The only stumbling block to innovation on cell phones in the American market is the carriers. Of everything Google announced today, the most significant aspect is their partnership with two U.S. carriers, Sprint and T-Mobile. These two also make an interesting pair. Of the networks using their technology, CDMA for Sprint and GSM for T-Mobile, they are the underdogs, and thus most willing to make a deal. But, more importantly perhaps, both of these carriers have well-publicized next-generation networks ready to roll out within the next year. T-Mobile has already announced plans for their HSDPA network, to match GSM competitor AT&T, but may only be waiting for spectrum to be vacated by existing television operators. Sprint has been hammering their WiMAX network, called Xohm, which will launch in the first half of next year, unless corporate woes at the C-level put a halt to those plans.
In any case, the most innovative phone on the market in the last few years is inarguably the iPhone, but it took much more than dedicated developers and talented designers to make the iPhone happen. It took a strong arm to AT&T's hold on their network, not only to allow new technology, like Apple's revolutionary visual voicemail, but also to allow the phone to operate outside of the carrier's so-called "walled garden," which dictates which features and services American customers are ready to receive.
Google's announcement would have been meaningless without significant carrier support. By enlisting both a CDMA carrier and a GSM carrier, Google will ensure that a diverse range of manufacturers will support the platform. Frankly, we were never really expecting a Google hardware device, as we discussed back in march, but even if Google had launched the most amazing phone we'd ever seen, it would have been meaningless without carrier support. We especially like that Google has kept the platform not only open, but competitive, by announcing support among a range of competing companies, like Samsung, LG and Motorola. Of the top manufacturers, only Nokia and Sony Ericsson are missing, both of whom hold major stakes in variations of the Symbian OS, S60 for Nokia and UIQ for Sony Ericsson.
We don't think Google will have any problems selling ad space on phones, either, as long as the transmission of advertising data doesn't slow the phone significantly or boost the price of costly data plans. The problem Google will face will be with the openness of the platform. American consumers care about features, but not about the potential for more features. Open source licensing may appeal to developers and technology journalists, but the average American consumer will not program an app for their phone, and will hardly go out of their way to find good apps for their device.
Instead, it will be up to the manufacturers and, we shudder to say it, the carriers to innovate with Google's OS. The list of members in the Open Handset Alliance may give hints about what's in store. Synaptics surely means touch sensitivity. SiRF Technology means GPS. But EBay's support could spell a Skype app built into a phone. On a carrier network? We're not so sure. Perhaps on the new, soon-to-be-auctioned 700MHz spectrum, which will have some mandated openness, but how much openness remains unclear.
So, questions remain. Does "open source" in the cell phone game mean open to the consumer, or just the manufacturer? According to Google, cell phone carriers will still have complete control over what is on the devices they sell, and T-Mobile and Sprint may lock their phones completely if they please. Presumably, though, phone companies will want to ride on the Google brand name, and with that brand come certain expectations. How Google will protect their brand and image, promoting openness and expansion, while also catering to the carriers is a high-flying trapeze act we can't wait to see.
|
|
Archive