Gawker: valleywag, andy rubin

Leaked video of the first Android phone

Nicholas Carlson — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:20:00 EDT

The first mobile device to hit the market running Google's mobile operating system, Android, will be the HTC Dream and TmoNews.com claims its landed a leaked video of the device in action. We've embedded it below. The Android Guys blog says the device in the video reminds them of the device Google used to demonstrate Android to the BBC back in February. We've embedded that video below as well. Viewing both clips, its obvious both the device and its operating system are pretty slick, but will the companies be able to create an ad campaign that makes us feel like we are both among, apart from, and above the crowd: a new soul in this strange world, come to learn a bit about how to give and take? If yes, then maybe we're interested.

The leaked video of HTC's "The Dream":

Google's Andy Rubin demonstrates Android in February with a very similar phone.

Why isn't the Googlephone guy rich?

Owen Thomas — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:50:06 EST

There's one thing in last Sunday's New York Times profile of Andy Rubin, the man responsible for Google's nonexistent Googlephone, that did not compute. Why isn't Rubin loaded? After all, he cofounded WebTV, which Microsoft bought in 1997 for $400 million. He should have raked in more than enough from that success to fund Android, the mobile-phone startup Google bought in 2005. Instead, Rubin had to hit up his friend and WebTV cofounder Steve Perlman for a $100,000 loan. Where did the money go? One insider sneers, "Too many ex-wives cleaned him out." Anyone know if that's all there is to the story? (Photo by Jim Wilson/The New York Times)

The Googlephone's missing business model

Owen Thomas — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:19:47 EST

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.

Meet the man who's not making the Googlephone

Owen Thomas — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 23:13:07 EDT

You'll learn many things from the New York Times profile of Andy Rubin, the Google employee in charge of its secretive wireless project. That he has a retinal scanner on his front door, for example. Or that he almost struck a deal with telecom pioneer Craig McCaw before Google bought his latest startup, Android. What you won't learn? That Rubin actually has a Googlephone coming to the market. That, of course, is because there is no Googlephone

Sad, really. Even gadget-obsessed blogs like Gizmodo have made their peace with the idea that Google's project has gone from full-on hardware to a mere operating system. And I bet Times tech scribe John Markoff gets that Rubin's ambitions have been scaled back. But if he sent his editors a memo, they appear to have ignored it, working Googlephone mentions into the headline, text of the article, and sidebar. They apparently haven't actually read the article. Here's a key paragraph:

"Instead of making money on software, you have someone who is saying they're trying to make their money on services," said Michael Kleeman, a technology strategist at the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology at the University of California at San Diego. "The interesting question is whether the carriers will authorize the Google handsets on their networks."

Markoff's article, of course, doesn't actually answer that question. So is there a Googlephone? According to this story, despite the promises of its headline: No.

(Photo by Jim Wilson/The New York Times)