I posted a bit yesterday about the NYT piece on the gPhone. The coverage of the NYT analysis has been spun as wrong as it can possibly be, with the grand take-a-way being that there is no gPhone coming. The original article was a bit off in the first place. I actually got an email from Miguel Helft this morning, responding to my analysis of what he said.
I’m puzzled that you call this a hit piece. Really? A story that lays out the facts, as I known them, and strategy behind Google’s mobile ambitions and plans. In fact, most readers would probably come away with the notion that loosening carrier control and more competition for are good things. No?
As for quoting Google enemies, the one and only source I quoted who is in that camp is Scott Cleland, and I very clearly disclosed his point of view.
In fact, the one CEO of a carrier I quoted was Vodafone, by some metrics the largest mobile operator in the world, and a Google ally, since they provide easy access to Google services (unlike US carriers).
The problem is, Miguel, that very few facts were reported. The leading items were your unqualified (by any sourcing) analysis, and the quotes from those that would be decidedly out of the Google camp. Karsten Weide? Ex-Yahoo. Dan Olschwang? Potential Google mobile competitor. Arun Sarin? T-Mobile competitor (gPhone carrier).
Throughout the article, Miguel and all the quoted sources seemed mystified by the hype. As I stated yesterday, the gPhone promise is what the iPhone used to be, but without the threat of bricking.
I looked a bit further into Scott Cleland, since I was pretty sure I’d heard the name before, but couldn’t place it. He writes Precursors Blog, and talked a bit about the gPhone yesterday. Like Miguel’s piece, most of his analysis lacks cited sources, and completely downplays any credence to the hype surrounding it whatsoever. According to Scott, all the hype revolves around “their one-letter sub-branding conventions, their cultures of extreme secrecy about their plans, and their similar “Midas touch” public relations successes.”
Again, though, what would you expect from shill for the anti-net neutrality crowd, and someone who argues that “…[t]rue competition best serves consumers, not government-managed competition where the Government pre-determines market outcomes with preemptive open access of net neutrality regulation” when speaking of the nation-wide megalopolies of AT&T and the cable companies. Competition indeed.
Want to be part of the Rizzn-ite army? Indoctrination instructions here.