantage to them to keep the current OS + all the ads and proprietary features running as long as possible.
From the perspective of one of my parents, neither of whom have probably ever heard of Git, it's not supported by any phone model. This is a serious problem with the ecosystem, and saying that that's how Free Software works isn't going to make it not a problem.
No, it's emphatically not a problem with the ecosystem. Android 2.2 phones are being designed as we speak, and Android 2.1 works perfectly fine for people in the meantime -- it's not like Google had to play catchup with Android 2.2 the way Apple did with iOS 4.
Like you said, typical users such as your parents have no idea what software their phone is running; they just want it to work. Android 2.1 works perfectly well, and the fact that 2.2 has been announced but is not yet commercially available is no hindrance to people who don't care for such matters.
The only people who really seem to be getting up in arms about Android 2.2 not being available right now are the Apple fanatics.
It's a problem in that the old phones should continue to be supported and get the new OS's in a timely fashion. They shouldn't need to worry about which OS is on there, but I think the OS should continue to get better over the life of the phone regardless. I'm not saying it needs to be out there right now, it's more of a question of whether a random model x will ever get it. Some probably won't, even if they can support it, and I would say that's a problem.
Why would you expect that to be the case? Can you install Windows 7 on your 2000-era PC? Can you even install it on your 2005-era PC and expect it to perform well?
Some phones will be updated, and some will not. Some won't get the update because:
1. The hardware is too old/slow/underpowered/too little RAM for the new OS
2. The manufacturer/carrier doesn't give a damn and doesn't feel like pouring money into an old phone when doing so doesn't give them any new revenue.
Either way, your complaint isn't with Android or Google.
Some phones are too slow, but I think the vast majority of android phones in the wild (by number sold) fall under the umbrella of #2 right now, and that's the much bigger issue. It's hard for a consumer to tell whether the phone they're picking up will be supported a year after the fact.
That is a problem with the structure of the Android ecosystem, which by extension is a complaint with Android itself.
I don't agree. How is Google going to require that all manufacturers of Android phones continue to support each model with sometimes-major OS upgrades for X number of years? Why would they even want to?
Apple has, what... 8 devices (4 generations of iPhone, 3 of iPod Touch, and the iPad) out? Hell, at least that many new Android phones have or will come out this year alone!
And even Apple can't keep all their devices up-to-date: people with the iPhone 3G are reporting slowness and instability with iOS 4. I imagine the 1st-gen iPod Touch (and maybe even 2nd-gen) would have trouble as well. And last I read, iOS 4 isn't available yet for the iPad. So Apple's track record is (on the generous side) that 50% of their potentially-capable devices work with iOS 4.
There's an easy way to solve the "what version of Android does this phone I'm considering buying have on it?" problem -- ask a salesperson. If they don't know, ask the manufacturer. Or just google for it. I'm sure someone else has the phone and has noted it somewhere, or some reviewer has gotten a review unit and has noted the version.
And how do you know if it's going to get upgrades? You go by the manufacturer's past record with such things. The interwebs can tell you all this, and more.
I would be pretty annoyed if I couldn't install W7 on the laptop I bought today. Well, actually I wouldn't, I hate Windows 7, but you get my point. We are not dealing with old hardware, we are dealing with problematic manufacturers and carriers.
This is the same problem we had in the past, but it is more of an issue now. This is what Apple freed us from, no matter what carrier it is on in the world, I can upgrade my phone.
Android do a lot of things right, this is not one of them.
> I would be pretty annoyed if I couldn't install W7 on the laptop I bought today.
Huh? We're not talking about the laptop (phone) you bought today. We're talking about the one you bought a year (or more) ago.
And the laptop comparison is limited: new laptops generally have more than enough power to run the current OS and apps. Embedded devices usually have just enough and not much more. People don't like to buy $1000 phones, so we get a single-core 1GHz Snapdragon with 512MB of RAM instead of a dual-core 1GHz Tegra2 with 1GB of RAM.
> This is the same problem we had in the past, but it is more of an issue now. This is what Apple freed us from, no matter what carrier it is on in the world, I can upgrade my phone.
Well, unless you have an iPhone 3G -- reports are that iOS4 is unstable and slow as hell.
And I have a Nexus One, and I can use it on whatever carrier I like, and upgrade it to whatever software I like. Granted, custom Android mods aren't for your average consumer, but I expect (ok, wishfully hope) that to change in the next few years.
In order the remedy this problem, the unlocked multi-carrier phones should be just as available as ISP-neutral PCs. This is clearly not the case, a typical user does not know where or how to buy an unlocked Droid X (and even if they bought it on eBay, it only works on Verizon anyway).
Sure, the laptop comparison falls down in some ways, but I'd argue that your point argues in favor of mine. A phone is much more locked down and difficult to upgrade. Most customers won't upgrade unless it comes in a nice automatic OTA package from the carrier or manufacturer. With PCs you have the option to relatively easily purchase or download a major new OS version and install it yourself. PCs are commodity hardware; phones are not (yet).
The fact that unlocked multi-carrier phones aren't readily available is a problem with how the carriers and wireless service works, and has nothing to do with Android, or iOS, for that matter.
Consumers, rightly or wrongly have been trained to have absolutely zero expectation that their phone OS will be upgradeable. Apple is the one company (outside of Android) doing that at all and I think most consumers are quite surprised when iTunes starts telling them they can upgrade. I don't think this is an issue at all, at least not yet. It will become so as the app market matures and large numbers of consumers find they can't run high profile apps that require newer OS version.
Yeah, that's a decent point. I'm probably tainted by my exposure to the iPhone - it seems reasonable that most people probably don't even know about OS upgradeability. Good point about the app market, that will likely be one of the main areas where it matters. I know my friends who got a G1 felt stung by not being able to upgrade their OS to include new features within a year or so of buying it, though.
I agree up to a point, but on the other hand we've seen a situation where the latest OS release for a particular range of phones does not run well on the oldest model of that phone. Someone made a humorous video recently illustrating the problem.
Some support cutoff point for old models makes sense.
Nah, it's not significantly different that Apple announcing IOS before it's available on a phone. I mean, are your parents waiting excitedly for the features in 2.2?
It's not a problem, it's a trade-off. Given the rapid advancement of Android lately, it can be argued that it's an appropriate one. Pick your poison, eh?
Why is it that iPhone fanbois have such trouble understanding metaphors? I chose the word bloatware to imply that trusting the provider was not the best option; sure, carrier ROMs might not support Android 2.2, but what's so good about carrier ROMs anyway. I chose the git example as contrast -- it's the opposite of carrier intervention; it's a guy in his house, talking to nobody, making and Android 2.2 build for his own phone.
In the real world, the perfect balance lies somewhere between the two. For every Android phone I have owned, there is always a middle ground. On one side, is the carrier ROM with their ads removed. On the other side, is a community-supported open-source build, like Cyanogen Mod. These are the sort of possibilities alluded to by my posts, without worrying the reader about concrete problems (like how the first is copyright infringement, and the second can be unstable).
Oh well, next time I will just write a computer program to unambiguously represent the set of possible meanings, so nobody will have to do any thinking on their own.
The best thing going for the N1 was the expectation that you'd be able to run the latest Android release. With other handsets you're lucky to get one upgrade before they EOL your phone. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least two years of upgrades when you're expected to lock into a two-year contract.
Best in terms of what exactly? Baseline snarkiness?
Most customers don't know, much less care about, the exact version number of their phone's operating system. They care about what the operating system can do for them. But I suppose if Gruber were to compare the actual capabilities of currently available Android systems vs. iOS 4, he would have much less to be snarky about on Apple's behalf.
2.2 is basically 2.1 with some performance enhancements and a few features sprinkled in here and there. A better question is how many are shipping with >= 2.1?
An even better questions is... who cares? I have an N1 with 2.2 on it. I was happy with it with 2.1 on it. I'm slightly happier with 2.2 on it. I know people with Droids with whatever is on it, and they're happy with it. I know people with Droid Incredibles, and they're happy with what's on that.
Why do you assume that the average smartphone user is always chasing the most recent version of software that may or may not be available for their particular handset? It's all just hypocritical argumentation. On one hand we have the people who say "well you can install CyanogenMod on it" get shot down by others who say "your average user won't install CM," while these same "others" claim that the average user actually gives a damn that they don't have 2.2 yet. I don't think they do. And I think minority who actually does will be informed enough to decide if they want to take the leap and install CM. Probably most won't, but that's their choice.
Let me rephrase that, since you appear to have entirely missed the point of my post. It doesn't matter that Android 2.2 isn't out yet, because Android 2.1 still compares favorably to iOS 4.
Were you asking similar questions the month before iOS4 shipped? Why do you care so much about "now"? The number of Android 2.2 phones being announced recently is astounding but they're not releasing them all together on Apple's yearly iPhone schedule just to make comparison shopping (or pointless internet arguments) easier.
Here are the things I use regularly that iOS doesn't/probably-will-never have.
- Free turn by turn navigation that's better than any dedicated gps device.
- Wifi or bluetooth tethering. I recently was travelling with my girlfriend, and we both could access the internet on our laptops routed over WiFi through my phone. The hotel even had free wifi, but it was easier to not bother with figuring out how to set that up, and just use my phone.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jailbreak!
Other than the turn by turn every other feature you said is available with jail broken ios. So you get the best of both worlds: slick usabe interface and powerful features.
I honestly don't know why more people don't jailbreak their iPhones.
One of the reasons I don't usually keep mine jailbroken is that it becomes very annoying to upgrade. It's jailbroken right now, but the tethering is basically the only thing I miss when it's not, and that, only very occasionally.
You had to replace the defaults because they don't work well. Android can't even play a damn wav file without downloading an app. iOS4 has the capability to lock portrait mode. I never once wanted to use my iphone or nexus one as a mass storage device.
The point is, I can replace the defaults, and because of the way actions work, the are proper replacements that integrate with other applications.
It isn't about using the phone as a mass storage device, dummy! It's about being able to e.g. add and remove music, movies, photos etc. to and from the device and a network location, over the air, without ever having to plug into another computer.
I blame Google for letting people build the Nexus One up so much (remember the crazy pre-launch rumors about how it was going to change the world?)
It's not that Americans are stupid and the rest of the world is smart. The problem is that you typically pay the same monthly service fee whether you take a subsidized phone or not. To go buy your own phone at full retail price is leaving hundreds of dollars on the table. (T-Mobile is the notable exception as they let you pay slightly less for a contractless plan.)
Also, few people are willing to buy an expensive phone that they can't even hold in their hand first. My understand was that Google was going to try to get the phones some retail space in e.g. Best Buy.
The same price for the service with or without a phone is just a sign that the market doesn't work for some reason.
Before my (coincidentally, American) employer started paying my phone bills, I had a service from one of the local operators here. In my "smart" country the costs were as follows:
- monthly fee: 0,67€
- phone calls: 0,069€ / minute
- texting: 0,069€ / message
Admitting I indeed don't talk on the phone that much and I don't use data services, I rarely racked up more than 5-10 euros a month. I could get 512k-2M data plan for 10-30 euros a month. Still, any plan that comes bundled with a decent phone here is many times more expensive.
I'm curious: do you have a data-only plan so you can use VoIP to make phone calls?
I have been trying to find a device that would make it easy to make VoIP calls most of the time, since I am nearly always around free (or already-paid for) wireless broadband, but fall back on a prepaid SIM card when I only have cell network coverage. Some of the Android devices look promising for this, especially the Nexus One, but I have been unable to find hard information about whether it's possible to do this conveniently.
I use VoIP for almost all calls on my N1, but any Android phone will allow you to do it pretty conveniently. For instance, I have two friends who are doing the same with their G1 and Moto Droid respectively. We use the sipdroid application with gizmo5.
Do you not have any problems with dropped calls due to data being the lowest priority when the cell tower is processing heavy traffic? I have had this problem with data in general (when I go to a concert, for example, it's almost impossible to use data reliably, moderately difficult to use voice, and SMS works perfectly).
I have a Nokia N900 and I find making and receiving VoIP calls (Skype and Google Talk) just as convenient as POTS calls. I had never owned a smartphone before this, so I find its lack of battery life disturbing, even though it seems on par with a colleague's iPhone.
So for the random guy on the Internet recommendation: overall, I would buy this phone again, especially if I had wide-ranging access to WiFi.
If you want to use an unlocked phone and maximize your revenue as a customer, simply get an iPhone 4 on contract with AT&T, put the SIM in $GENERIC_SMARTPHONE, unlock it, and sell it on eBay for around $750.
Maximum profit as a consumer as the $750 spread over the 24 month contract gives you an effective $31.25 a month discount. Plus, you get it up front so you can invest it or do whatever you want with the money.
My corporation qualifies me for a 20% AT&T discount. I could effectively keep my iPhone 3GS, which works just great, and reduce my phone bill from $66 a month down to $35 - and still have unlimited data as a grandfathered plan.
That's likely what I'll do next time my contract is up... but it would really be easier and better for everyone involved if the carriers would just charge you less or pay you a cash bonus at the end of your contract (etc).
Personally I don't think that Google tried very hard. I hardly ever watch TV, but I've seen TV commercials for Droid. I didn't see any for Nexus One.
I upgraded from a dumb phone recently and wanted to buy a Nexus One, but T-Mobile lady told me Google required a much more expensive plan, that the buy-one-get-one free sale wasn't applicable, and that there were all other kinds of undesirable things about it. It also cost a lot of money for the device itself, and I don't have a lot of money.
So while I would have really liked to buy a N1, I bought a G1 for $99, got another G1 for my wife for free, and took them home, rooted, and installed Android 2.1 and I'm perfectly happy with it. We're on a plan that is about $30 less than our separate dumb phones and includes unlimited data and text. And none of this would have been possible with a Nexus One.
I don't see any reason why this would be part of Google's fundamental strategy. I don't have a problem with Google selling phones online or directly or being the exclusive dealer, but the Nexus One was just too much hassle and would have cost much, much more in the long term.
Personally I don't think that Google tried very hard.
I suspect carrier pressure. They really don't want us to start asking intelligent questions such as why they should be able to lock us into multiyear contracts and control how we can use our own property.
but the Nexus One was just too much hassle and would have cost much, much more in the long term
It sounds like you're on a family plan. If you weren't, the unsubsidized N1 would come out cheaper over two years using T-Mobile's contract-free plans. And you can "cancel" anytime without an ETF.
Yeah, I've been checking periodically for a mature 2.2 ROM. Right now I use CompleteEclair, and I like it because everything works. I used OpenEclair before but quit because it was too non-functional. Everything working well on cyanogenmod 6?
The biggest thing that prevents me from trying out lots of ROMs is that I really don't want to wipe the phone. Does anyone know a good way to backup/restore after a wipe without paying for one of the backup apps? I don't have money, as mentioned earlier.
CM6 has been 100% solid for my Nexus One. I'm getting noticeably better battery life compared to stock 2.1, probably from the JIT compiler needing fewer cycles to do the same operations.
Only downside is your phone is 100% better and you get the occasional bug you'd expect from an RC1. I've been using it daily and side from my hardware issues(my battery shorts) its absolutely great.
Tmobile requires a more expensive plan to recover the cost of allowing you to buy the phone subsidized. If you buy it unlocked over two years (and you're not a family plan) you save around $600 compared to buying it on contract.
Um, this number sounds high. My recollection is that there is a $20/month difference in price so you are effectively paying an extra $480 towards a phone over two years. If the difference in up-front cost for the device is less than this, buying off-contract is cheaper.
There's a $40/month difference in price if you use google voice for texting and get the $10 data plan. (You change your phone online to one eligible for it and change the APN on your nexus one)
Mmmm, I think some of Google's biggest problems were informing customers (1) that the phone even exists, and (2) where they can buy it. Of course there's a lot more to sales and marketing than just these tasks, but neither of the two is "nearly impossible". Especially not for a big company like Google. So I have to agree with the post saying it doesn't seem like they tried very hard.
Personally I don't think that Google tried very hard.
I don't think Google tries very hard at anything these days. Just as it historically took companies decades to reach Google's income level, Google has also accelerated the normal process of growing into a fossilized incumbent.
Say what you will about Apple, but at least they still act like they want to win.
I don't think it was Google's intention to sell a lot of Nexus One units. I believe that they wanted to set a standard for Android phones over which other manufacturers could improve. Android phones before Nexus One were not good enough and they wanted to tell people that this is how an Android phone should be.
Google never wanted to try to cut out the middle-men. Google didn't want to push the phone too much. They just wanted to put it out there to be able to let them know, "Here, look, this is what you can do with this technology at this price point."
If you pay attention, you'll often see companies do strange and counter-intuitive things because their goal isn't simply to make money on every single product. Study and learn, because they often aren't being nearly as stupid as you might think.
It's the same strategy as Chrome. They could just have made another browser and pushed it via tie-ins, lock-ins and millions of dollars in advertising. Instead they rebuilt the browser from the ground up for speed and security. This prompted everyone else in the browser space to up their game too.
Google is betting that they benefit more from a lot of competitive browsers, than from having an iron grip on a single browser. Conversely, they can't allow someone else with an iron grip to hold the browser market back to benefit themselves. The same is true of the phone market.
Well Chrome is a somewhat different strategy. Sure, Chrome tried to raise the bar. But Google has a lot of other uses for that browser technology. It is used internally, it shows up in Android, the JavaScript engine is usable in a stand-alone environment, it will be used in ChromeOS, etc. Google didn't just release it, say, "We've made our point" and then stop.
Google's strategy with the Nexus One strategy is an occasional strategy. If you're not planning to go into a line of business, it is a lot of money to spend for uncertain reward. That said, I'm quite sure that Google would not be adverse to using it again if they found a good reason to do so.
I've said this before, but this is so disappointing. Canada's cell phone market is so horribly warped and the N1 was one of the few attempts to push things slightly towards sane.
"Google’s plan to cut out the middle-man from the sales plan (that is, the mobile operators) sucks (unless you’re talking about Apple)."
Maybe it's fair to say that the problems involved in selling direct to the consumer are relatively insurmountable, unless your company has expertise in that domain.
The headlines seem to be a bit exaggerated. Given that they just launched in South Korea and Australia, and seem to be following up on an existing announcement, I can't see how stopping sales to consumers in the US constitutes "pulling the plug" (although the ambiguous tone of the Nexus One blog post is the main culprit here).
The Nexus One is still the anointed dev phone, for now. It isn't going away, per se; it's still available to purchase (via a third party I think) to registered Android developers.
This is exactly why I was waiting for Nexus One, well, to be sold in Finland. I don't want any "value-adding crap" in my phone, much like I don't want any OEM crap in my computer either.
A plain Ubuntu or plain Android installation is what I want. Are there really no other Android phones that come without? Oh crap.
(FYI U.S. citizens: most mobile phones in Finland and Europe are sold separately from the carrier plan, thus making it easy for people to buy directly from Google. If only they had decided to sell...)
It is indeed a massive shame. After having been fucked around by tmobile Germany I promised myself to never buy a phone from a carrier again. Looks like it is going to be an iPhone now. Say what you want about Apple, they won't let anyone mess about with their software.
I love my N1 because it has none of the carrier-enforced sponsorware and I can use the data plan I pay for however I choose (using the built-in tethering functionality, for example). I appreciate that Google recognizes that Android is an open OS and provides an unlockable bootloader if I want to run a modified firmware.
The N1 was what moved me out of the iPhone camp because I found this to be a breath of fresh air. The N1's contemporaries just aren't as open, and given the phone vendors' track records if you buy an Android phone today you're not guaranteed any software updates in a timely manner or even at all. Google made this their flagship device and was what they were using to dogfood the OS, so I was confident the N1 this would continue to see improvement for the useful life of the device.
I'll probably be in the market for a new phone by this time next year, and I hope there is a decent replacement for the N1 in terms of openness with a vendor who's committed to supporting it. If my phone is going to be locked down tighter than a drum, I may as well get an iPhone, because Apple has at least established a track record that the device will get software updates through the life of the 2 year contract.
Their are several phones that are very easy to root. I know this doesn't pass your cut but no carrier is going to give up control of a device. The droid x debacle is a good example of this.
Galaxy S takes 1 file, 1 reboot, 1 click and its rooted. Just as an example.
Milestone was never an option. It is not just GSM version of Droid, it is also pretty much locked down. While it was rooted, there is still no way to put custom firmware on it. Pretty much like Droid X.
I don't think they "gave up" so much as "saw they were never going to make a lot of money on it" and "were antagonizing the channel for the vast majority of all Android sales". G doesn't want to sell phones; they just want to control the OS that runs on them.
Actually I think they might have seen it as a problem. I genuinely believe they wanted to target the N1 at only developers and sophisticated users who generally self-serve as far as support goes. They wanted to seed the evangelist and developer communities with a top notch, completely open phone so that they would then develop for and recommend Android to their followers.
Had grandma and joe sixpack started using it they might never have been able to handle the support issues. I think they identified a set of users who gave them high "bang for their buck" and specifically targeted them. I know many people say they never saw an ad for the N1 and yet I saw them for a solid 2 months straight on every page that had Google ads on them.
I'm thinking that the only reason Google would have abandoned the Nexus One is if the manufacturers promised to ship upgradeable phones running the latest (unmodified) Android.
Is there any evidence that there will be a Nexus Two? Is it safe to infer that part of the reason for the end of the Nexus strategy is due to carriers and hardware makers objecting to there being a "google blessed" phone?
According to Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO), there will be no Nexus Two.
“The idea a year and a half ago was to do the Nexus One to try to move the phone platform hardware business forward. It clearly did. It was so successful, we didn't have to do a second one. We would view that as positive but people criticised us heavily for that. I called up the board and said: 'Ok, it worked. Congratulations - we're stopping'."
I think the main reason is that Google simply isn't good at being a retail company. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Nexus Two, but I would expect it to be clearly labeled as for developers only and come with basically no support.
I bought the nexus one specifically because it was on par with the iphone but allowed me to throw any sim card in that I wanted for traveling between countries. Are there any other phone on the market similar to this?
> Google’s plan to cut out the middle-man from the sales plan (that is, the mobile operators) sucks (unless you’re talking about Apple).
Except Apple hasn't cut out the middle-man. In fact, the notion that carriers are middle-men is silly. If anything, Apple is the middle-man getting consumers locked into AT&T's poorly priced and overpriced data plans. The hardware is incidental, which is why Google 'failed.' The carriers refuse to offer data service, only phones with bundled service.
I give props for Google for trying. I don't really care that they failed. They didn't really know if selling an unlocked phone would work unless they try it.
The lack of retail stores wouldn't have been such a big deal if Google offered a similar, if not better, return policy than phones you could hold in your hand before buying.
A 14 day/$45 restocking fee policy is pretty bad. When it's for a $500 device you can't play with anywhere before purchasing, it's abysmal.
Having retail stores (or at least a space in retail stores staffed by your company) has really helped Apple sell a lot of product. There is no real substitute for being able to play with a device and see how good it really is. I think Google didn't get those type of buyers and Googles trouble with people calling them to resolve issues didn't help.
I saw enormous numbers of ads for the N1 - but only through the Google ad network (on web sites). I think they were very selected and targeted in who they were advertising to. I think they specifically did not want hordes of general consumers picking up this phone.
Not surprised. I love my Nexus One, but as soon as you have problems it is a horrible experience. I realize this is HTC's fault, not Google's, but damn.
One month after sending it in for repair they lost the thing twice, sent it back with the same issue and want me to go through it all again!
How sad. The Nexus One was the best phone out there (at least for my preferences). I was waiting for a Sprint N1 forever, but alas, that doesn't seem to be happening.
Sad to see them giving up on challenging the carriers, but with no retail 'Google stores' where people could examine the thing before paying ~$500 for it that's not very surprising. I still like mine, even though I might have saved a few $ by buying a Droid or something.