I wonder how many posters who are so anti-data collection have pre-ordered the Apple Watch too
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Debuts 'Project Fi' Wireless Service in Partnership With Sprint, T-Mobile
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wonder how many posters who are so anti-data collection have pre-ordered the Apple Watch too
Pretty obvious what the move is.
With this program, Google is trying to find a way to build up a critical mass of cellphone users who paying Google to be the "middle man" between them and their cellular data provider. Then, in turn, Google can approach any given provider and buy network access in very very large chunks.
Once that critical mass is reached, or even while it's being reached, Google can correlate the usage data with location data (gathered from your phone) and replace all the high-volume cell traffic regions with their own fiber wifi hotspots instead.
So, slowly, they leech data usage away from the other carriers, while at the same time building their own network, starting in the most important areas and working to the fringes.
Eventually, Google will declare complete (or almost complete) independence from the carriers, and - ta-da! - turn their inferior cellular service into a highly competitive one, with the advantage that now, they can data mine you as a man-in-the-middle, simply by sniffing the traffic on "their" network.
It's clever, ambitious, and right out of the Microsoft "embrace extend extinguish" playbook.
There are two problems for Google here:
1. AT&T and Verizon know what they're up to, and don't want it to happen
2. AT&T and Verizon already offer good coverage - including WIFI spots - for the vast majority of cellular users.
So Google needs to really push the idea that their service is "better" because it hops between Sprint and T-Mobile, hoping their users don't realize that Sprint and T-Mobile are, in turn, piggybacking AT&T and Verison's infrastructure. There really isn't much gain from that.
With this program, Google is trying to find a way to build up a critical mass of cellphone users who paying Google to be the "middle man" between them and their cellular data provider. Then, in turn, Google can approach any given provider and buy network access in very very large chunks.
Once that critical mass is reached, or even while it's being reached, Google can correlate the usage data with location data (gathered from your phone) and replace all the high-volume cell traffic regions with their own fiber wifi hotspots instead.
So, slowly, they leech data usage away from the other carriers, while at the same time building their own network, starting in the most important areas and working to the fringes.
Eventually, Google will declare complete (or almost complete) independence from the carriers, and - ta-da! - turn their inferior cellular service into a highly competitive one, with the advantage that now, they can data mine you as a man-in-the-middle, simply by sniffing the traffic on "their" network.
It's clever, ambitious, and right out of the Microsoft "embrace extend extinguish" playbook.
There are two problems for Google here:
1. AT&T and Verizon know what they're up to, and don't want it to happen
2. AT&T and Verizon already offer good coverage - including WIFI spots - for the vast majority of cellular users.
So Google needs to really push the idea that their service is "better" because it hops between Sprint and T-Mobile, hoping their users don't realize that Sprint and T-Mobile are, in turn, piggybacking AT&T and Verison's infrastructure. There really isn't much gain from that.
So my current AT&T bill is $62 for voice and 6GB data plan. This includes one month data roll over for unused data. Under this plan it seems I would be paying $80. Is it really that good of a deal? I guess it is if they credit you back for any unused data.
I've talked to a few of my friends that work for cell providers and they are shrugging this off. I think that's a mistake. If they do this right, Google could take many of their customers.
I said family plans. You might argue comparing family plans isn't a fair comparison, but it's what most subscribers have, so the per-line cost is a fair comparison. I don't have it in front of me, but I remember reading a Gartner study that confirmed that a large majority of wireless subscribers benefit from family plans. Meaning, the total number of family-plan lines vastly outnumber the total number of single-line subscribers.
For an average family of 3, 10GB plus unlimited voice/text is $145/month plus the cost of the smartphones on both ATT and Verizon. In other words, a hair cheaper than this Google plan per line, but with a ton more options and a bit more data. This is the maximum price; I'm ignoring the nearly constant promotions that allow a much better deal than this. To say nothing of the Cricket family plans which average about $35-40/month per line for the ATT network and about 5GB of data.
If you want to get really price competitive, this isn't even in the same league as the $35 tmobile plan which gives unlimited data (throttled after 5gb), unlimited text, and 100min of talk.
We're not talking about family plans though. We're talking about individual plans, which is what is mentioned in Google's announcement.
Of course you're going to get better overall pricing for family plans. Google's plans seem to concentrate purely on individuals.
Last edited:
Sprint and T-Mobile have unlimited plans. I'm paying 60 a month for mine with Sprint. No, this isn't more for less. This is less for more.
No reason to switch as it doesn't offer unlimited data like T-Mobile proper does. It might not be a bad move for light data users, especially the part about refunding money for unused data.
That's going to be the killer feature that will make the other carriers start paying attention.
It's not an argument, it's simply reality. I'm not arguing that it's good or bad or right or wrong, simply saying it has been happening in humanity for ages, just that technology has been improving. They are all "intrusive", it's just that we didn't and sometimes still don't know actually how much and often are just in denial about it since we've gotten used to it and it's not as publicized as something like Google or Facebook is. It's not going to change and will continue happening, and even avoiding this or that isn't going to make it any better since there's pretty much everything else out there that's still tracking this or that. Perhaps doing some survivalist off-the-grid thing somewhere might mostly do the trick, but even that likely won't do it 100% all the time, and even if it somehow does the vast vast majority of people simply wouldn't give up pretty much everything in today's life for that.What a strange argument. "Other's have been doing this bad thing, so therefore it's ok!"
Other companies have never been as pervasive and intrusive as Google and Facebook. Modern technology has made it possible and they have taken advantage of it.
Yes. I addressed this. Most people have families and thus benefit from family plans. For comparing prices on a per-line basis, a modest family plan is comparable to an individual plan.
Plus it's not even the cheapest for individual plans, not by a longshot.
----------
It's basically the same as rollover, economically speaking. Though, the rollover might be a better deal overall because rollover data typically is by MB, whereas this refund will round-up to the nearest GB. So, if I use 1.1GB of my 3GB plan: with Google I would get a refund for 1GB and lose .9GB, with rollover I would get an extra 1.9GB in the future and lose nothing (until they expire that is).
Nevertheless, I think this refund way is better - even if its just a statement credit. Would be be better if they prorated it to the nearest MB.
Wich is why what I described in my previous post is totally going to happen.
Google wants it. Most people are completely apathetic to it and just shrug their shoulders, or even welcome it.
Therefore there is no reason this is not going to be our future. One company owning the mental and physical profiles of almost all of humanity, and telling them what they should be doing next, since it "knows" what's good for them better than they know it themselves.
Since governments are made of humans, Google will simply replace governments.
It's not science-fiction, or FUD. It's happening right now, slowly, surely and calmly.
Just like with Lavos and Skynet, future generations will surely condemn us for not taking the opportunity to stop this evil power in its tracks before it becomes too powerful.
Just like with Lavos and Skynet, future generations will surely condemn us for not taking the opportunity to stop this evil power in its tracks before it becomes too powerful.
I think more likely future generations will be perfectly happy with it ( based on actual reactions ). Maybe a minority won't be. But they will be in the minority, therefore it won't matter what they think of this...
Contrary to what sci-fi movies say, most people are not opposed to the idea of becoming passive creatures. Deciding and thinking for yourself is a burden for a lot of people.
There is a huge difference between the romantic idea that novelists and filmmakers have of of what man is, and what man really is.
Last edited:
For the USA it actually seems to be a good service given the results so far. Since every country has their own NSA in secret, I like our dirty laundry debated in public, what a country.
huh?
Can one of you guys explain this to me? How is this different from the seamless switching between wifi and carrier that I currently have? Also if I have a GSM or CDMA phone, how can it work with both T-mobile AND Sprint? How is it going to make my life better?
Can one of you guys explain this to me? How is this different from the seamless switching between wifi and carrier that I currently have? Also if I have a GSM or CDMA phone, how can it work with both T-mobile AND Sprint? How is it going to make my life better?
Seems like it would likely apply only to certain phones that have the necessary hardware to support the bands that are used. The difference is that it would be seamless and would go between the coverage of WiFi, T-Mobile, and Sprint (not just one carrier, for example). Plus there would be a different type of a phone plan that's not quite the same as to what the carriers offer.