16 ms·
Reuters: Google phone with T-Mobile contract in Jan
- tghw 17y agoAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! wipes a tear Seriously, VOIP, over US carriers? Yeah, they'll let that happen...
- grandalf 17y agoT-Mobile is the little guy right now but it has the most forward-thinking policies, however with limited 3g coverage.
- gaius 17y agoI have been a T-mobile customer since 1994 (they had 2 handsets and 2 tariffs back then, business and personal) and this is the first time I have heard anyone describe them as forward-thinking.
- mahmud 17y agoI hated them when they were VoiceStream.
- gaius 17y agoThey were OK when they were Mercury/one2one. To be fair, their dataplan in the UK is pretty reasonable. Customer support for anyone who isn't on BlackBerry is dreadful.
- tsuraan 17y agoI've only been a customer for about 5 years, but in that time I've heard their CEO saying they won't be banning or hunting down people who use their phones for tethering, I've seen them roll out the Android phone before anybody else, and I've had really good experiences with their network (in msp and in the rocky mountains). I don't know if any of those are "forward-thinking", but I've actually been a happy customer, rather than a grudging one.
- grandalf 17y agoI pay $60 per month for unlimited voice and data, and I can tether as much as I want with no fees, etc. tmobile's main problem is network coverage (around San Francisco it's quite bad) ... But its policies and customer service are quite reasonable. From what I gather, at&t has just as bad network coverage but doesn't like you to tether and charges a lot more. To get measurably better service one needs sprint or verizon, which charge even more than at&t
- eli 17y agoSupposedly they're starting to roll out HSPA+ now, which ain't too shabby
- eli 17y agoGoogle Voice is actually not VoIP. At least not on your end. It's basically just a slick interface to a long distance calling card. That said, VoIP is surely coming to cell carriers. The FCC has already indicated that it isn't happy with user agreements from e.g. Verizon that restrict what applications you can run on their network.
- tghw 17y agoFrom the article: "Google will push full VOIP usage on these, meaning no voice/sms plans needed at any carrier. Voice calls will go through Google Voice on Data SIM cards and will provide unlimited free voice calling. And SMS is replaced by unlimited free Gtalk." No one said Google Voice is only VOIP. I have it, I use it for non-VOIP calls. The article just says they're planning on doing all of the voice calls over IP. Considering there aren't data carriers that have affordable unlimited free calling, that's the only way you could get "unlimited free voice calling".
- eli 17y agoThe article is wrong.
- tghw 17y agoDo you have sources? Specifically, they're saying you don't need a voice plan at all, just data, so they'd be using only VOIP, which Google Voice supports. No where are they saying that GV is only VOIP.
- grandalf 17y agobut GV is not the google phone, right? So fine you can use google voice on your old phone, but this is a separate fact from the question of whether the google phone uses data/voip for voice calls.
- stanleydrew 17y ago
- jonknee 17y agoT-Mobile already does this somewhat--you can switch between WiFi/VOIP and the mobile network. UMA is great. http://support.t-mobile.com/doc/tm23449.xml http://support.t-mobile.com/doc/tm23449.xml
- tghw 17y agoCan you actually use VOIP over their network, or just over WiFi?
- blhack 17y agoI think it's either voip over wifi or voice of cellphone network. What it sounds like to me is that this phone has an 802.11 chip in it and can be used over a data network. The bit about not needing a wireless carrier seems to suggest that.
- jonknee 17y agoNot that I know of. But thanks to a smaller 3G network footprint T-Mobile is being pretty scrappy with the WiFi. Not a bad play as that can cover you at home and work. As AT&T has shown, you probably don't want to be making calls over the 3G network anytime soon.
- cliff 17y agoSo, T-Mobile is pretty bad at explaining all this, and majorly screwed up branding and markering. T-Mobile has two related but different services, which have been called T-Mobile @Home, and T-Mobile HotSpot @Home (now called wifi calling). @home is a home-phone replacement service, which comes UMA-equipped with a POTS phone plug for you to plug a phone into. HotSpot @Home is actually the service the parent is referring to, which can be considered 'femtocell using wifi'. The way it works is -- your phone needs to connect to T-Mobile's GSM core network one way or another. Normally it connects over the mobile network, but UMA-equipped phones can connect via a VPN (IPsec) connection to T-Mobile. Once connected it speaks the same GSM language as it would speak over the air, so everything works, voicemail, phone calls, text messages, etc. UMA is actually pretty awesome -- it can hand-off midcall back and forth between wifi and the cell network, unlike AT&T's femtocell solution. Another HUGE hidden feature: As long as you can connect over wifi, your phone can connect to T-Mobile's network and send/receive calls, text messages, everything, using home area rates. Anywhere in the world. Billing over UMA works just like connecting to the cell network when you're at home.. so if you have unlimited at home you get unlimited UMA, or if you have 500 minutes you get the same 500 minutes. This works on ANY wifi network, not just T-Mobile's routers. T-Mobile's Hotspot network of Wifi routers is specially configured to let UMA-equipped phones connect to T-Mobile's GSM core without having to pay. In summary, T-Mobile's UMA service is awesome, but T-Mobile doesn't seem to be able to tell the world how awesome it is. Sidenote: I used to work for HTC, and I kept trying to convince everyone of how important UMA is. It's a technologically superior solution to femtocells, but for some reason femtocells seem to be 'winning'. They are slightly easier to explain (a miniature cell phone tower!), but they actually really suck in comparison to UMA. It's tragic to see it happen.
- ilamont 17y agoThis is an unconfirmed rumor. It looks like it was sourced from a semi-anonymous comment on another blog post. More important question: If this product is for real, and it takes off, are Google's partner carriers prepared to deal with the surge in traffic?
- eli 17y ago...according to a rumor posted in a comment on another blog. I'd say there's basically no chance of this being accurate. Otherwise, I'd buy a case of phones and resell them for parts. They surely cost at least $300 to produce just in parts.
- ynniv 17y agoI'd say there's basically no chance of this being accurate. Otherwise, I'd buy a case of phones and resell them for parts. They surely cost at least $300 to produce just in parts. Hmm, the iPhone 3GS teardown is only supposed to be ~ $175. I haven't seen any reason to suspect that the Nexus One is more expensive hardware. Not to mention that whoever posted this clearly doesn't understand Google Voice (hint: it's not a VoIP endpoint) Sure it is - you just use POTS to access it right now. I wouldn't get too caught up in product details, when there is no technical reason to prevent it.
- smokey_the_bear 17y agoAnd Google just bought Gizmo, which is a Voip endpoint. It already had some Google Voice integration, presumably it'll have more when they relaunch.
- psranga 17y agoSounds pretty believable and reasonable to me (except for launch date). Do you have further info on why the phone will cost about $300 to build? In comparison, the iPhone 3GS allegedly has BOM of $178. http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-Carries-178-96-BOM-and-Manufacturing-Cost-iSuppli-Teardown-Reveals.aspx http://www.isuppli.com/News/Pages/iPhone-3G-S-Carries-178-96... Curious here: who would buy the "parts"? It'll cost you a lot just to disassemble the phone.
- eli 17y agoI don't put a ton of faith in iSuppli, but regardless my point is that it is unlikely anyone would sell a device at a loss--and $99 would surely be a loss, yes?--without any obvious way to recoup that money.
- brown9-2 17y agoThe only thing anyone knows for sure is that Google handed out a demo phone to it's employees last week. Every other part of this story is pure conjecture, speculation, and anonymous sources. I think the Internet is setting itself up for a huge disappointment here.
- cmgarcia 17y agoI couldn't agree more. I was stupefied when I saw this headline on HN.
- mortenjorck 17y agoStill, the headline is only six characters from the truth. Prefix "Rumor:"
- brown9-2 17y agoBut isn't that the point? How valuable is it to discuss rumors? I heard a rumor last week that Microsoft is going to buy Apple. Should we spend dozens of articles talking about it? I heard another rumor that the movie Avatar is a secret communist plot to take over the world. Is that worth 10 articles too? Also I'm not sure if someone edited "Rumor:" out of the title but it is currently neither in the HN title or the Reuters article.
- andrew1 17y agoI guess the interest in and plausibility of the rumor will govern how much it is discussed. If the rumor being true will affect people (say iPhone developers) then it seems natural that people would want to discuss the likelihood of the rumor and what the consequences of it will be.
- Eliezer 17y agoMy reaction was "This sounds way too good to be true."
- cbetz 17y agoIf this is really true, I will consider ebaying my droid, coughing up the $150 cancellation fee and saying goodbye to Verizon forever. The U.S. badly needs an open (i.e. European-style) cell phone market. Google has (hopefully) realized this and is doing something about it.
- davidw 17y agoI wonder if these will work in Europe. If so, I'll get someone to ship me one soonest... that's a decent price for an unlocked Android phone, which I've been wanting for a while.
- rsclarke 17y agoThe article on [1] rumours pricing, costing €20 per month for roaming on HSDPA. One just has to wait until it is released to find out I guess, but I too look forward to seeing the device being launched in Europe/UK. [1] http://www.androidguys.com/2009/12/14/reuters-nexus-one-available-directly-through-google-website-january-5/ http://www.androidguys.com/2009/12/14/reuters-nexus-one-avai...
- stanleydrew 17y agoI know one Google employee who has done exactly that already.
- eob 17y agoSeeing this kind of rumor posted to HN always makes me wonder if it has jumped the shark.
- ax0n 17y agoWould you sell your privacy for a bargain on a phone? I think I might be tempted to. Sheesh.
- dschobel 17y agois there something specifically wrong with Android phones vs other platforms or is that another tired reference to the Schmidt quote?
- alex_c 17y agoI don't know about wrong, per se, but Android phones are absolutely tied to your Google account. Doesn't have to be your MAIN Google account, of course, but still.
- dschobel 17y agoSure, to the extent you want to access google services. But isn't that a given? My desktop is tied to my google account to the same extent that I choose to use google search and email.
- alex_c 17y agoNo, to the extent where the first step in booting up your Android phone for the first time is filling in your Google account information (at least on the HTC Dream I tried). It's closer to Windows asking you for your MSN or Live or whatever login the first time you boot it up.
- ax0n 17y agoAnd here it is. I have a specific account for only my GVoice. It would, rest assured, be tied to that one. Not much else happens on that account.
- ax0n 17y agoI love Google. I use Google. And I would have said the exact same thing two years ago. At least Schmidt came out and eventually said what pretty much every company that has shareholders stands for. Ergo, this is not a tired reference to anything, really. It just so happens that Google by their very nature already knows a lot more about me than my current provider (vzw) will ever know. And using a phone on their service will increase Google's knowledge that much more. I'm honestly not much a smart-phone person. I was an early adopter (Windows CE phones) and ever since then, it's given me a bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Smart-phones have not changed much, really. At their core, most are not as good at being a phone as some of their less-snazzy counterparts. That was my original gripe. What has changed: ubiquity of mobile-friendly content and increased bandwidth to handsets. Now it doesn't matter much. Smart-phone users are more likely to use their devices for everything BUT talking on the phone. At any rate, I think the fact that android ties to a google account is a bit of a privacy fail, but IIRC Sidekick does the same thing, roughly (though not to Google). Then the fact that by default the calls will go through GVoice means that Google absolutely knows everyone you call, everyone that calls you, every SMS/MMS. The privacy implications of that are similar to Google setting up its own high-performance DNS (that's been hashed over in a few threads here on YC as well, poke around). Still, with all that... I'm kinda lusting for this gadget.
- jbarciauskas 17y agoFirst hint this is total bunk: There is no prepaid $29 data plan on AT&T. The Pick Your Plan menu includes a $19.99 100MB data option, thats the maximum prepaid data option. On T-Mobile, the internet-only postpaid plan starts at $29.99 for 200MB and $39.99 for unlimited data. I doubt the prepaid plan is CHEAPER, if it even exists (and I couldn't find it) and I don't think the carriers will be creating new plans just for this phone that isn't even being sold through them (in the scenario described).
- cschep 17y agoAny AT&T users just ready for something different? I love my iPhone, but I got an original one so I've had the same experience for three years now. I might pick this up if it's compatible with AT&T's network, just to see the other side of the coin.
- sown 17y agoThat just sounds too good to be true, especially the data plan situation.
- waterlesscloud 17y agoThe only way this even sort of makes sense is if Google's primary goal is to force a dramatic drop in cellular data plans. A cheap, desirable phone that's not locked in to a carrier via a contract could, potentially, force intense competition on rates. The phone is removed from the equation when selecting a carrier, and consumers can change carriers on a whim with no penalty. Service has to improve and prices have to drop. I don't know though. That looks a little too big picture for an actual business strategy.
- yardie 17y agoProblem is you can already by phones without contracts and carriers are in no rush to negotiate to lower prices. If intense competition you mean 20 carriers, I agree. But most countries have 1-3 carriers. And most haven't moved on price at all. They might add features and bandwidth, but rarely do you get a price break.
- michaelkeenan 17y agoI will bet 2:1 odds that Google will not sell the phone for $99 to people with old Google accounts. I'll put up USD$100 (against your $33), payment to be made by donation to the winner's favorite charity, proof by forwarding the email receipt. Reply to this comment or see my contact details on my user page to take up the offer and work out the details. Edit: changed from 2:1 odds to 3:1 odds (edit 2: the original edit changed the other side's amount from $50 to $33, though as jfoutz pointed out I'm not thinking of ratios correctly, so I've changed the ratio back to 2:1 and left the $33 as $33). Edit 3: thanks kw_ for taking the bet! For the record, the main reason I think I'll win is because the iPhone reportedly costs $179 to make[1], I'm assuming the cost of the Google Phone will be similar, and I don't see it making sense for Google to sell it at a loss. I choose the charity Village Outreach, because it is the top-rated charity at the charity-effectiveness-judging organization GiveWell[2]. [1]http://9to5mac.com/gigom-who-rich-iPhone-34040 http://9to5mac.com/gigom-who-rich-iPhone-34040 [2]http://www.givewell.net/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.net/charities/top-charities
- smokey_the_bear 17y agoI'm not the betting type, but I could see why Google might do this. A big strength of the iphone as a app buying platform is that everyone already has a payment method set up, so you just have to click a button to buy. Google could require people to buy the phones with Google Payments, then they'd automatically have a "spend money" button hooked up, ready to buy apps and whatever else.
- jfoutz 17y agoodds are a tough way to present a wager. I often mistake the syntax. you had it right the first time ;) the : implies the inclusive form 3:1, 3 out of 4 trials in your favor vs 1 out of 4 trials in my favor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odds Also, no bet, but good luck to you and your charity.
- kw_ 17y agoI'll take up your bet. Emailing details.
- whalesalad 17y agoThe Dream is the G1, it was never known as the Dream. It was known as the Dragon/Passion and now Nexus One.
- eli 17y agoI'm not sure I approve of changing what a HN story links to after there is already discussion related to the old link.
- furyg3 17y agoReally? I kind of like a thread full of 'bah, it'll never happen' nay-sayers being immediately contradicted by the link they're commenting on.
- stanleydrew 17y agoThe original article is here: http://www.androidguys.com/2009/12/14/reuters-nexus-one-available-directly-through-google-website-january-5/ http://www.androidguys.com/2009/12/14/reuters-nexus-one-avai...
- andreyf 17y agoAgreed. I'd much rather have a separate discussion now that the news is "official".
- eli 17y agoIt's not that the news is more official, it's that the original link was speculating about a $99 unsubsidized price, which is pretty exceptional for a smartphone. That's not in the article at all.
- peterwwillis 17y agoAndroid Central addresses the rumor status of this story: http://www.androidcentral.com/getting-little-something-our-chest-re-nexus-one http://www.androidcentral.com/getting-little-something-our-c... * There is no "Google Phone." * HTC, not Google, is the manufacturer. * Currently, no carriers have been announced. * We don't know if it will be available for purchase by the general public. * We don't know when the Nexus One may be made available for sale. * We don't know what it will cost. * The Nexus One, for all intents and purposes, has the basic features of today's high-end smartphones. More hype-hate here: http://forum.androidcentral.com/htc-nexus-one-opus-one/4182-too-much-hype.html http://forum.androidcentral.com/htc-nexus-one-opus-one/4182-... And Droid already has android 2.1 ported to it: http://www.androidcentral.com/android-21-ported-motorola-droid http://www.androidcentral.com/android-21-ported-motorola-dro...
- dminor 17y agoSo it's an HTC phone built with Google's input, will be carried on T-Mobile, and Google sells an unlocked version. The G1 could be described in exactly these terms!