You do realize the word is market and not marked, yes? You've made that typo about 10 out of 10 times recently.
Getting back to the OP, the lock-in/sponsor model *IS* "evil". The phones aren't actually free of course, they are sponsored. And in return, you sign for a long contract. In theory when you buy your own phone on your own terms, you should get a way cheaper contract with a minimum duration of something on the order of 3 months to cover connection expenses (or, in those countries where a connect fee is standard, cancel-at-any-time). In practice, in many countries, oligarchic market forces mean that no-subsided-phone contracts are overpriced, and still come with a completely ridiculous year to 2 year minimum duration just because the phone companies can get away with it. Nevertheless in the current climate in one country I'm particularly familiar with, The Netherlands, it is possible to get a terminate-at- any-time very cheap contract that does not include a subsidized phone. Those who still like their phone often switch to these. Google claims the notion of buying hardware through a website without looking at the devices, and marketing it separately instead of as a bundled concept (with a contract) is not working out very well. That might be true; it might have nothing to do with the steep cost of an unsubsidized smart phone. I rather doubt that had no impact at all, though. On May 18, 3:05 am, Casper Bang <casper.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 18, 12:04 am, Karsten Silz <karsten.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Last week was not all good news for Android: The Senior Product > > Manager left for Facebook (http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/12/erick- > > tseng-facebook/), Senior Software Engineer Cedric "TestNG" Beust went > > to LinkedIn (http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/13/android-senior-software- > > engineer-cedric-beust-leaves-google-for-linkedin/) > > You should bring the full story though. Cedric Beust's says: "prepare > to be blown away by what you will see very soon" [http://bit.ly/ > c3PBT1]. > > > and Google stops > > selling phones (read: the Nexus One) through their web page (http:// > > bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/google-concedes-defeat-on-selling- > > nexus-one-direct/). > > Yeah the (heavily subsidized and locked down) US marked is not ready > for such a sales model. But the N1 will just flow into traditional > retail channels instead [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/10118072.stm]. > Indeed its sister model, the HTC Desire is sold out several places in > Europe [http://bit.ly/bCUBgP]. > > > Now people come and go all the time, but Google not selling phones > > anymore is significant. In January, Eric Schmidt said "What the Nexus > > One is really about is a new way of buying a phone." (http:// > > seekingalpha.com/article/183769-google-inc-q4-2009-earnings-call- > > transcript?page=-1) > > That's just the job of a CEO, regardless of product. You aught to know > that, Apple is king of these sort of things [http://www.guardian.co.uk/ > technology/blog/2008/jan/21/liesdamnliesandstevejobs]. Google tested > something out, fired a tracer bullet if you will. It did not pan out, > they learned a lesson and will continue by the traditional avenue. At > least they own up to it. > > > Since Google does no evil, this must mean that > > the current way of buying a phone (subsidized through a carrier) must > > be bad. But who would have thought that people rather pay $100 for a > > phone instead of $530 and want to talk to a person that can help them > > when they have problems with their phones? And who could imagine that > > the carriers who sell all these other Android phones in their "bad > > ways" don't like to be called "bad" and don't want to sell this > > phone? Certainly not the smart people at Google. I wouldn't be > > surprised if the "Evil Empire" (Apple) was behind all this! Newman! > > Not sure what your point is. It's all very country specific, all my > phones I've bought over the years have been unsubsidized/unlocked and > I rather enjoy that freedom. I payed $700 US for my Nexus One because > I had to go though a middle-man but it was well worth it. Meanwhile my > wife who's from Canada is bound by a long contract, can only buy > subsidized and branded phones (yuck) and no amount of me calling to > complain could get me to convince Rogers that they should unlock her > phone even if it paid and owned by her over 3 years. So excuse me for > rooting for Google on this one, but I think you'd agree what's > ultimately in the consumers interest - even if he/she is unable to put > two and two together and assert that paying up-front is really no more > expensive than subsidized. > > > Worst of all: This may be the untimely end of a new device category - > > "super phone", we hardly knew you (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ > > 01/05/google.nexus.announcement/index.html). > > Worst of all? Gasp, ok glad you find the worst of all to be silly > marketing. :) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
