4 ms·

And so I would like to see Google, who are so intent on fighting anti-competitive business practices, throw its weight behind this in their negotiations with ca

And so I would like to see Google, who are so intent on fighting anti-competitive business practices, throw its weight behind this in their negotiations with carriers, so that they can make such an offer on their home page. I seem to remember them trying this originally, with the nexus one, and it didn't go very well. But, the nexus one was a mediocre phone and it was relatively early days for android. Now the phones are better, and android's market share greater. I want to see them take this idea seriously again. But yes, you are right. The real problem in this case is the carriers.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago
Not quite; the N1 came out right as Android was exploding (thanks to the Droid/Milestone a few months prior), and IMHO (as well as many others) it was the best phone on the market. It failed because Google didn't bother to advertise it, and your average person will flip at the idea of paying $529 for a phone (and these people won't see/care about being in a contract). The Nexus S is the same concept as the N1, and it's also being sold off contract and unlocked. It's also being sold on a contract (but still not SIM-locked AFAIK), because that's what consumers "want" and it'd be another marketing failure otherwise.
- charlieok 15y ago
  Interesting, maybe I misunderstood. I've had the horrible experience of trying to use a phone with a European carrier and finding that not only was it SIM-locked, but there was basically nothing above-board that I could do to unlock it. I guess I assumed this was a standard practice. If Google's phones are not SIM-locked, that's great :) My main remaining gripe is that if I can save on the price of a phone by entering a contract with a carrier, I want to also be able to go the other way: get more favorable contract terms if I already have a phone. Or get month-to-month service at a reasonable price without the need for any contract at all. To the extent that these options are not available, the market for mobile internet service is not as open and efficient as it really ought to be.

ConstantineXVI 15y ago

Not quite; the N1 came out right as Android was exploding (thanks to the Droid/Milestone a few months prior), and IMHO (as well as many others) it was the best phone on the market. It failed because Google didn't bother to advertise it, and your average person will flip at the idea of paying $529 for a phone (and these people won't see/care about being in a contract). The Nexus S is the same concept as the N1, and it's also being sold off contract and unlocked. It's also being sold on a contract (but still not SIM-locked AFAIK), because that's what consumers "want" and it'd be another marketing failure otherwise.

charlieok 15y ago
Interesting, maybe I misunderstood. I've had the horrible experience of trying to use a phone with a European carrier and finding that not only was it SIM-locked, but there was basically nothing above-board that I could do to unlock it. I guess I assumed this was a standard practice. If Google's phones are not SIM-locked, that's great :) My main remaining gripe is that if I can save on the price of a phone by entering a contract with a carrier, I want to also be able to go the other way: get more favorable contract terms if I already have a phone. Or get month-to-month service at a reasonable price without the need for any contract at all. To the extent that these options are not available, the market for mobile internet service is not as open and efficient as it really ought to be.