Microsoft called the store "Skymarket" in the now-removed job posting, an unfortunate name which reminds us of 2004 flop Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow), and said the store will open sometime in 2009. There were few more details, mostly because it would be the new hire's responsibility to define "the product offering, pricing, business model and policies that will make the Windows Mobile marketplace 'the place to be' for developers wishing to distribute and monetize their Windows Mobile applications."

Publisher Hal Goldstein says that despite 20 million Windows Mobile phones sold in the past year, there's not enough of an ad market for Windows Mobile. Microsoft and cell-phone companies aren't willing to spend on ads in the mag. Moreover, he says, today's smartphone makers aren't like the old PDA companies — think HP — who were willing to bundle a magazine with their products. Goldstein has obviously sniffed out an iPhone accessories ad market to replace his no-longer-subsidized Pocket PC coverage.

I recently purchased the HTC Dash, right before the California Supreme Court struck down as illegal early contract termination fees — otherwise, I might have gone and signed up for an iPhone myself. But I love the Dash since it, too, has real buttons and is slim enough not to disrupt the hang of a jacket. Even at over a year old (which is about 35 in Hollywood actress years), it's still selling well despite two major drawbacks: Windows Mobile and T-Mobile.

Similarly, the iPhone is locked to Apple and AT&T. Want an application? You'll have to buy it from the App Store via iTunes. Want a different carrier? Tough noogies. Apple didn't so much break the lock between handset manufacturers and carriers as much as they inserted themselves as a third gatekeeper. While HTC has close ties to Microsoft — its U.S. offices are based in Seattle, and veteran Windows Mobile developers work at the company — the phone maker won't be leaving Microsoft country. It's just applying for dual citizenship in Mountain View.

Dream buyers will be locked to buying T-Mobile voice and data plans, regardless. While customers wait, the current release is likely off in Germany somewhere being larded up with crappy default applications from Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile's parent, which clings to a desperate Teutonic hope you might be dumb enough to continue using its T-Zones wireless services, baked into every T-Mobile phone.

Google's and Apple's entry into wireless just means that lock-in is getting extended from our phones to the desktop. Getting Windows Mobile to sync with my iTunes on my MacBook and Google Calendar and email was a project that took an entire evening. It still doesn't work over Bluetooth or Wi-Fi. My father, who took one look at my phone after losing his own and bought one, had no difficulty synching his Outlook contacts and Hotmail account with his Windows PC. Any bets on how easy it will be to sync a phone running Android with Yahoo Mail or iTunes?

So if you dream of buying a handset based on its hardware features, then picking an operating system to run on it, and then choosing a wireless carrier which works well in your neighborhood, keep dreaming. Google would rather join the wireless club, and lock you into its own set of services. The Googlephone promised to set us free, and the Dream looks beautiful — but it's just another cell phone.

• This year we will sell nearly 20 million [Windows Mobile] licenses. We sold more in the previous four quarters than RIM, and growth was greater than Apple’s iPhone.
• We give customers nearly 150 different phone choices — phones with full keyboards, touch screens, rich email, picture, music experiences, GPS, 3+ megapixel cameras, and voice activation. Features other operating systems have been slow to deliver.
• Customers can send instant messages or update their calendars in Brazil, Belgium, India, Italy.
• We deliver more than 40 different phones that run at 3G speeds, at prices that meet a range of customer needs.
• Windows Mobile customers have over 18,000 applications.
• Competitors are announcing upgrades we delivered to customers years ago.

Though this could be attributed to the ease of use of the iPhone's browser, it is still significant. A product on the market less than 6 months is used to browse the Web 50 percent more than Windows Mobile which has been around for years. Look for holiday iPhone sales numbers to be announced at Macworld San Francisco in January — and then we'll find out just how well the iPhone really sold. Until then, browser numbers serve as a good proxy for telling us how much it's used. (Photo by AP/Paul Sakuma)

No. Decidedly not. How do I know this? Just ask Andy Rubin, Google's director of mobile platforms:

We recognize that many among the multitude of mobile users around the world do not and may never have an Android-based phone. Our goals must be independent of device or even platform. For this reason, Android will complement, but not replace, our longstanding mobile strategy of developing useful and compelling mobile services and driving adoption of these products through partnerships with handset manufacturers and mobile operators around the world.

As for a Google OS? Unlike PC operating systems, cell-phone software is already dirt cheap. Handset makers pay $8 to $15 for Windows Mobile, and as little as $2.50 a phone for Symbian, the Nokia-controlled OS. As a percentage of a cell phone's cost, that's minuscule. So it's not likely that a Google phone OS will make phones noticeably cheaper; if anything, cell-phone makers will use that minor savings to fatten their profit margins.

In short, consumers won't get cheaper phones or better apps. And they won't get a Googlephone, either. Have I mentioned that?

I realize that faithful Valleywag readers are tired of hearing this. But this drum needs beating. Three times — three times! — on its conference call today, mainstream-media reporters asked, "So there's no Googlephone today?" No Googlephone today. No Googlephone ever. There's no money to be made, and believe you me, the Google of today is all about making money.

So why bother? Google wants to be a player in wireless. And without the credible threat of a phone, Google just doesn't have much clout. It's one thing for Google to go around badmouthing Windows Mobile — quite another to offer handset makers a compelling substitute. Google's Android doesn't have to be a moneymaker in its own right — it just has to stop Microsoft from having a profitable cell-phone OS.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with consumers. It's all about Google, and the games people play when they have more money than they know what to do with.

I realize this news is going to traumatize a lot of gadget nerds, especially Gizmodo editor Brian Lam, with whom I've had a running back-and-forth on the Googlephone. I'll save Lam the trouble of writing one of his "Yes, but ..." retorts. Let me nutshell it for you: It's not about the hardware, it's about the operating system and customization and integration with Google's apps. Nonsense.

Here's what it's really about: Fear. Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin got spooked in early 2006 when they heard that Microsoft was putting its Windows Mobile operating system on 90-plus smartphones that year. So they threw a rumored $100 million in Google shareholders' hard-earned cash on a crash Googlephone project.

Cooler heads have prevailed, though. Yes, it's smart for Google to optimize its services for cell phones. But they don't need hardware or software to do that. Nor do they need exclusive deals with carriers, though those might help a bit with distribution.

The Googlephone, however, has worked like a charm in two ways: First a threat. The Googlephone was a useful fiction, a way to scare carriers and phonemakers into cooperating with Google, and spook Microsoft into cutting its licensing fees for Windows Mobile. To perpetuate that fiction, Google apparently went as far as ordering up some prototypes from HTC — an elaborate Potemkin village of gadgets.

Second, the Googlephone functioned as a fantasy. A very useful fantasy. Like the Apple rumor mill, the cottage industry in Googlephone speculation served as free, crowdsourced market research. Gizmodo, Engadget, and the rest spun countless feature wishlists out of Larry and Sergey's phone folly.

Too bad it was all for naught. There is no Googlephone, folks. Move along.

And for those gadget-heads who were taken in by all of this, and are now disappointed, here's a thought: If you think you feel crushed, how do you think Microsoft and the wireless industry will feel once they figure out that Google has played them for the fool?