backtop

Gadgets Google Wants Free Cell Phones for Everyone
Brandon Hill (Blog) - November 13, 2006 10:27 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 29 comment(s) - last by OtakuMax.. on Nov 15 at 12:22 AM
Free cell phones to be supported by targeted advertising

Google, a company that is not afraid to branch out into new territory, is looking to target cell phones in the future for advertising. When buoyed by advertising dollars, Google see no reason why cell phones shouldn't be free to all.

"Your mobile phone should be free. It just makes sense that subsidies should increase as advertising rises on mobile phones," said Google CEO Eric Schmidt. With people using their phones more and more to perform many tasks on the go, Google see a prime opportunity to take advantage of.

Google has already begun working its magic in Japan by partnering with mobile phone networks to advance its mobile strategy. Google is also working on ways to efficiently deliver text, image and video ads to mobile phones.

Schmidt stated that consumers could spend anywhere from eight to ten hours using their cell phones to talk and text -- that seems a bit on the high side by all accounts. If consumers were spending that amount of time per day on their cell phones, Google's advertising strategy could work. But recent surveys have found that US consumers only spend on average 30 minutes a day on cell phones.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Fewer Ads, Not More
By TomZ on 11/13/2006 10:45:26 AM , Rating: 5
I'm already bombarded by ads all day long, online and offline, to the point where I can't stand the thought of a free cellphone supported with ads. I'd rather pay to have it be ad-free, so this offering wouldn't interest me at all.

I'm not against marketing in general, I just feel that it's a little overdone and saturated to the point where I feel I just tune it all out.




RE: Fewer Ads, Not More
By Lazarus Dark on 11/13/2006 11:26:21 AM , Rating: 5
see, my thinking is that advertising raises prices. If I pay for a service or product, the company makes a profit and I get the service i need. But advertising is hit and miss. Some advertising may yield a high number of purchase, but in fact most advertising is wasted money, it is ignored or not targeted to the right audience or simply unnecessary (like my local utility company advertising: I dont have a choice in utility companys! whats the point?). So, yes, I would prefer less adverts, and just pay for the stuff I want at lower prices.


RE: Fewer Ads, Not More
By bjacobson on 11/13/2006 4:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
And that's exactly why Google is so special-- their hit rates are very high because their means of providing advertising can't be beaten. Google makes millions from their adsense words, and yet I only click on a few adverstisements per month. So how can they be making money? Simple, really. Even if I only click on advertisements a few times per month, if half the time I click on one, I buy something from that company (be it some computer part supplier or an airline ticket provider), then that company can afford to pay $2-3 for my click on their simple text-based Google adverisement. So Google makes $2-3 and the airline company is happy. The last part-- who pays the $2-3, me or the airline?-- nobody, really. If the airline can reach more people, then they can have fuller flights, which means the cost of the flight is split between more people (after adding weight just add more fuel, it's that simple), which means the end cost to me is lower. They couldn't have had such a full flight without the adwords. Everybody wins-- the airline company spends less on advertising, the money they do spend has a high return/success rate, which makes my ticket cheaper.

If google gave everybody cell phones, think of how much easier it'd be to make an impulse buy. Advterisers would go nuts. And it'd all be thanks to a simple 20 word text advertisement.

Bring on the free phones.


RE: Fewer Ads, Not More
By ghost101 on 11/13/2006 5:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
Advertising on average works. If it didnt it wouldnt exist. It may be wasted but just like how only very few hollywood films actually make a profit, in the grand scheme of things it is worthwhile doing.

Obviously, different markets may have different effects from advertising, but if you aggregate things it must work otherwise competition would simply drive costs down and eliminate advertising.


RE: Fewer Ads, Not More
By iNGEN on 11/14/2006 11:55:49 AM , Rating: 2
I'd really like it if my current cell phone plan could be $10-20/month cheaper by accepting certain ads. For instance, I would not be offended by, in fact would likely respond favorably, to replacing my cell phones background image with targeted advertisements. Think of it like a miniature billboard. And with the inherent geographically specific nature of cell phones, ads targeted by location could even be desirable. And with the interactive nature of the medium...Well, picture this:

"Hey Jim, you hungry?"
"Yeah, Matt, what's good around here?"
<Jim flips open cell phone and stares at the screen for a few seconds while the ads flip accross the background>
"Someplace called 'The Frying Dragon' has dinner specials for $7.99. Looks like its just a few blocks away."
"Put me in for a a General Tso's, Jim."
<Jim pushes one button on his cell phone and his phone automatically dials the Frying Dragon Restaurant so he can place a pickup order.>

Though this is a pretty limited example, yes, I would go for limited advertising on my cell phone. As long as I never had to wait on or reduce any primary functionality of my cell phone for it. It could even be voluntary where you set you phone's background to "Ad mode" instead of a picture.


First things first
By crystal clear on 11/13/2006 10:39:44 AM , Rating: 5
"Free cell phones to be supported by targeted advertising"

If thats the case, then first give us the internet FREE-supported by targeted advertising.
Why pay my ISP-Interet Service Provider a monthly fee.
Let Google start with the internet.





RE: First things first
By RandomFool on 11/13/2006 11:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ad supported internet access doesn't work well remember freei, netzero, juno...

Maybe if it was broadband it'd be a little better.


RE: First things first
By OrSin on 11/13/2006 11:49:08 AM , Rating: 4
Google has already done that. They are offer free Wifi in a few citys now.


RE: First things first
By timmiser on 11/13/2006 4:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but we are talking free for everyone...not just a few cities.

I wonder though, with the Internet, you are pretty much forced to look at the screen, and therefore any advertisement that flops accross it. With this cell phone, it must mean the user will be forced to listed to a 30 second audio commercial before they are allowed to make or receive a call?


RE: First things first
By spindoc on 11/13/2006 6:59:32 PM , Rating: 2
I had a pager that used free service supported by ads. It worked on this principal. You were forced to listen to an ad before getting your messages. I didn't mind but the company didn't last very long.

I say let Google try it... as soon as I hear about the phones being cracked so you don't have to view the ads.. I'll get one.


Good idea
By mindless1 on 11/13/2006 4:01:44 PM , Rating: 4
I like this idea. I chuck the Google phone in my glovebox then next time someone wants to borrow my phone I give that one to them. That way, when Dubbya is tracking all these phones, he'll think I'm where that friend is and I can avoid the satellite laser cannons. ;-)




RE: Good idea
By Eris23007 on 11/13/2006 5:42:19 PM , Rating: 4
Where's my frickin' cellphones with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!


RE: Good idea
By UserDoesNotExist on 11/13/06, Rating: -1
RE: Good idea
By Jaylllo on 11/13/2006 9:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ostensibly Google does not cooperate. Anyway Federal Gov != Intelligence agencies.

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/01/199...

Now think twice before you post nonsense.

I'm really sure in China they have "inalienable" rights do search child porn.

Right...

-1 for you.


RE: Good idea
By UserDoesNotExist on 11/14/2006 9:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
First, Google refused to cooperate with the Justice Department in a child pornography case. I don't know how much more "federal government" you can get than that.

Second, about the "Google in cahoots with the CIA story", if you actually clicked on the links, you'd see that the entire story was based on the testimony of one supposed retired agent on some talk radio show. Not exactly damning evidence.

And it's called sarcasm.


Finally!
By Ralph The Magician on 11/13/2006 10:42:44 AM , Rating: 5
Just what I always wanted, a "free" cell phone that locks me into a $40 a month contract for 2 years, and procedes to slam me ever 15 minutes with text ads for how I can get a really low mortgage, increase my penis size, and become a millionaire by buying penny stocks. I've been waiting so long for this, no really.




RE: Finally!
By Micah on 11/13/2006 11:21:10 AM , Rating: 5
Wait!

Can I really increase my penis size? that's awesome! Where are you hearing about this?

I only get ads to increase my p3n1s size. I don't even know what a p3n1s is and why I'd want it to be larger

:D


It's an interesting thought, but....
By obeseotron on 11/13/2006 11:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't want a free phone with ads on it, actually. I don't see anything wrong with Google offering something like that, but it's not for me. I use a cell phone dozens of times a day, and it's just worth it to me to get a decent one for $150 or so every time I sign a new contract.

I'm pretty sure most of the DVR owning, Adblock using tech savvy community feels the same way: We don't like ads, we don't respond to ads, and we'll do whatever we can to avoid them in the first place.




By valkator on 11/13/2006 1:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Your right we HATE ads and we want to avoid them. BUT, you would be really surprised how many people respond to them. It's mad I tell you. O_O


So...
By yacoub on 11/13/2006 1:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else rather have their current cellphone plan that they pay for which is free of advertising, over the hassle of ads just to have it for "free"?




RE: So...
By valkator on 11/13/2006 1:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
I would rather stick with my plan to pay w/o ads. I mean come on already, are we not trying to get rid of spam lol.


work phone versus personal
By slatr on 11/13/2006 10:36:52 AM , Rating: 1
I have a work cell phone, but not a personal.

I would like to have a free phone to check gmail/get web access.







RE: work phone versus personal
By Azsen on 11/13/2006 5:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
There's no way I want my phone beeping away at me all day because Google is sending me advertising text/picture/MMS messages. People use their phones to communicate with people, they don't want to be bombarded with useless advertising spam.

Can you imagine what a waste of time that would be over the course of a day if you check your phone each time you get a message and its just another Google spam message.


Eeeh....
By Rock Hydra on 11/13/2006 10:45:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if I like this idea. But, I guess it depends on how it's implemented...maybe having to see an ad when you turn the phone on or something or maybe the ad occasionally flashes as the background might be okay...though the thought of recieving text message ads or having to listen to an ad before the phone dials out or something of the like is not appealng to me.




Google?
By Regs on 11/13/2006 12:33:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's not just google. They all do. It's called a contract and you pay monthly.




By timmiser on 11/13/2006 4:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Are we talking a free phone and pay for a service contract or are we talking about a free service contract with a free phone?

(Don't know which of the many hyperlinks DT has in the article to click on for the story?)




wow
By SakuraChan on 11/13/2006 7:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
Is it blueberry or Nokia E66 ( I think )....
yes i want a free phone :D
and I'll find a way to get rid of the ad




Laugh while you can
By OtakuMax on 11/15/2006 12:22:12 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see how this is impossible or stupid... Ads can be very non-intrusive. Just look at Google Ad, it finances all the search engines, mail server... etc. for Google (and leaves tons of revenue). In this sense, there is no reason why this cannot be applied to mobile network one day. In fact, in many Asian countries (such as Japan), some ringtone/game downloading service is using advertisement to provide free service.

For those of you who talked about listening to a mendatory ad before call, it says WATCH in the article. So you can still call whoever you want, just that advertisement would show up on your phone, non-intrusively.

Cell phone usage nowadays of course would not make this possible, especially for North American market where cell phone are still used as calling devices. But in Japan, where text messaging is as popular and cheap as email, it will work... Most techno-phoebic Japanese do have a cell phone and they do use it for text messaging.

Anyway, laugh while you can....




Prepaid works fine for me...
By dug777 on 11/13/2006 9:19:27 PM , Rating: 1
I can't see why on earth you'd want a mobile, even if it was free, that annoyed the hell out of you with advertising all the time.

Knowing google, they'll do it tho, and of course people will take up on it, which will hopefully lead to reduced mobile service prices for the rest of us. and not traditional carriers just resorting to bombarding you with advertisements too :(




"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki