COMPUTERS
September 24, 2008 11:44 AM PDT

Underestimating Google can be disastrous

Posted by Don Reisinger
  • Font size
  • Print

Correction, 1:47 p.m. PDT: This story incorrectly described the Apple iPhone. The iPhone does have GPS capability.

Google's first Android-based phone was announced Tuesday and so far, the response has been mixed.

Some believe it'll be the next big thing in the cell phone business because it adds some basics -- such as a physical keyboard -- that the iPhone is lacking. Others believe the G1 will fall flat on its face because it's not unique and its omissions (Exchange support, for one) will make it lose out in the corporate space. (For a full comparison of the two devices, see "T-Mobile G1 Vs. Apple iPhone 3G.")

I tend to agree on both counts. I think Android could be a major hit in the cell phone space, but the G1 won't be able to stand up to Apple or RIM. It's too underpowered and its obvious omissions tell me T-Mobile and Google rushed it before it was ready.

Android logo

But Android is an entirely different story. At its core, Android is a platform that has tons of potential. It's not only open (which is probably the best feature), it offers full Google integration, which is a key concept in today's age of Google domination, and its touch-screen capabilities mean Apple isn't the only other major company doing something unique in the market.

But my belief that Android will be a success goes far beyond the product itself. Call me crazy, but I can't think of one reason why anyone would underestimate Google. Countless times, companies have ignored Google and let it slip into a market, only to learn when it's too late that it's the leader.

And while it's easy for Apple and the rest to scoff now, you can bet that that's exactly what Google wants.

Who would have thought that Google would become such a powerhouse in the tech industry? Ask.com certainly didn't think it could happen and neither did Yahoo. AOL must have thought Google was just another flash in the pan. Oh how wrong they were.

And what about Hotmail, Yahoo Mail, and the rest? Certainly Microsoft and Yahoo didn't believe that a product called Gmail would make an impact, right? After all, why would anyone actually want to use an online email application from Google when they can use Outlook on any Windows machine in existence? Nice one, Microsoft.

Speaking of Microsoft, where was it when Google was building its online advertising empire? And why didn't it stop Google in its tracks once the company started bringing Google Docs online to compete with Office? Oh, and what about that whole search thing? Didn't Microsoft see that one coming?

Google has its grips in countless markets in the tech industry. It leads the way in search and advertising, but it's a major player in online productivity apps, mapping solutions, and a slew of other places where the leader was supplanted without much worry. And although it's still struggling with YouTube, we can't forget that Google was the only company that had both the money and vision to acquire that site.

The key to Google's success throughout the years is two-fold: it offered superior products because it understood what customers wanted, but it also capitalized on all its competitors that failed to believe that a company with that crazy name could become a powerhouse in any market.

Oh, how wrong they were.

And now, as Android finally hits store shelves next month, companies in the cell phone industry are making the same mistake. Microsoft claims it isn't worried about Android (we've been down this road before, Microsoft), Apple doesn't see it as a worry, and RIM has practically ignored it. All the while, Sergey and Larry have been forming alliances with companies that will see dozens of Android-based phones hit store shelves over the next few years.

Have any of these companies learned anything? Sure, the search and advertising business is much different that cell phone software, but Google's knowledge about what the consumer wants hasn't changed. Worse, Google's understanding of what the market needs has gotten better over time.

At this point, I don't know if Android will lead the way in the cell phone industry and I have no idea if Google will supplant Apple and the rest or face annihilation. But if I had to put money on the most likely outcome, I wouldn't bet against Google. The company has been right too many times to bet against it.

Apple, RIM, Microsoft, and the rest need to wake up and realize that the G1's success isn't indicative of the future success of Google in the cell phone industry. Android is.

Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.

Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Recent posts from The Digital Home
DRM-free iTunes Store to haunt Apple?
Video: Can the Wii be beaten?
The Digital Home 45: Predictions for 2009
Is it time to kill the Apple press event?
Video: Dear Apple: More press releases, please
2009 will be a dull year for gaming
Video: It's about time Steve Jobs spoke about his health
'Wii Sports': Best-selling, but not best of all time
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 131 comments
by The User September 24, 2008 12:05 PM PDT
Keyboard and GPS - what a novelty.

BlackBerry had keyboard since day 1 and WM devices had sliding out keyboards of various shapes and forms since 2003 or so. GPS comes standard with many modern smartphones.

While Android's upside features are not new or uncommon in previous generation smartphones, let alone the new releases, its downside is quite obvious. For the same price I can have BlackBerry with corporate email, iPhone - arguably the best hardware+software combination in existence or Windows Mobile that have everything Android has plus much much more that Android doesn't.

I fail to see an innovation or the buzz factor besides "Its Google phone".
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:01 PM PDT
Why do you feel that way? I see the G1 as a somewhat buzz-worthy device because it's open and Google is behind it. But I do agree that a BlackBerry will be better for corporate functionality and an iPhone is probably better in the consumer space. It's Android that could eventually turn the tide.

-Don
by The User September 24, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
The only reason this release deserved so much attention is because it is made and promoted by Google. If it was some LG/Nokia/Motorola you will forget about it sooner than it would have hit the shelves.

There are no groundbreaking features - it has a keyboard, GPS and touch screen. You can find that in Windows Mobile devices released in 2005. There are umpteen flaws that are not present in other phones. In IT world, its call "half-a$$ed product".

It is silly to compare it to WM or BlackBerry at the moment, but it will not offer a 1% of what either platform has. Google search? You could do it on any platform. Browser? It was included in WM in early 2000s. There was a similar phone is the past - Sharp made Linux phone that was greeted with a huge "Hurray" by Linux fans as "a platform that is going to kill WM and Palm" because it is open source and everyone will be developing for it. Where it is now? Google has a little more brand power to sell many of them. But to call it "exiting", "groundbreaking", "innovative" game changer (like iPhone was, for instance) will be just stretching the truth.
by skillingssucks September 24, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
Learn the difference, dipshit, between Android and the hardware device it is running on.
by arableprable September 26, 2008 7:45 PM PDT
I am A practical tech illiterate.I am an average consumer however.I have a learning disability and was alwayse computor phobic in extremis. That was untill I had a reason in 1997 when I had the means to buy a laptop and online service provision and track the remarkable news story in then named Zaire. I slowly learned by being encouraged by the IT dude who told me to make lots of mistakes and learn by them and he kindly offered to fix any major problem.In 1998 I began using this comfy search engine I read somewhere in the course of "surfing",playing with the amazing things I would find( HA ).,a site called google that gave me more complicated options in a simple way.I gave up all computor use as I then no longer owned one.In 2006 I bought a laptop and began re-learning as a consumer and customer in creating a computor space calling card with my art ,music and off color writing .I remembered that I found google because it was not the most popular site and it checked other engines for you.By 2006 however,I certainly was not going to go to the place where everyone was going.I used dogpyle and metta search with yahoo mail that acer gave me with its tool bar.I began blogging in late 06 at blogger and I ended up using google as my home including many of its features.If I can have a phone that easily interfaces with my google home,I would want it.You can tell me I already can but that is where techies are so wrong.Since it costs 90$ per hour to get computor help and I don't want to waste time on the phone to make thngs work.One day ,I would wager, Google will figure out how to make me and the many like me buy their phone and I will end up with one.
by cmstratton September 24, 2008 12:07 PM PDT
Agreed on being careful about Google, but a quick note - the iPhone DOES have GPS. Don - you called it one of the features the Android phone has that iPhone is lacking.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:02 PM PDT
It wasn't made clear. I was saying that the G1 has full GPS capability, unlike the iPhone, which has half-baked GPS capabilities. Sorry it wasn't clear.

-Don
by PStrangelove September 24, 2008 12:18 PM PDT
I am all over this. I have an iphone 3G, I hate it. It is missing so many functions, I can't believe there is such a big deal made over it. Anyone who needs a functional phone as opposed to a gimmick or a business phone will be all over this. This is the perfect match for a big dynamic.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:02 PM PDT
I own an iPhone 3G too and I tend to agree. Too much is missing from the iPhone and it's really ridiculous. And now with this App Store debacle, it's only getting worse.

-Don
by itsmenyc September 24, 2008 10:05 PM PDT
oh please, are you guys for real? if the iphone is so devoid of features that you need (and i would love you to list them) how is it you didn't research this before you bought it? i highly doubt either one of you (i wouldn't be surprised if you're actually the same person) bought an iphone.
by September 25, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
The only serious feature the iPhone is missing is the "developer friendly" feature. The NDA stunts Apple is pulling are egregious.

There is absolutely no excuse for rejecting applications other than "does not work as advertised". The inability to access parts of the system that Apple software is allowed to access is also a big thumbs down. A level playing field is a must for an operating system.

That said. The product shines and is popular for a very good reason. It is a very very fun phone that works well.
by BrujoSalazar September 24, 2008 12:20 PM PDT
google is a democracy, it listens to its people! long live goog!
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
Eh, not sure we can universally say that Google is that wonderful. What about its barge idea? What about its privacy and human right organization problems in China? Don't believe in Google too much.

-Don
by stigmattaman September 24, 2008 2:25 PM PDT
What about the people in China? Are they listening to the real people, or just the government officials.
by ovidio_do_basto September 24, 2008 12:24 PM PDT
One of the main factors that people seem to be overlooking is that this phone isn't that appealing from an aesthetic point of view. Like the Zune, it looks outdated, and clumsy. Part of the success of the iPhone is the integration and reciprocity between look-and-feel and functionality. I also disagree with the writer that Apple is scoffing at the G1. I don't see any evidence of that at all. In fact, Apple hasn't released any comments about it. Apple fans might have, but that's not the same thing. Apple is at present tied to ATT, for better or worse (most say worse), so what do they have to say? They have their market pre-set. But I'm a t-mobile user myself, and I'm underwhelmed by this phone. It's an also ran, that frankly, doesn't strike me as compelling a buy as it really should have been. No one is underestimating Google. They're just disappointed.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:04 PM PDT
True -- it's not nearly as nice looking as the iPhone and that could be a problem. But I don't think it's so bad that people will scoff at it. And for the price -- $179 -- it's tough to beat. The major problem here is 3G coverage (or lack thereof).

-Don
by wmyinzer September 25, 2008 10:37 AM PDT
So youre bias against Google and Microsoft. Whats new?

The Zune may look clumsy and outdated, but in reality it is more technologically advanced than any high-capacity mp3 player. The G1 will eventually gain more favorable specs and capabilites, just give it time.
by David Turner September 27, 2008 5:57 AM PDT
Did you actually read the article!

The whole post is about not judging Google's Android platform on the bases of the G1 which is exactly what you are doing ????
by cporpheus September 24, 2008 12:26 PM PDT
"Android's features" is very misleading. Because it's open source, it can have any feature a developer wants it to have. It is an operating system, after all.

Android also has the advantage of cross-carrier change. When a carrier (let's say Verizon) sees the mistakes and flaws of a competitor's Android phone, it can turn around and correct those flaws, making a better product. This is harder to do with Windows Mobile (a proprietaty OS) and impossible to do with an iPhone (a hardware-software package).

That is what excites me the most about Android. The fact that it is relatively easy for companies to customize Android to fit their needs so they can compete with other carriers and ultimately, lead to better products.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:06 PM PDT
Wow. Great point. That could also help in the competitive space considering each of these companies should be trying to one-up the other. That is something worth getting excited about.

-Don
by stigmattaman September 24, 2008 2:25 PM PDT
Very true, but that openness also means a carrier can skin it, and remove features if they so choose.
by random truth September 24, 2008 2:44 PM PDT
Also it will never work with verizon. The phone is gsm only, not cdma. Verizon adding features hahaha. Ive been with verizon for 5 years and have never gotten something that adds features from them.(that does not cost over $4 a month)
by ktawlks September 25, 2008 6:08 AM PDT
This is a good, unless you're a verizon subscriber and hope they begin carrying the OS. Because I can promise you they're going to screw it up and put all those useless menus on it and then lock down your phone so you can't do anything with your bluetooth except use it for hands free. Also Random Truth its not about the phone/hardware its about the OS, Android, thats what Verizon would pick up. Verizon sells HTC phones so its not much of a stretch to see them offering it, just don't be surprised if they screw the pooch with it.
by McAusland September 24, 2008 12:28 PM PDT
I don't know if Apple is "ignoring" Google, I just think that they are continuing in their own creative and unique way. Just as you would believe that Google isn't a bad bet, I too would have a difficult time believing that Steve Jobs is sitting in his office reading the paper. Of the two, I would like to believe that Jobs is more fanatical about improving or creating the next best thing.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
No way. I don't think Steve Jobs can stand up to Google the way he can stand up to RIM or MSFT. Google is an entirely different story and an entirely more capable company. Steve Jobs is good from a hardware perspective, but he falls short on software and that's where Google wants to take this battle.

-Don
by petachon September 24, 2008 12:30 PM PDT
While I agree a 100% on not undermining Google's technological feats, I am concerned that most (other then search) application is relied too heavily on being "open" and there's really no accountability on Google's part.
When Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Palm releases apps and gadgets, everything is on those companies for quality assurance (thus, gaining the trust of consumers). When an outside developers creates applications, Google has no accountability as to the reliability to that product. This in my opinion opens up too much risk to the consumers (especially those who are not technologically apt) to malicious attacks.
My skepticism results from Google's eagerness to release things before it's thoroughly tested (there's a good reason why Gmail is still in "beta" mode after 2 years).

Just my 2cents.
Reply to this comment
by jasonah September 24, 2008 12:43 PM PDT
Which is why they've already said you still will need to go through Google's app store to get apps, and that developers need to jump through a few hoops to get their apps on there.
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
Reliability issues because it's open? Interesting. I think Google would be smart enough to know better, but I guess you never really know. Let's hope it does the right thing.

-Don
by jdesno September 24, 2008 3:18 PM PDT
Google may not have 100% accountability, but as far as open source reliability/ security, which works better and is more secure, Internet Explorer or Firefox? 'Nuff said.
by cantresist September 24, 2008 12:31 PM PDT
"...and its touch-screen capabilities mean Apple isn't the only other major company doing something unique in the market...."
Huh? How can two people doing the same thing be unique? Maybe the author is trying to say that the full integration with Google is the unique part, but that's not what he wrote. It makes it hard to comment on an article when the writing is unclear...
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:08 PM PDT
Uh, is this supposed to be sarcasm? The touch-screen capabilities are unique and now two major companies are using it. Does that help, fella?

-Don
by Inter351 September 24, 2008 3:48 PM PDT
I think it just means that iPhone is no longer the only one that has the touch-screen capability.

Well, I think that there are several phones with that capability, just that they are designed to be touched with a stylus.
by itsmenyc September 24, 2008 10:02 PM PDT
the iphone is multi-touch, the gphone is not
by GodWish September 24, 2008 12:39 PM PDT
You are Damn Right .. I will only say one word ANDROID has arrived. Time for steve balmer the ceo of Microsoft to quit and let Microsoft be run by someone better else he will create another vista for mobile phones...
Reply to this comment
by BeatPunchbeef September 24, 2008 1:09 PM PDT
That was way more than one word.
by The User September 24, 2008 1:29 PM PDT
That is a long and senseless one word. Aside from usual "Microsoft sux" and "Vista is so slow on my Pentium 1", what is really wrong with Vista and porting it to a mobile platform?
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:09 PM PDT
I think MSFT will have trouble with Android, but what about Apple? Do you think the iPhone will have similar trouble? I do.

-Don
by nsmoly September 24, 2008 2:13 PM PDT
Yeah, right... It is time for Steve Balmer to quit especially after Windows Mobile dominates about 80% of smartphones... It is funny that noone mentions that google's phone is basically HTC hardware like many any other smartphones out there, so it is nothing special (BTW windows phones also have touch interface) + it is buggy google software which is nothing special as well since it is not even close to what other smartphones are running (including iPhone). So all in GPhone is nothing specail at all... The only thing that's different about it is that -- ohhh it is from Google! the maker of all the betas in the world and the company that have not succeeded in anything other than search... And one more thing about it being "open" -- I can run 3rd party apps on Windows Mobile phones OR on iPhone, so does it make them "open"?
by calculatorwatch September 24, 2008 11:55 PM PDT
80% huh? Last I heard (like 20 times) RIM has somethin like 55-60% of the smartphone market and I dunno about windows mobile but i don't think 60 and 80 adds up to 100, i think msft has like 30% at most after years of steady development
by dcarnevale September 24, 2008 12:41 PM PDT
It's critical that anyone of us who makes any conclusions about any company or its products checks the facts before publishing, otherwise we can quickly develop a reputation for bias. One quick trip to Apple's web site would have showed that the iPhone 3G has GPS.

It would also be helpful to assess the target audience for different products. At its core, the iPhone is an iPod plus phone with WiFi web access (multimedia centric) and targets a segment of the market where the absence of a physical keyboard is not important. T-Mobile has "always" featured messaging centric wireless devices with keyboards and the G1 follows in that vein targeting mobile users who are messaging/email centric.

It is impossible for any wireless device to every possible feature with excellence (every one takes up physical or virtual space on the device, can increase size and weight, reduce battery life and increase cost/price). Smart marketing teams make these trade-offs each time they specify a device, knowing that technology will advance before the product is launched and a competitor might come out with a similar product. That's what makes hi-tech fun!
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:11 PM PDT
OK, first of all, the GPS thing -- I was referring to the fact that it's a half-baked GPS system and doesn't do what we would expect out of it. Plain and simple. Secondly, the G1 doesn't necessarily suffer from that problem.

And, no -- you're totally wrong on the second point. The target audiences for both products are exactly the same -- the consumers that want to spend money on a touch-screen device.

-Don
by eyemahsource September 24, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
I very much welcome Android to the party because, although I'll stick with the iPhone hardware/software integration, it will be the only other real competitor to drive Apple to accelerate its innovation in response. We will see the needed video recording, cut and paste and other features sooner because of that competition. I'm confident Google will innovate faster than Microsoft, Symbian and others.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:12 PM PDT
Great point. I'm thinking this could push things along sooner too. Let's hope it happens soon though -- I'm sick and tired of no MMS and the countless other exclusions in the iPhone 3G.

-Don
by Inter351 September 24, 2008 3:55 PM PDT
IMHO, I don't think it will be "the only" real competitor.
Several phones are great, maybe better. I is more marketing than other things.
Nokia N95 is great. It has every feature, it has two cameras, it can be used with one hand (every feature), ...
Treo has many features too.
Symbian was recently released as Open Source too.
Big companies like MS and Nokia won't stay sitting there without doing nothing.
by jimmymac_87 September 24, 2008 12:46 PM PDT
"its touch-screen capabilities mean Apple isn't the only other major company doing something unique in the market..."

So LG and Samsungs biggest selling handsets (released before the iphone), which have full touch screen makes the iphone's unique?
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:13 PM PDT
Those devices are barely comparable to what the iPhone and Android-based phones do. Don't play coy and pretend like you're pulling one over on us. The reality is this: the LG and Samsung touch-screen phones are practically forgotten in the face of the iPhone. It's as simple as that.

-Don
by ttbbaa September 24, 2008 12:48 PM PDT
Email and webmail statistics
---------------------------------------
The leader is Yahoo! Mail, closely followed by Microsoft's Hotmail (now called Windows Live Hotmail). Thereafter it gets more uncertain. Gmail is often cited as the third "biggie," but the number of active accounts still falls well short of either of its two largest competitors.

http://www.email-marketing-reports.com/metrics/email-statistics.htm
April, 2008

Google is not all-powerful.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:14 PM PDT
Nobody said it was, but you're looking at all the accounts, not the active ones. Yahoo and MSFT have almost a decade on Google and all those accounts are certainly not in use anymore.

-Don
by prelegalwonder September 24, 2008 2:59 PM PDT
Does that count all of the people who use gmail and simply have google's mail poll their old hotmail accounts? Same with yahoo and the others.

Google was also the first to push the rest of the market into the 2gb+ mail storage barrier and is up to 7gb now. Without google, you'd still be paying MS and Yahoo for anything over 200mb.
by scodavis September 24, 2008 10:24 PM PDT
I have two Yahoo mail accounts and a Hotmail account from years ago when it made sense. I did check one of the Yahoo accounts for a password reset on some site I recently re-subscribed to after a few years. The others I haven't checked in years. Personally, when I see someone with a Yahoo or Hotmail email address, it definitely downgrades my first impression of them.

AOL/YAHOO/HOTMAIL all equal fail.
by kieranmullen September 25, 2008 12:33 AM PDT
How much spam comes from AOL yahoo and hotmail? I had a hotmail account before microsoft bought it up and it was so so. I took a look now and its plastered with ads. Yahoo mail has horrible spam filtering or it is non functional at all. Gmails filtering is quite good.
by themrwhite September 24, 2008 12:57 PM PDT
The writer and most people who are clueless need to read this: http://gizmodo.com/5053747/android-and-t+mobile-g1s-five-most-obnoxious-flaws
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:15 PM PDT
And you need to read the article. I was talking about Android itself, not saying that the G1 will be the reason Google takes over the cell phone industry.

-Don
by prelegalwonder September 24, 2008 3:00 PM PDT
The writer of this comment needs to bust out the reading comprehension skills. The author of this article comes out and says he's underwhelmed by the G1 and it's ANDROID that you need to pay attention to. RTFA genius.
by Inter351 September 24, 2008 3:58 PM PDT
The same happened with iPhone version 1. It did not have GPS, its phonejack was not standard. Any problem with that? No, they just fixed them in the next version. No big deal.
by mad1111 September 24, 2008 1:02 PM PDT
i dont think people are underestimating google, its just more of a "over-hyped" situation. Google is very smart and intuitive to the consumer needs. I believe the whole purpose of Android being open based, will allow Google to "Fine Tune" it's OS to people's likings. Or should i say, will allow the people to Fine Tune their own OS to their OWN liking!!! Which everyone strives for, now-a-days with their personaliztion of everything they own.

As for all the other companies, i doubt they are ignoring Googles new "tentacle" in the cell phone world...but more or less waiting patiently to see what Googles next move is. This is all a strategy game...who makes the best move to win!??

And the author said it PERFECTLY: "Apple, RIM, Microsoft, and the rest need to wake up and realize that the G1's success isn't indicative of the future success of Google in the cell phone industry. <B>Android is</B>."

This is the first attempt for Google...and i can bet on it that it's not their last!
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:16 PM PDT
Yep. This is all about Android. This is the very first salvo of many that it will unleash on this industry. It's as simple as that.

-Don
by psaroya September 24, 2008 1:03 PM PDT
I think people are not understanding what Android will be used for in the future. Over 90% of the people own cell phone and is a part of our daily lives. People will use cell phones search capability to find restaurants, hotels, bars etc. and with GPS in cell phone Google can recommend the establishment near you. Google will get $$$ for every click and you get cheep or free but feature rich phone. Google doesn't want to sell few expensive phones! it wants to be OS of every phone!
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:17 PM PDT
Exactly. And that's exactly what could put Google over. This is a business endeavor to take control over the mobile advertising space and we can't forget that.

-Don
by NewsReader_ September 24, 2008 1:08 PM PDT
Google is good at search and advertising. They are mediocre at best everywhere else and this 'mobile' OS will be no exception. Chrome is their most promising product IMO that will make an impact.

Funny how so much talk and attention is paid to Microsoft and Apple. RIM and Symbian are the ones sitting on the top of the mobile OS mountain. It will take more than search and a browser to change that. As far as compact platforms go, you have to win developers over first and foremost. Good luck drawing them away from MS and Linux with Android.

I believe Android will be a monumental flop. There is nothing compelling about G1 that will make folks defect from any of the other guys. The device is the biggest draw I can see and HTC will likely put other OS's on it or build better ones in the near future.
Reply to this comment
by dd13reis September 24, 2008 2:18 PM PDT
Wow. A monumental flop? Why is that, exactly? I think it's exactly what's needed in this space -- an open-source platform that will make people want to use it, which will then be used to make tons of money in the mobile advertising space.

I think it can be a winner -- if played correctly.

-Don
by David Turner September 27, 2008 6:17 AM PDT
Hmm Android a monumental flop hey.... I don't agree and basing your assumption on the G1 alone is foolish in my opinion.

For example:

HTC has been struggling with WinMob for years they even have their own custom interface that practically means you never need to see or know you are using WinMob.

So why wouldn't HTC grab Android / customize it so it looks totally how they want it to without any WinMob problems and without the cost of a licensing fee to MS??? This frees them to work to their own timetable and not MS which has clearly fallen behind in this market space.

Makes business sense to me.

The only real weakness is then a lack of exchange support for the corporate market but their are many ways this could be addressed.
by Dyskresiac September 24, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
Has anyone seen the rest of this "Don Reisinger"s material? Amateur wouldn't even come close to describing someone who spends the first few minutes of a product review introducing his dog. This has as much credit as a youtube report.

Please, people, take this kid's report with a grain of salt. Apple has released no statements about the G1, and RIMM has ignored it (or him?) because it's