Now that we all understand that there will be no Googlephone, what are we to make of the laughable "industry initiative" Google has come up with in its place? The most notable thing about it is not who's in the Open Handset Alliance group, but who's out: Microsoft and Nokia. And why are they out? Because they already make cell-phone operating systems. Much has been made of the notion that Google will license its new cell-phone OS, Android, for free. And much has been made of the possibility that Google will introduce compelling new mobile apps. But will either promise amount to much?
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.Translation: Google will keep building mobile versions of its apps — Gmail, YouTube, and the like — for real phones that people actually use today, not the mythical Googlephone, or the handsets Google's partners may release next year. And everyone, not just Googlephone users, will benefit from those apps. Just like I said months ago: You already have a Googlephone. It's in your pocket.
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.








Comments
Theres no Googlephone right now because there is a Googlephone in the future!
I wouldnt be surprised if they came out with Android with no fee for it. Advertising will take care of everything.
But isn't Motorola part of the alliance?
From the WSJ:
"Among the handset makers that signed on to Google's initiative were Taiwan's HTC Corp., Samsung Electronics Co. and Motorola Inc." [online.wsj.com]
Let's start a betting pool on how long to wait for Google antitrust trial.
@LT3: Yes. And your point? I think you may have misread "Microsoft" as "Motorola."
So... what's the difference between Google's ref design and Openmoko.com?
I'm not sure if it's to stop MS or stop Apple, but it doesn't really matter. The trend these days is to launch a product just because your competitor does, regardless of whether or not it's profitable.
Google only has 3 products that have a business model, anyway, so this isn't different from how Google already operates.
appl and goog share BOD members. must be fun in BOD meetings talking abiut the iphone and goog.
@Owen. Oops. My bad. Way to go for my first comment. I'll respectfully await the executioner.
I would not underestimate this. The mere existence of the Googlephone may scare other phone OS developers into opening their phone platforms further, bringing them closer to web-based devices. The further cell phones shift from being proprietary content-delivery devices towards being true mobile web devices, the easier it is for Google to monetize every phone -- regardless of software -- for free.
@LT3: Oh, I axed a few other commenters recently, so I'm feeling benevolent.
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?