- Posts tagged Verizon
- Explore Verizon on posterous
Google On Net Neutrality: Then (2007) and Now
So what changed? Google did. In 2007, Android wasn't a major mobile OS, and Google didn't have multi-billion-dollar wireless advertising relationships with Verizon and AT&T. You'll also recall that Google had hopes of bypassing the carrier retail experience completely -- hopes that flamed out rather spectacularly with the death of the Nexus One and their online phone store. The policy shift is clear and indisputable, as is the motivation: Google doesn't want consumer protections (be they privacy, or network neutrality) to impact wireless ad revenues.
Great article. Google and Verizon are doing handstands to try to distract from the obvious, but it won't go away.
I'm hoping Google's dog and pony show today about new Android 2.2 features—of little use because the vast majority of Android users do not have 2.2, and can't get it—will not distract the tech press from continuing to focus on Google's complete reversal of their position on net neutrality.
Verizon and Google Justifications Don't Add Up
there's an immense arrogance in assuming the public can't do the simple math on why neither company wants neutrality applied to wireless networks.
Yesterday I thought the Google/Verizon deal might not get enough attention. I'm sure Google and Verizon thought the same or they wouldn't have made such a bold announcement.
Personally, I'm happy to see that many aren't letting this go by so easily. I think the first day's reaction was enough for both companies to get a bit defensive but, as witnessed by the above article, not everyone's buying it.
For some other views of the Google-Verizon deal in the first 24 hours, see these:
So Google sold the tech world out as it hopes to keep one of the largest pushers of its Android operating system happy.
CDT:
spotty proposal from two companies is no substitute for real action that serves the public interest
They announced a new policy recommendation that would kill the Internet as we know it, if implemented by FCC Chair Julius Genokowski and other policy makers.
The Google/Verizon statement is intentionally vague about what these new services would be and who would build them and what would be on them.
But principles are easy to discard, it seems, when one’s in search of the next goldmine. “Don’t Be Evil” can become “Just Don’t Be Stupid” when you’re in first place.
Google and Verizon: "Cable Operators Can Suck It. We Rule."
Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless
They buried it at number six of seven points, but there it is. Wired should do as we suggest, but wireless doesn't have to because we haven't built our empire yet. Wow.
This takes balls, but Google and Verizon probably figure tech blogs will simply publish the spoon-fed press releases, then shrug it off and write another Apple or AT&T horror story. The sad part is, they may be right.
The Economist: Verizon, Google and the Woody Allen problem
To be clear, if the New York Times is to be believed, Verizon and Google aren't just contesting the FCC's plan; they're deciding to pre-emptively disobey it.
Another good article looking into what Google and Verizon are up to.
Google: "Let's Do Evil." Verizon: "Works For Us."
Said laws of course would have oodles of loopholes, and would not apply to wireless in order to protect Google and Verizon's Android love affair.
Good article taking a look at what Google and Verizon may be up to. I hope we get more tech sites looking into this.
The Kin: Poor Sales? Seems to me this was all Microsoft.
It seems that after doing some initial work on these phones based around Danger's proprietary Sidekick OS, Andy Lees -- the SVP of Microsoft's mobile division -- instructed everyone to go back to the drawing board and rebuild the OS based on Windows CE. It appears the company didn't want a project that wasn't directly connected to its Windows kernel. This move allegedly set the release of the devices back 18 months, during which time Redmond's carrier partner [Verizon] became increasingly frustrated with the delays. Apparently when it came time to actually bring the Kins to market, Big Red had soured on the deal altogether and was no longer planning to offer the bargain-basement pricing deals it first had tendered. The rest, as they say, is history -- though we don't think even great prices could have accounted for what was fundamentally a flawed product.
No company with a serious strategy and belief in a product kills it just seven weeks after launch, no matter how poorly it initially sells. A smart company might hold the line a little longer, spin a press release, or maybe tweak their strategy.
But this was Microsoft:
- It's just like Microsoft to decide the Kin must be Windows-based, and ignore the IP they'd bought in Danger.
- It's just like Microsoft to not understand an 18-month delay is poison in the mobile market. This isn't Windows or Office, where customers feel there's nowhere else to go.
- It's just like Microsoft for various teams to pull in different directions; even now there's only talk of unifying their mobile efforts.
- It's just like Microsoft to write off tens of millions of dollars spent on the project so quickly because, well, they figure they can afford it.
This product should never have been released. It's clear many in power were ready to kill it—at a moment's notice and with little reason—without even the appearance of trying to make a go of it. Yet for all those who could agree to kill it so soon after launch, they hadn't the guts (or sense, take your pick) to kill it beforehand.
On top of that, Microsoft angered Verizon, the US carrier with no love for Apple since they can't sell the iPhone. A decent Windows Phone 7 on Verizon might have made a good team against the iPhone/AT&T, but instead they're barely speaking, with Microsoft saying they're releasing WP7 phones on GSM first.
The Microsoft Kin should have been another Palm Foleo, an idea that got too far internally, but cooler heads prevailed and avoided the embarrassment of a launch. Sure, Palm was kicked around a little for announcing a product they didn't deliver, but it's nothing compared to the critique Microsoft deserves for wasting years of time, resources, and money for a seven-week stint to prove they're still clueless in the mobile sector.
Verizon iPhone in September? I Still Doubt It
I wrote about this a few months ago, and still believe the same. If the rumors of a CDMA iPhone are even true, it seems most likely it would be for international use.
AT&T: Some of our users still like us, let's fix that.
AT&T… said it would raise the early termination fee on smartphones — including the iPhone — to $325 from $175 as of June 1.
When AT&T appeared not to follow Verizon's lead in jacking up ETFs I was hopeful. But now they're doing it, and including the one phone that single-handedly saved their asses by keeping them in the game, yet for which they still don't allow tethering. Morons.
I'm sure Apple is terrified
We're looking at all the things Google has in its archives that we could put on a tablet to make it a great experience
The quote makes it sound like they're rooting through Google's dumpsters to bolt on whatever they find.
Good luck to them, but one is a wireless carrier, and the other an ad firm. Shouldn't they get some hardware people involved before they decide what they're going to build?
Dear Verizon and Sprint Customers: Welcome to Hell
The Bold 9650 is the successor to the BlackBerry Tour that is currently on Verizon and Sprint. It adds Wi-Fi and RIM's new optical track pad, which has been seen on newer BlackBerrys, like the Bold2 and Curve 8520.
I've been using the Bold 9700 (aka the Bold2) for over a month. It's crap. Yes, I know it's RIM's flagship QWERTY model -- and even better than what they announced for Verizon and Sprint -- but it's still crap.
Honestly, in the age of modern smartphones (iPhone, Nexus One, Droid, Palm Pre, etc.) it's hard to imagine anything as out of place as a Blackberry. It's like buying a brand new PC with Windows 98 on it.
