The Shrine

Just wanted your guys thoughts on this

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/ ... ource.html

Essentially it would be a free cellphone/Blackberry always connected for free (ad-based for revenue) and allows for chat rooms.

What do you think?

Zeus wrote:Just wanted your guys thoughts on this

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/ ... ource.html

Essentially it would be a free cellphone/Blackberry always connected for free (ad-based for revenue) and allows for chat rooms.

What do you think?

This sounds like they're trying to make an iphone with bad service. How are they going to handle roaming charges?

On the bright side, it will drive the prices down of other services.

Dutch wrote:

Zeus wrote:Just wanted your guys thoughts on this

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/ ... ource.html

Essentially it would be a free cellphone/Blackberry always connected for free (ad-based for revenue) and allows for chat rooms.

What do you think?

This sounds like they're trying to make an iphone with bad service. How are they going to handle roaming charges?

On the bright side, it will drive the prices down of other services.

It'll be Skype-like, so no roaming

Skype? Is that a WiFi calling program?

It's vapour, and I'd bet on it remaining so.

At the risk of sounding fanboyish, nothing Google does is vapor. This is long overdue, since cellphones have constantly been a nightmare with their bundling of the actual cell service. Nobody should be bound to their cell service, and no cell phone should be something that only works on one cell service.

The cellular companies have been getting away with this raping and pillaging for close to 10 years. It's about fucking time that somebody took a stand and invented a better way that was open source.

Seeker, I predict that your assumption about the iPhone will be wrong. People who use iPhone tend to not like the AT&T service that it's tied to. I think Apple will jump on-board, either willingly (by Apple) or forcefully (after people use iPhone's SDK to build a compatible client).

EDIT: BTW, Skype phones are awesome. The only limitation is the need for a WiFi connection. That's a matter of translating the WiFi aspect into cellular and satellete. (We really need to nationalize cellular towers, since cell phones are turning into an utility.)

just to toss in here-- from a security standpoint Skype is fucking psychotic... nobody can still tell us what exactly Skype is doing on the back end... it's taking your mobo's serial number for some reason... it pokes holes in firewalls... god knows what else.

As for google... I'll believe it when I see it, but it could be quite cool.

Requiring a WiFi connection is a gigantic limitation for a phone. If this is what the google phone will be, then I don't think it will be a competitor. Particularly since a lot of other phones already have the capability to do this in addition to having the capability to function on regular cell phone networks. The iPhone is WiFi capable itself.

If a person doesn't want to use AT&T, then they can just unlock their phone and not bother with it.

Dutch wrote:If a person doesn't want to use AT&T, then they can just unlock their phone and not bother with it.

If we're talking about the iPhone here: were it that easy. Unlocking the phone invalidates your warranty and greatly increases your chances of bricking your phone. I'd love for Apple to have some competition, but I'm predicting against the Google phone being it.

Andrew, Killer Bee wrote:

Dutch wrote:If a person doesn't want to use AT&T, then they can just unlock their phone and not bother with it.

If we're talking about the iPhone here: were it that easy. Unlocking the phone invalidates your warranty and greatly increases your chances of bricking your phone. I'd love for Apple to have some competition, but I'm predicting against the Google phone being it.

There's 300,000 people currently using unlocked iphones, and I haven't heard of anyone having difficulties personally. It is also quite a tough device, I am not sure you'll have to worry about using the warranty anyway, it's not an imac =P

As for an iPhone competitor, I too would like to see someone come in, only so Apple and their supporting companies will losen up a bit. Apple themselves really drove down the price of cell phones themselves. A year and a half ago, when the iPhone was still just a dream really, phone prices were insane.

Dutch wrote:As for an iPhone competitor, I too would like to see someone come in, only so Apple and their supporting companies will losen up a bit. Apple themselves really drove down the price of cell phones themselves. A year and a half ago, when the iPhone was still just a dream really, phone prices were insane.

A $600 iPhone drove down the price of a cell phone?! Are you insane?! If nothing else, it told the rest of the world that people are stupid enough to pay that much for a cell phone. That's going to drive UP the price of a cell phone.

Zeus wrote:Essentially it would be a free cellphone/Blackberry always connected for free (ad-based for revenue) and allows for chat rooms.

What do you think?

I think your understanding is wrong. What they've released is a platform, not a phone itself. They're pushing a standard developing environment for cellphones. Right now, different phones have different operating systems, which means software for one won't necessarily work for another, and development will be different. It's in Google's interest for all phones to be able to use the web easily - to use their applications - so they're pushing a standard.

SineSwiper wrote:

Dutch wrote:As for an iPhone competitor, I too would like to see someone come in, only so Apple and their supporting companies will losen up a bit. Apple themselves really drove down the price of cell phones themselves. A year and a half ago, when the iPhone was still just a dream really, phone prices were insane.

A $600 iPhone drove down the price of a cell phone?! Are you insane?! If nothing else, it told the rest of the world that people are stupid enough to pay that much for a cell phone. That's going to drive UP the price of a cell phone.

Can you name another high end handheld device that has launched for under 600 dollars? The only comparable device to the iPhone, really, is the Prada Phone which launched for 900 dollars US a couple of months before the iPhone. Originally it was supposed to launch for $1300, but when the iphone came into the picture they lowered the price. Today the Prada can be had for about $420.

Actually, most of the phones could be acquired much cheaper ($300 range) with a 1 or 2 yr deal. Apple had no such option.

EDIT: BTW, the Nokia E70 has always cost less than the iPhone.

Kupek wrote:

Zeus wrote:Essentially it would be a free cellphone/Blackberry always connected for free (ad-based for revenue) and allows for chat rooms.

What do you think?

I think your understanding is wrong. What they've released is a platform, not a phone itself. They're pushing a standard developing environment for cellphones. Right now, different phones have different operating systems, which means software for one won't necessarily work for another, and development will be different. It's in Google's interest for all phones to be able to use the web easily - to use their applications - so they're pushing a standard.

If we still have to go through telecom providers it's a waste of time. They're the problem.

SineSwiper wrote:Actually, most of the phones could be acquired much cheaper ($300 range) with a 1 or 2 yr deal. Apple had no such option.

EDIT: BTW, the Nokia E70 has always cost less than the iPhone.

Which company offers most phones with a contract deal? I don't think there are any. They usually offer a limited selection of phones which they support. You aren't getting a discount as part of your monthly fee wich you pay over your 1-2 year period is going towards payment of the phone. In addition, usually companies (like Rogers here) will give you a crappy phone, the best thing to do is unlock them and sell them on Ebay to get your money back, and instead buy a good phone. The difference with paying the full price for the iPPhone up front is that you're paying for it all at once instead of over a 1-2 year period.

You brought up a great example. The Nokia E70 is piece of garbage (it has an absolutely wretched interface, it freezes all the time, has long load times, and is terrible at running Java aps) along with all of the rest of Nokia's E-series; also it is not high end, it is medium end. What you should do is sell your E70 and buy something good. The N-series is what you want to be looking at when buying a Nokia. I carry an N93 -which is kind of large but considerably more powerful and overall higher quality than the E70 plus the N93 has a camcorder module- but the N95 is what I would recommend at this point. Still if you have an iPhone and an N95, you can bet your ass you'll be getting far more use out of the iPhone; especially after February.

Zeus wrote:

Kupek wrote:

Zeus wrote:Essentially it would be a free cellphone/Blackberry always connected for free (ad-based for revenue) and allows for chat rooms.

What do you think?

I think your understanding is wrong. What they've released is a platform, not a phone itself. They're pushing a standard developing environment for cellphones. Right now, different phones have different operating systems, which means software for one won't necessarily work for another, and development will be different. It's in Google's interest for all phones to be able to use the web easily - to use their applications - so they're pushing a standard.

If we still have to go through telecom providers it's a waste of time. They're the problem.

The carriers are a huge bottleneck in the US. I believe in Europe, the cellphone makers have more of the power.

Anyway, an interesting business idea would be to combine WiFi and VoiP to replace traditional cellphones. This is probably unbelievably impractical, but it's still pretty enticing.

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Kupek wrote: I think your understanding is wrong. What they've released is a platform, not a phone itself. They're pushing a standard developing environment for cellphones. Right now, different phones have different operating systems, which means software for one won't necessarily work for another, and development will be different. It's in Google's interest for all phones to be able to use the web easily - to use their applications - so they're pushing a standard.

If we still have to go through telecom providers it's a waste of time. They're the problem.

The carriers are a huge bottleneck in the US. I believe in Europe, the cellphone makers have more of the power.

Anyway, an interesting business idea would be to combine WiFi and VoiP to replace traditional cellphones. This is probably unbelievably impractical, but it's still pretty enticing.

I know in Toronto they're trying to make the entire downtown free Wifi. Great idea on multiple levels. I figured this would piggyback off of it if a lot of big cities did that. If they did it would rule. Otherwise, who the fuck cares?

They're putting in free Wifi in the Towson area near me and then expanding outward. It's a small city, but it's got a lot of businesses.

Ishamael wrote:

Zeus wrote:

Kupek wrote: I think your understanding is wrong. What they've released is a platform, not a phone itself. They're pushing a standard developing environment for cellphones. Right now, different phones have different operating systems, which means software for one won't necessarily work for another, and development will be different. It's in Google's interest for all phones to be able to use the web easily - to use their applications - so they're pushing a standard.

If we still have to go through telecom providers it's a waste of time. They're the problem.

The carriers are a huge bottleneck in the US. I believe in Europe, the cellphone makers have more of the power.

Anyway, an interesting business idea would be to combine WiFi and VoiP to replace traditional cellphones. This is probably unbelievably impractical, but it's still pretty enticing.

Our cellphone carriers and internet providers up here are keeping us light years behind where we really should be at in terms of service. We really are paying a lot for garbage

Ishamael wrote:Anyway, an interesting business idea would be to combine WiFi and VoiP to replace traditional cellphones. This is probably unbelievably impractical, but it's still pretty enticing.

That's strange. Didn't I just mention a certain technology that already implements this a few posts ago?

SineSwiper wrote:

Ishamael wrote:Anyway, an interesting business idea would be to combine WiFi and VoiP to replace traditional cellphones. This is probably unbelievably impractical, but it's still pretty enticing.

That's strange. Didn't I just mention a certain technology that already implements this a few posts ago?

You did? I didn't realize there was a technology that does this. BTW, I can't find where you mention it...

Ishamael wrote:You did? I didn't realize there was a technology that does this. BTW, I can't find where you mention it...

http://www.netgear.com/Products/Communi ... PH101.aspx

SineSwiper wrote:

Ishamael wrote:You did? I didn't realize there was a technology that does this. BTW, I can't find where you mention it...

http://www.netgear.com/Products/Communi ... PH101.aspx

Ah, OK. Cool idea, but this is a combination of VoiP and Wifi to create a cordless phone, not a combination of VoiP and Wifi to create a cellphone replacement. For my idea, you'd have to create crapload of WAPs to replace the traditional cellphone towers which is why I said it's probably impractical. Perhaps some sort of Ultra-long range Wifi could do the trick.

I think the idea that Wifi will be eventually be everywhere is rather the point.