6 ms·

I would have gladly paid the $100. The portability of the tablet is its biggest appeal to me. Not having a cell modem kills a lot of my potential use cases.

potatolicious 14y ago
I suspect the lack of a 3G/LTE option is a power play on Google's part. One of the biggest failings of Android thus far is the poor distribution of updates, and carriers do not help the situation. Without a modem Google controls 100% of the user's experience, with a modem they're subject to the whims of AT&T, Verizon, et al. I'd be very, very happy if Google wrested some control back, it might mean sane support and updates for future Android devices.
- mgkimsal 14y ago
  Which... I don't get. Just because my PC came with a modem 15 years ago didn't mean I was tied to AOL, Compuserve or the local ISP. I gasp bought my service from whoever I wanted. Yes, a cell modem would add more to the cost, but a contract free 7" google-updated android tablet with 3g that I could use on multiple carriers, unlocked... what's not to like about that?
  - stcredzero 14y ago
    Just because my PC came with a modem 15 years ago didn't mean I was tied to AOL, Compuserve or the local ISP. I gasp bought my service from whoever I wanted. You do realize that there were laws protecting your right and ability to do that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
    - wickedchicken 14y ago
      Hell, there were laws that had to be passed just to let you hook a modem in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_... Before this, you could only hook in an AT&T phone into the jack, and you had to rent that from AT&T.
    - Karunamon 14y ago
      They don't work too well on anything aside from GSM networks. some CDMA carriers (coughverizoncough) have this nasty habit of refusing to activate anything they don't sell. A practice I'm not exactly sure how it isn't against the law.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Your old modem-based ISPs all used the same plug. Cell carriers each have slightly differing radio frequencies. They would have to sell "Works with AT&T", "Works with Sprint", "Works with T-Mobile" versions all separately, as they all use different radio frequencies. The alternative is to build a mega-radio (or perhaps cluster of radios) to support all the carriers, but that adds weight and significant cost, and won't work with whatever new carrier comes out tomorrow anyway.
    - JoshTriplett 14y ago
      > They would have to sell "Works with AT&T", "Works with Sprint", "Works with T-Mobile" versions all separately, as they all use different radio frequencies. No, you only need two versions: "Works with all GSM carriers" (with frequencies to support 3G/4G on AT&T, T-Mobile, and almost every other carrier in the world) and "Works with all CDMA carriers" (Sprint, Verizon, etc). And for a first pass, you can ignore the latter entirely. At this point, most decent smartphones come with a quad-band or pentaband radio.
      - fluidcruft 14y ago
        Most decent smartphones also seem to cost significantly more than $200...
      - snotrockets 14y ago
        Not really. AT&T uses different bands than T-Mobile, which both uses different bands than European carriers, which differ from Korean carriers. It is only recently that you can find penta-band UMTS phones that gives you 3G on GSM providers in all the continents.
  - shalmanese 14y ago
    The problem is, apart from T-mobile, other mobile carriers don't incentivize you to BYO phone. It's buy a $600 phone for $99 and be locked into a 2 year, $70 a month contract or BYO phone and be on a $70 month to month contract. With BYO, you're effectively giving the carrier an extra $20 a month due to lack of subsidy. Other countries have much saner systems where BYO plans are $20 a month cheaper.
    - kelnos 14y ago
      It continues to baffle me that more people don't use T-Mobile. Yes, their network isn't quite as solid or blind-spot-free as AT&T's or Verizon's, but you can save so much money on T-Mobile. Hell, it's often more cost-effective to get a subsidized phone on T-Mo with a 2-year contract, then immediately cancel the contract, pay the cancellation fee, and switch to a $20/mo-less no-contract plan. Back when the Nexus One came out, it was $579 to buy it outright, or $179/$279 to buy with a 2-year contract (depending on if you were an existing customer or not). Buy on contract, cancel, pay the $200 cancellation fee, and just then you're already $200/$100 ahead. Then consider you have 24 months on a plan that costs $20 less each month than it would under contract, and that's $480 saved, not to mention the freedom of not being tied to a carrier for those two years if you do decide you want to move. And as a bonus, T-Mo is very tether-friendly. They'll throttle you if you transfer more than some amount of data per month (which I've found to be a non-issue in my personal use), but otherwise they don't care what you do with the data connection.
    - ek 14y ago
      There are a lot of excellent MVNOs worth considering, that don't try to screw over customers and still allow you the benefits of access to a large cell network. Red Pocket, for example, is an AT&T MVNO oriented towards Asian-American customers, and they have a bunch of plans that are very inexpensive while still providing reasonable amounts of service. If I had not received a Galaxy Nexus for free at Google I/O, I would have likely purchased a device for $350 from Google and then activated it on Red Pocket or some other GSM MVNO. It's important to realize that often, prices like $600 for a smartphone are deliberately inflated for the sake of encouraging people to sign their money away on cell phone contracts. This is illustrated by the fact that the Galaxy Nexus, a relatively high-end device, is available absolutely unsubsidized, for $350.
king_jester 14y ago
I don't doubt that SD card slots and 3G radios would have made this a must buy for people, but the biggest issue from Google's perspective is the lack of Android tablet penetration. Android tablets fighting the iPad front have failed to get traction, so Google is going to Kindle Fire route: cheaper cost, quality hardware missing a few bells and whistles. Except in this case the OS running on the device is far superior the Amazon experience.

potatolicious 14y ago

I suspect the lack of a 3G/LTE option is a power play on Google's part. One of the biggest failings of Android thus far is the poor distribution of updates, and carriers do not help the situation. Without a modem Google controls 100% of the user's experience, with a modem they're subject to the whims of AT&T, Verizon, et al. I'd be very, very happy if Google wrested some control back, it might mean sane support and updates for future Android devices.

mgkimsal 14y ago
Which... I don't get. Just because my PC came with a modem 15 years ago didn't mean I was tied to AOL, Compuserve or the local ISP. I gasp bought my service from whoever I wanted. Yes, a cell modem would add more to the cost, but a contract free 7" google-updated android tablet with 3g that I could use on multiple carriers, unlocked... what's not to like about that?
- stcredzero 14y ago
  Just because my PC came with a modem 15 years ago didn't mean I was tied to AOL, Compuserve or the local ISP. I gasp bought my service from whoever I wanted. You do realize that there were laws protecting your right and ability to do that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System_divestiture
  - wickedchicken 14y ago
    Hell, there were laws that had to be passed just to let you hook a modem in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_decision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carterfone#Landmark_regulatory_... Before this, you could only hook in an AT&T phone into the jack, and you had to rent that from AT&T.
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    They don't work too well on anything aside from GSM networks. some CDMA carriers (coughverizoncough) have this nasty habit of refusing to activate anything they don't sell. A practice I'm not exactly sure how it isn't against the law.
- bmelton 14y ago
  Your old modem-based ISPs all used the same plug. Cell carriers each have slightly differing radio frequencies. They would have to sell "Works with AT&T", "Works with Sprint", "Works with T-Mobile" versions all separately, as they all use different radio frequencies. The alternative is to build a mega-radio (or perhaps cluster of radios) to support all the carriers, but that adds weight and significant cost, and won't work with whatever new carrier comes out tomorrow anyway.
  - JoshTriplett 14y ago
    > They would have to sell "Works with AT&T", "Works with Sprint", "Works with T-Mobile" versions all separately, as they all use different radio frequencies. No, you only need two versions: "Works with all GSM carriers" (with frequencies to support 3G/4G on AT&T, T-Mobile, and almost every other carrier in the world) and "Works with all CDMA carriers" (Sprint, Verizon, etc). And for a first pass, you can ignore the latter entirely. At this point, most decent smartphones come with a quad-band or pentaband radio.
    - fluidcruft 14y ago
      Most decent smartphones also seem to cost significantly more than $200...
    - snotrockets 14y ago
      Not really. AT&T uses different bands than T-Mobile, which both uses different bands than European carriers, which differ from Korean carriers. It is only recently that you can find penta-band UMTS phones that gives you 3G on GSM providers in all the continents.
- shalmanese 14y ago
  The problem is, apart from T-mobile, other mobile carriers don't incentivize you to BYO phone. It's buy a $600 phone for $99 and be locked into a 2 year, $70 a month contract or BYO phone and be on a $70 month to month contract. With BYO, you're effectively giving the carrier an extra $20 a month due to lack of subsidy. Other countries have much saner systems where BYO plans are $20 a month cheaper.
  - kelnos 14y ago
    It continues to baffle me that more people don't use T-Mobile. Yes, their network isn't quite as solid or blind-spot-free as AT&T's or Verizon's, but you can save so much money on T-Mobile. Hell, it's often more cost-effective to get a subsidized phone on T-Mo with a 2-year contract, then immediately cancel the contract, pay the cancellation fee, and switch to a $20/mo-less no-contract plan. Back when the Nexus One came out, it was $579 to buy it outright, or $179/$279 to buy with a 2-year contract (depending on if you were an existing customer or not). Buy on contract, cancel, pay the $200 cancellation fee, and just then you're already $200/$100 ahead. Then consider you have 24 months on a plan that costs $20 less each month than it would under contract, and that's $480 saved, not to mention the freedom of not being tied to a carrier for those two years if you do decide you want to move. And as a bonus, T-Mo is very tether-friendly. They'll throttle you if you transfer more than some amount of data per month (which I've found to be a non-issue in my personal use), but otherwise they don't care what you do with the data connection.
  - ek 14y ago
    There are a lot of excellent MVNOs worth considering, that don't try to screw over customers and still allow you the benefits of access to a large cell network. Red Pocket, for example, is an AT&T MVNO oriented towards Asian-American customers, and they have a bunch of plans that are very inexpensive while still providing reasonable amounts of service. If I had not received a Galaxy Nexus for free at Google I/O, I would have likely purchased a device for $350 from Google and then activated it on Red Pocket or some other GSM MVNO. It's important to realize that often, prices like $600 for a smartphone are deliberately inflated for the sake of encouraging people to sign their money away on cell phone contracts. This is illustrated by the fact that the Galaxy Nexus, a relatively high-end device, is available absolutely unsubsidized, for $350.

king_jester 14y ago

I don't doubt that SD card slots and 3G radios would have made this a must buy for people, but the biggest issue from Google's perspective is the lack of Android tablet penetration. Android tablets fighting the iPad front have failed to get traction, so Google is going to Kindle Fire route: cheaper cost, quality hardware missing a few bells and whistles. Except in this case the OS running on the device is far superior the Amazon experience.