Blogs and Stories
Google's Better iPhone
Mario Tama / Getty Images
Today’s Google-Verizon marriage means feature-rich phones will now be available on the top wireless network—and spells the end, writes Douglas Rushkoff, of Apple’s dominance.
I feel a large dose of schadenfreude whenever iPhone users get dropped in the middle of their calls with me. Somehow, the failings of the overtaxed AT&T network (through which all iPhones must connect) make me feel better about staying with a cheaper, less feature-rich phone on a more reliable network.
If today’s announcement of a Google-Verizon partnership plays out as planned, that's a tradeoff we won't have to make anymore.
That's right: The biggest and most notoriously closed wireless carrier on Earth is partnering with the biggest and most open Internet company ever, to bring Google's new Android phone platform to users who want a truly expandable smart phone, yet still require a robust and dependable carrier.
Verizon has learned the most important lesson for a technology company: The easiest way to make money is simply to do something really well.
I first played with an Android about a year ago, when handset manufacturer HTC gave me a demo unit of the first Google phone to hit the market. The phone and software were very cool. Problem was, I couldn't get a signal in my neighborhood from the phone's exclusive carrier, T-Mobile—and it ended up being the first free handset I actually sent back before the demo contract had expired.
By partnering with Verizon, Google guarantees its Android system will be unencumbered by such networking issues, and capable of serving the kinds of enterprise and corporate customers who purchase a few thousand contracts at a time for their employees or sales forces.
The Google-Verizon marriage is big news, not least of which because it throws a tag team into the ring with greater technological and financial reach than its adversaries, Apple and AT&T. It's an interesting and counterintuitive matchup. Apple is offering the highly branded, very advertised, closed, and consumer-ready phone operating system, tied to an Apple-produced device (the iPhone) through an exclusive arrangement with AT&T. Google, on the other hand, is giving away a phone operating system to any handset manufacturer who chooses to use it, and requiring its network partners to utilize open standards when implementing it.
For Google, those open standards mean handsets capable of using Google's latest and greatest potential killer apps, such as Google Voice—a free suite of phone applications so useful they threaten to make many aspects of pay telephony obsolete. That's why Apple famously banned the application from its iPhone store.
For Verizon, however, it means the final step in a reversal of policy. Remember, this is the same phone company that has successfully leveraged its "best network" status to offer the most limiting software and expensive contracts in the industry. Verizon's versions of handsets often lacked basic features—like file exchange or emailing photos—because the company wanted to sell these services itself.
Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam began to see the error of his ways in 2007, when he realized that his company's take-no-prisoners policy was fine with big businesses (who don't like employees using unauthorized applications, anyway) but an increasingly tough sell to regular users demanding more flexibility from their cellphones. After visiting Europe and Asia, and seeing how freely a cellphone culture can actually work, McAdams decided to adopt an "open-access" policy right alongside its closed one.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Murdoch to Google: Search This
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
Google Declares War on Facebook
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
Google's Velvet Rope
Douglas Rushkoff, a professor of media studies at The New School University and producer and correspondent for the PBS Frontline Digital Nation project, is the author of numerous books, including Cyberia, ScreenAgers, Media Virus, and, most recently, Life Inc., released this month by Random House.
As a tech professional working in an OS X environment, I'd say Apple has the edge on their established market because of ease of use and reluctance to change. (VHS Betamax anyone?)
Android is awesome, and I welcome the competition in the marketplace, but most current users aren't going to switch... they are going to hold their breath until the AT&T exclusivity ends and Apple allows another crappy U.S. partner in.
There are decent phones on better networks, we know that... but we are already hooked on the iPhone, the apps an the easy sync with iTunes.
If I was Google, I'd leverage Google Business Apps and give new Android phone users a year of Premium to get them hooked. They would get Postini spam protection, 50 gigs of space, a calendar and contact database that syncs with their new phone right out of the box. That's a better MobileMe for less.
Verizon sales people could have customers set up with a personalized domain and account in 10 minutes.
What do you know, someone working in the apple world believes they will hold the competitive edge......just wait and see what happens because the only "ease" that you refer to is itunes, and that will no doubt works it's way onto Androids.
but, do they belong to the Chamber of Commerce?
I've had "questionable" customer service
experiences in the past with AT&T,
and won't even consider the I-Phone at this time.
Any chance cost effective quality competition
would break an AT&T monopolistic stranglehold on the I-Phone,
opening it up to other carriers ?
Are exclusivity contracts between
one carrier and one phone model so unbreakable ?
It's a turnoff to many consumers.
Ah, yet another iPhone killer... I grow weary of these. Exclusivity contracts are a huge turn off, but what the iPhone has going for it far outweigh the occasional connectivity issues (personally I can't remember the last time I was dropped from a call, the 3G service area could definitely use an upgrade though). One of my coworkers put it best when he said something along the lines of "Apple is for people who like Linux but would like it to run more solidly and who don't like to search for and download new drivers all the time."
Good luck Android. The simple fact that the iPhone remains the yardstick that consumer smart phones are judged against shows how big of a hill they have to climb.
Why do I get the feeling Mr. Rushkoff has "Apple" Envy,
and should I take this article with a grain of salt ?
A few of his previous articles about Apple and it's users don't seem exactly "glowing."
Why would articles about apple be glowing? Apple is the AOL of hardware, the idiot-proof pc. And who do we build idiot-proof things for? Oh yeah, idiots... The same things that keep one person from screwing their device up and needing a fix keep someone else from making it work better for them. Apples are designed to be one size fits all. Just like straight jackets.
Matt572, you have never used an Apple device, haven't you...
@Matt572 - Macs are only "idiot-proof" in that you can do everything you need to do out of the box. And also that they don't get as many viruses (though I know that's really only because of their smaller market share, no one goes after them). I think that the GUI is actually a little less intuitive than Windows for a beginner - OSX is more list-driven, while Windows is a little more task driven. With the Mac, you have a list of applications in the Dock. With Windows, you have a start button. With OSX, you have the Preferences Pane with a list of options. With Windows, you have something more intuitive.
As someone who's had a Mac for two years now, I find that power users (not a Terminal kind of power user, just someone who does a lot of work on their computer) can get a faster workflow going on a Mac. So it's not just one size fits all - I've done plenty of customization.
Ahimsa, have you got excellent grammar... and I'm posting from an Ipod touch (now running linux, I admit I haven't used Mac software extensively in a few years.)
"If today's announcement of a Google-Verizon partnership plays out as planned, that's a trade-off we won't have to make anymore."
The history of this industry is littered with failed partnerships and neither Verizon or Google have a track record in this area. You are making a huge assumption here.
Verizon has no track record of working in a partnership?
Weren't they formed by one of the largest mergers ever in US business history?
Apple's biggest mistake was getting into bed with AT&T. I am a huge Apple fan, but AT&T is an awful company with miserable customer service and coverage. I was praying Apple would end their exclusive contract with them, hopefully it will happen sooner than later.
I disagree. Remember the "old days", when companies like Verizon and TMobile would dictate to mobile manufacturers what hardware and software would go into each device and how the device's software would function? It's only because of Apple and Cingular's (now AT&T) willingness to throw this model out the window that we have decent choices for mobile phones. Apple and AT&T should be thanked, as they are the reason we have the Android platform with the MyTouch and G1 and the Palm Pre.
Mr. Rushkoff lacks a basic understanding of our lackluster mobile internet infrastructure that all mobile companies suffer from. The only reason Verizon hasn't shown its cracks is because the devices they have green-lighted thus far have sucked. Wait until an Android phone is picked up by a few hundred thousand people and sucking up the bandwidth. I'll be glad to celebrate Mr. Rushkoff's pains with a bit of schadenfreude myself.
The idea that Verizon wants to marginalize itself and become a commodity mobile internet and voice pipe is laughable. You're drinking the VZW kool-aid, Doug. They aren't willing to give up the additional ARPU service add-ons like VZNavigator would bring them.
I work in the industry the above is not quite true. Only Apple has been able to toss 'the 'old model' aside because of their special position.
You realize that the reason AT&T's network is suffering is because internet usage for the iPhone set is nearly 10 times that of its nearest competitor phone. Verizon only has a stable network because they foster mobile devices that discourage mobile internet usage. If usage goes up, network quality and stability goes down.
This is why I hate when journalists try to act like technologists.
Yeah, but isn't Verizon's network bigger? That's what their ads say at least. And does more coverage = more bandwidth available?
Not true. I too like Macs better and love my Iphone. And I get it that the Iphone has put additional stress on the AT&T network. However, AT&T was terrible before the Iphone. In my town of approximately 350,000 we have never been able to get cell service in the downtown buildings. It's kind of funny-- you get to know the AT&T customers because they are the ones out on the street with their mobile phones trying to get a signal. Still, I love the Iphone.
The cell industry is where the landline business was when Carterphone came along and challenged ... AT & T.
The Apple business model is terrible for the user as they control everything their product does.
The communications networks should be like an electrical system with the user free to plug in anything they wish to or, in the case of cell phones, use any certified product that conforms to regulator specifications.
Google should be congratulated on breaking up these technological dictators.
I, for one, am quite ecstatic at the news. I think what a lot of you naysayers don't realize is that there is actually a population who is quite anti-Apple but for the most part deals with it, as there is no reasonable alternative. If anything, hopefully this will open the market for smart phones.
Verizon has fios. I think it'll be okay.
LOL, Anti-Apple. funny.
PC's are crap, but who would be anti-PC?
Some people have too much time, or are in desperate need for something to hate.
Ease up, it is just a phone that you don't have to buy if you don't like it.
Anti-Apple, but you "deal with it" because there's no alternative? Last time I looked, Apple was thrilled to be gaining a 10% market share in PCs.
In the smart phone market, I can count at least two dozen off the top of my head that a person can buy if he or she doesn't like the iPhone -- in fact, has to buy if he or she isn't on AT&T. Sounds like the market is pretty open already.
Douglas, you are smoking some serious crack rock.
No offense, but I don't think you understand how normal people think. Yes, you would theoretically be right if the world were full of mouth breathing tech nerds like you, but we live in a world of singing wall mounted bass and microwavable breakfast sausages wrapped in pancake batter. When it comes to your average person, style will always beat the living shit out of substance, hands down. Style is where Apple excels. I myself am part of the so-called iPod generation, for example. They've elevated the iPhone from more than just a smart phone, but a status symbol. Despite terrible word of mouth, scathing consumer reviews, and endless attacks from their competitors, Apple and AT&T have them lined up out the door, and they'll do it again next year. Unless this phone can suck your dick, it will be a blip on the radar, next to the HTC Hero, The G1, The Pre, and all the other phones that likely wouldn't exist if not for the phenomenal success Apple has and will continue to enjoy with their iPhone.
Sent from my iPhone
couldn't have said it better myself!
What if you have a pussy?
1) Verizon will slow to a crawl if the Google Android platform is successful. 3G data requirements would place a severe constraint on any system. The AT&T system has been dogged by the iPhone data hog. The same would be applicable to Verizon.
2) Microsoft is the odd man out. AT&T has hooked up with Apple and OS/X. Verizon has hooked up with Google. Microsoft has T-Mobile.
3) Microsoft's software ability has been unsuccessful in cracking the Apple dominance in hardware elegance and usability. There is severe doubt Google's software abilities could overcome Apple's excellence in hardware and usability.
4) Google makes its money in paid search. There are limits to growth in that business as the advertising market has retrenched. The Google/Verizon hookup will generate more usage on the Verizon network. But, how does Google make money on Android if it is giving it away for nearly nothing. And does Verizon have to spend tens of billions to upgrade its system to handle the added 3G data requests.
4) Smart phones are okay today, but in 5-10 years they will be unbelievable in their capabilities. Apple will be there.
So since the Android's going to be a iPhone killer that must be an Android featured in the picture with this article. Oh, wait. It's not. That's an iPhone, isn't it?
I'll believe it when I see it work.
Until then, this is just a copy of a very innovative product and platform that came out years ago; it is feeding off somebody else's technological revolution. As far as I know, Apple's products are beaten only in price by competitors, not in quality of performance or user experience. AT&T sucks, not the iPhone.
"partnering with the biggest and most open Internet company ever"
You need to do more research on this assumption (ironically Google search can help out here). Let me get you started. There is so much to this story, will show itself over time I'm sure.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/google_android_developers_reacti on/
And what's to prevent Verizon's network from being overloaded by lots of users using its broadband pipes? It brought AT&T to its knees what's to prevent that from happening to VZW?
I love the fact that this is such vaporware that you had to use a photo of the iPhone instead. Wake me up when this thing really happens.
I'm surprised they didn't use an Android phone - or even Motorola's unreleased one - instead. But I guess they know that the way to get people to read the article is by making it appeal to (or disturb) iPhone users.
People tend to criticize Apple a lot for marrying the hardware to the software and keeping the whole system closed when it comes to the iPhone, but that's all that Apple has ever successfully done. OSX and Apple hardware is the same way, and it always has been, save for a few blips in the 90s (when Apple was close to bankruptcy, mind you).
People love to scorn this model, but at the end of the day, Apple was one of the first microcomputer companies, and they're still around. Tandy, Commodore, Atari, TI, Amiga, even freaking IBM - all of them made PCs and now either the companies are dead or they make something else. Apple is the only one that's made it, and their unique model has to have something to do with it.
On the flip side, though, it is interesting to note that the rise of PCs and Microsoft's dominance is attributed to the fact that IBM created a hardware platform that enabled 3rd-party development, and the rise of Microsoft's MS-DOS caused people to develop hardware that would work with it, because it was really the first viable operating system that wasn't married to hardware. PC clones took over the market with MS-DOS and then Windows at the forefront, and it's shaped the market landscape ever since.
The cell phone industry hasn't had this phenomenon happen yet. Phones come in different shapes and sizes with many different purposes in mind, so it's hard to find something that everyone can latch onto, much like the computers of the 80s. But the Android platform is ultimately more viable for large market share than Apple's, and I do expect Android (or something similar) to eventually dominate the market. But, Apple will never die, because their model promotes a total product that will always be just a little more slick.
Change Apple for Acorn and this writer's the Glenn Beck of tech. It's easy to target the manufacturer, but the carriers have always been the problem in terms of innovation. It's not the phone makers who downplayed WiFi. A better package is a good thing and you can thank Apple for the most recent progress. Awww.
A lot of great points by both sides in here but some of you need to take a reading comprehension class. I really don't know anybody who would say that the iPhone sucks. There are a lot that don't like AT&T and there are a lot of people that don't like how some apps are being turned away. But most like the UI and just the overall fit and finish of the iPhone. The reason this is huge news is that this is a real Henry Ford moment for the tech industry. Ford didn't invent the car but he made it possible for the masses to get their hands on one. People who say they just need a phone to make calls will consider an Android phone because their carrier now has a phone like the iPhone and it looks pretty simple to use. Now the Apple fan boys will tell you it looks nothing like the iPhone but to the average phone customer it does. The term iPhone killer is way over used. Let's just say that the field just got more level. Slightly level or dead flat level remains to be seen.
I think this "Apple is a closed system, and that sucks" mantra is a bit overblown, when it comes to real-world users. It sounds fine in theory, but the reality is that Apple's "closed" system works so well that many users simply don't care that Apple controls it. Yes, they turn down interesting apps; yes, the exclusive relationship with AT&T means that network reliability can be dodgy at times. But at the end of the day, the iTunes / iPhone / App Store product is so far ahead of anything in its class that you don't have to be a fanboy to use it and love it. A more level playing field is terrific, but this article relies on some theoretical assumptions that don't tend to play out in the actual marketplace. A little less speculation, and a little more attention to real-world usage, might help the writer get his act together.
Speculation as opposed to real-world use is what Rushkoff does. He's one of those strivers-to-be-Malcolm-Gladwell who are incredibly convincing to people whose life experience consists of looking at computer screens and getting unusual haircuts.
Doesn't this hegemony of media distribution bother you - or at least give you a twinge?
I'm locked into Verizon until next May. I have an iPod Touch and love it. I had one of the WINDOZE handhelds before the Blackberry I have now, and I liked a lot of it. The iPod is a great tool for me, especially the language dictionaries. I also like the WiFi that my daughter's iPhone has.
ATT has poor coverage in the boonies where I live, so I'm not sure what I'll do next May.
From the blurb for Rushkoff's new book: "From erection to conception, school admission to finding a spouse, there are products and professionals to fill in where family and community have failed us. Human beings and corporations have traded places, and in the process, life itself has been reduced in its complexity, unpredictability, and intrinsic value."
This sounds to me like a very smart idiot -- the kind of person who can think and talk but whose grasp of actual history and human needs and human behavior is based on a lot of TV and standing at the window looking down on The Masses, and very little actual conscious life experience. Those two sentences above are so ridiculous that they scarcely bear analysis.
Authors typically don't write their own blurbs.
Why these random, unsolicited, ad hominem attacks of Rushkoff? There are numerous other blogs you could spend your time at whose creators write things you might not feel so seethingly antipathetic toward. Or is your sole purpose to try to knock down well-established authors? It seems that way, given that you don't offer anything constructive in place of the negative qualities you attribute to Rushkoff. Why waste your energy, and our time, that way?
Google phones are crap. Get a BlackBerry, it's the only thing you can depend on. If you want fart applications, or need to really take your music everyone, then try an iPhone. Oh, and by the way, BlackBerry very handily outsells iPhone every quarter. Android sales are not even on the radar. Even Nokia trounces them in North America. You Americans are the most self-obsessed people on the planet, yes, more so than the French. Most of the 'innovations' of the iPhone were ripped off and assembled from other products. Take away people's iPhones and they can be cranky, take away their BlackBerry's and they are useless.
Self-obsessed, yes. Mostly that means we don't care what follows "You Americans..." Don't worry, momma, we'll get ours!
I wish all of the manufacturers all of the luck in this, and hope they agree on some open standards for browsing, etc. For what it's worth, I sent my iPhone back after I saw the Exchange solution... very limited, and unfortunately insufficient for the way I use Outlook Exchange. I left Windows Mobile, and went to Blackberry. I hope RIM figures out the Storm by adding a slide-out keyboard... for many of us, THAT would be the ultimate iPhone killer. A real Bberry with a full screen.
...and what kind of killjoy *woouldn't* enjoy a fart application? Or at least a Star Wars lightsaber sound effects shwoosh!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.