[etherael]

Google gave the market the option to go for a completely open environment with the Nexus One, and in the words of this wired article what did it get in return?

"Not cool enough."

The phone is brilliant, but the market went elsewhere with it's carrier locked subsidised junk models. That's just a market reality, like it or not. Google tried to "do the right thing" and the market went somewhere else. Making all these points about what they could've done instead which basically amounted to "become a direct competitor with Apple on the retail level" are not realistic considering everything we know about Google and it's views and practices on direct end user support.

If the market wants to shoot itself in the foot by choosing shitty products, that's their cross to bear. It's not reasonable to place the blame on one of the few companies that provided an out and had it thrown squarely back in their face. The only problem I fear is that due to the failure of the Nexus One they won't invest in a Nexus Two and the Android ecosystem will become a swirling morass of telco crippled product, thus ending differentiation between it and the competing iOS ecosystem.

The article does however make an interesting point, HP might do better with webOS, they are accustomed to end user hand holding and playing the retail / marketing game. If they can push a truly open ecosystem and manage to be successful in units moved as well, they may well end up being what Android might have been if the market had let it go in the direction Google had clearly wanted it to go from inception.

[megablast]

Did it really try? Did it spend any money on advertising? Did it give the project a chance to succeed? Did it push back at the carriers?

Blame the market all you want, but if Google aren't even going to inform the majority, that ain't the markets fault.

[etherael]

I saw a ridiculous ton of hype for the phone both prior to and after the release of the phone, but I acknowledge that may well be due to the fact that I look in all the places likely to make a huge fuss over such a device.

On the carrier front though, retail stores that were actually marketing to end users, I guess this is as good an illustration of my point as any;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/11/nexus_one_sales/

[megablast]

Well of course, do did I, so did most people here. We read tech blogs a lot. Most people in the world do not.

[eli]

Advertising? No, it was just a bad idea.

The full-price Nexus One was hundreds of dollars more than a subsidized phone from your carrier. And since you usually pay the same per month whether you take their subsidy or not, it was not a smart financial decision to buy a Nexus One for the overwhelming majority of customers.

[nhooey]

I can't believe nobody else mentioned this sooner or that you haven't received many more points for your comment.

Most people don't even think about the fact that they're locked into a contract for 2+ years (in the US), they just think about how the other phones are cheaper. But even for the people who consider the costs of being locked in, they can see that not being locked in provides little advantage.

If the entire market wasn't locked in to their contract, and could trivially take their phone number with them, they would have maximum provider mobility and the competition would get steep. If only a few people do this, it won't actually improve service or make the companies willing to adjust prices to keep these specific customers.

I'm not sure how the market came to this in North America and other select places, but I can see how it's going to be very hard for it to change.

[po]

The irony is that the Nexus One failed to gain support from the major carriers. The carriers instead released competing models using Android. Users don't really know the difference between a Droid and a Nexus One. They're both Google Android phones right?

When Google released the Nexus One, I remember thinking they're competing with the carriers whom they depend on adopting Android. No way will ATT/VZN let this in their stores.

Google tried to have it both ways.

[YooLi]

"Users don't really know the difference between a Droid and a Nexus One. They're both Google Android phones right?"

To everyday users they are all 'droids'. It doesn't matter if it's the nexus one or a galaxy s phone. Every regular user I have ever talked to about their android phone calls it a 'droid'. Even the original G1. Good for verizon I guess...

[Tuna-Fish]

> When Google released the Nexus One, I remember thinking they're competing with the carriers whom they depend on adopting Android. No way will ATT/VZN let this in their stores.

They could have just asked Nokia. This is what Nokia has been trying to do in the US for a decade now.

[aresant]

Not cool enough was hardly the problem - count instead:

1 - the phone came with waaaay substandard service - no live customer service, barely service via email

2 - no chance for the wide consumer market to play with the phone or interact with the phone with online sales only

3 - mixed reviews from the professional tech review community

So while I agree google made an attempt it felt to me much more like a half assed try in the context of this thread

[etherael]

Points 1 & 2 are what I was referring to when I pointed out that google just doesn't work that way, they're not going to open a plexiglass cube in the local megamall and handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar, it's simply not in their DNA. I acknowledge that that is in fact apparently an essential part of the path to market success in this arena as evidenced by the sales numbers, but I'm personally underwhelmed by it and simultaneously completely grok why Google has no interest in doing this.

Point 3 is news to me, every review I read on the N1 prior to purchasing one was a "this beats the snot out of the iPhone" level heaping of glowing praise, and now having had one myself for two months I see why; it's completely true. It's the Ubuntu story in a phone form factor all over again; having the clearly superior product does not mean that you end up with significant market share or business success.

[yummyfajitas]

handhold largely clueless end users via their version of the genius bar,

I think it would be great if google created a "genius bar". I'd call it the "let me just google that for you" bar.

Basically, you go to the bar and ask the bartender a question. He types the question into google and then reads you the answer. He might even refer you to the genius bar in the unlikely even that a quick google search doesn't solve your problem.

[gvb]

That is the square box on the right: http://xkcd.com/627/

[napierzaza]

Sounds perfectly demeaning. Google's style is to have no support whatsoever. So maybe they should stick to that.

[tvon]

> It's the Ubuntu story in a phone form factor all over again; having the clearly superior product does not mean that you end up with significant market share or business success.

Well, you really have to understand that what is "clearly superior" to you is not "clearly superior" to your typical "clueless end user".

[doron]

"Clearly superior product" apparently require in the context of the market point 1, 2 to be present. Nevertheless your point is taken, and i agree with it overall.

All these issues of late, this pact, Facebook privacy, Apple Locks on products, hinge on the premise of an uncaring public as long it gets its fix of the day.

So many times you hear a commentator use the line "the regular user doesn't care". I saw many comments along that line on HN. And you can say this, because it is true, the public does not care.

consumers flocked to a locked relationship with ATT to get the iphone, few left facebook over its privacy issues, consumers will flock to get superior preferential access to the net via Droid's on Verizon wireless.

[etherael]

Yeah, it's a clearly superior product for me because I haven't called tech support for about 17 years, that's why point 1 & 2 are utterly irrelevant to me.

And yes, the average end users just don't care, they don't understand, they don't think, they don't even want to, as entrepreneurs we already know this through our own experiences most likely, letalone needing to see it demonstrated writ large in this particular instance. Not having all the enabling features for the modern "consumer experience" equals poor market results, no matter the quality of the underlying product.

[wvenable]

The problem is the lack of service starts right at the sales process rather than tech support. This is what a friend said about buying the Nexus One:

"Google really does have a TERRIBLE sales process. Firstly I meant to order a car dock with the first order. If you email them at all (including on your "order status") no one reads it -- based upon what category you choose they send you a stock response with zero way of escalating. So when I emailed saying "Could I add a dock to this order so I only get one shipping and one customs charge?" I instantly got the stock 'Nah go screw yourself' response claiming that their fulfillment is so super quick that it's impossible to make a change."

After hearing that, I think I'd rather get a nearly identical HTC phone from a local store where I can some recourse if something goes wrong.

[etherael]

I do agree that their sales, support, marketing are all not good. I'm just saying that on top of that you can see some engineer chanting mindlessly to himself "build it and they will come". It's like they focused only on the product itself and utterly disregarded the other components of the aforementioned 'consumer experience', and this resulted in a massive fail.

Would they have done better if they had focused on consumer experience a lot more? Almost definitely, but I think that's as far from their culture as it is for Microsoft to understand why an iPad is not just a PC in a new form factor. They just don't "get it" to use the common turn of phrase, I think maybe I didn't convey that so well because I'm sympathetic to the position and in the habit of dismissing the other components of the consumer experience myself.

[tvon]

> the average end users just don't care, they don't understand, they don't think, they don't even want to,

They shouldn't have to.

[etherael]

If they want to deal with the kind of organisation that focuses their efforts on making better products rather than handholding their customers, by definition, they have to.

They don't though, that's not news, we all get it, we all live in the same marketplace, and we all get used to that eventually and just deal with it. Participating in it doesn't mean we have to think it's a great thing, I think it says bad things about humanity as a whole personally.

[nitrogen]

I'd say that's a debatable point. In the current market, I'd agree with you -- there are plenty of people willing to spoon feed consumers, so if you don't, you'll be left in the cold. Whether it's good for society's long-term prospects, however, is another matter. I believe that widespread apathy and general ignorance will be among the primary causes of the demise of western civilization.

Note, however, that I am not arguing against specialization. I'll be first in line to encourage people not to care too much about details in one area in order to focus on another, but if they don't care about anything, I take exception.

[FlemishBeeCycle]

Where do we draw the line? At what point is it permissible to suggest that someone should bother to show the slightest bit of interest in a product, technology, or field that they are becoming increasingly dependent on?

[msencenb]

On Point 2 (I think this killed it):

I literally stopped by three brick and mortar T-Mobile stores back in May (my family's contract with Sprint was ending) to simply try a Nexus One out and not a single store had one anywhere in site. There were no promotional banners, there were no phones on display, and even when I asked the employees I got one response of "We don't have any in stock" and one response of "We don't show that phone".

All in all a terrible experience, and when confronted with 3 other family members who aren't very tech savvy, a phone they couldn't hold in their hand turned out to be an impossible sell.

[eli]

You forgot to mention that for most people it cost $529 to buy versus $149 for a competing smartphone.

[etherael]

This is largely just a trick of marketing, if you look at the cost of the phone over it's lifetime it turns out much cheaper to buy up front, My n1 cost me 600 AUD, I then bought a 129 AUD 12gb 12 month SIM card and a VOIP account for 3$ a month for an incoming local call number in the current capital city I'm located in, which will be changed next time I relocate at the end of the year.

Total cost over 12 month period will almost definitely be less than 1k unless I go completely overboard on voip calls, to boot the voip calls are far cheaper than normal mobile operator calls, and work fine over 3g with the sipdroid client.

[sprout]

What market? I understand why Google made this agreement, I suspect it might be the best we can get in the current political climate, but I can't believe they put their name on this statement:

>We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wire-line world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly,

The mobile wireless marketplace has basically no competition, except when you compare it to the wired market, where there really is no meaningful competition.

[markstahler]

Google didn't give it to us Canadians. Google seems to treat their international customers like second rate citizens. If my carrier picked up the N1 I would have bought it no question. $530USD is out of the question after exchange duty and taxes. Granted I don't know if this is due to Google or our carriers but all I know is we aren't getting any good Android handesets.

[vetinari]

You think 530 USD is bad? If you wanted to buy it in Europe, it was 599 EUR. For comparison, unlocked HTC Desire is being sold for 399 EUR.

[brown9-2]

So they gave up after one product, one attempt at shaking up the industry?

[etherael]

One attempt where it became abundantly clear that the target audience was largely not interested in being saved from the alternative, all the while they were sabotaging their relationship with their successful retail channel by proceeding.

If Google sets out to do the right thing by consumers despite potentially sabotaging their own market success in the larger picture (people still read google ads on android devices, no matter how carrier crippled the experience is, Apple lose the ability to lock google ads out of the mobile space, Google wins) consumers not only reject the product but emphatically embrace the carrier crippled alternatives to the point where Google succeeds at it's objectives largely because of it's relationship with the carriers, why not tell the end users to get lost and deal with the status quo and start playing ball with the carriers?

Google is just a business, and they may make a case for how they'd like things to go, but at the end of the day if the market pushes them in another direction and they have no desire to adjust their DNA to the fundamental level required in order to pivot on this particular issue, and it ends up that with the direction the market is pushing they win anyway, just in a different way than they would have hoped, why not just go with that flow?

[davidw]

> The phone is brilliant, but the market went elsewhere with it's carrier locked subsidised junk models. That's just a market reality, like it or not.

That has always irritated me in its US-centric view of things. They should have kept pushing that phone in Europe, in stores, where it would sit right next to even more expensive iPhone models.

[dagw]

Google is a very US-centric company. Just look at how few countries outside the US can buy and sell apps in their app store. Their whole strategy is all about the US market with some vague hope that the rest of the world will somehow follow by magic.

[ricardo]

"The phone is brilliant, but the market went elsewhere with it's carrier locked subsidised junk models. That's just a market reality, like it or not. Google tried to "do the right thing" and the market went somewhere else."

Carrier locked, subsidized junk models are the norm, not the exception. Google tried to take that in a direction similar to what Apple did with the iPhone but without the same effort behind that. To say that the market shifted away from that ignores the way cell phones have always been sold in the US.

[jacquesm]

The replacement cycle of phones should have been the driving factor here, if you're in it for the long haul you learn from your mistakes and you do better next time.

The phone is brilliant but the market would have to get used to seeing google as a hardware supplier rather than an online service provider, so they'll have to establish their brand in that line of business. This takes time.

To expect instant acceptance in such a dramatic departure of your core business is totally unrealistic.

[eonwe]

Sadly, N1 was not widely available internationally. Where it was, it was tied to a specific carrier and only available through their shops.

At least for me and few of my friends N1 would've been god-send given that you could use SIM from the carrier your employer chose to use and thus use it as a work-and-freetime phone and you could've received new versions of the platform on time.

[napierzaza]

When it comes to cell phones, the consumers and the market is actually the cell phone manufacturer and the carrier. Not the user. So yeah, the carriers wanted their cripple-ware and Google lost, so did the consumer.

Wired suggested that Google could have done more to get around this so that the Nexus 1 was available to everyone, but they didn't.