The First Google Phone: Ouch

Just wanted to share some of my thoughts on the latest developments in the cellular world. What better place to start than the infamous Google phone, which turned out, much to most of our disappointment, to not be a phone at all, but a cellular platform or more precisely a mobile operating system? I just do not get a few things, and I would seriously like some explanations here, so please feel free to make use of the commenting tool.

Why would a company like Google, who is known for their innovation and products that just work (Gmail, Picasa, and many others), agree to introduce the world to their new and exciting Android on such a (I literally sat in front of my monitor trying to think of a strong enough word to describe the G1’s ugliness) horrendous looking phone? I cannot think of one aspect of the Dream’s hardware that is even slightly appealing to me! OK, software might be more important when choosing a phone, but there have to be red lines, and the first Android phone crosses them. So, why? There must be an explanation. Anyone?

Furthermore, once Google decided to settle and use the G1, how could they agree to release this phone without a 3.5 mm headphone jack? This phone is supposedly competition for the iPhone and others like it, but as if the G1 was not ugly enough on its own, you now have to use some clunky adapter to plug your earphones in? Why, Google, why?

Connect This Nice Looking Thing to Listen to Tunes on Your G1

These are not rhetorical questions, I expect answers here. Does it really take so much to add a headphones jack? Would it really have been too much to ask for HTC to design a pleasant looking handset for the most exciting mobile platform of 2008? Maybe something like the HD? I would have even settled for a Diamond. I really just do not get it.

Next Gen Cellphone

OK on to other topics. Phone Scoop reviewed the Samsung Behold. They gave it an OK review and were not very excited by it. I read the review and was very surprised to see that the main disadvantage of the phone was not addressed. The camera was OK, the music player was decent, nothing about the fact that it is a closed OS, with no option of installing anything 3rd party. I can tell you that this was for me, pretty much the thing that prevented me from getting the phone. Strange that they did not discuss it.

Behold the Samsung Behold

Lastly, just wanted to give a quick shout-out to the biggest disappointment of my week. The 2.2 iPod/iPhone firmware upgrade. I was so excited to use Street View on my iPod and for some unexplainable reason, that update was only provided to iPhone users and not iPod Touch users. Other updates were implemented on both the iPhone and iPod, like pressing the Home button now brings you back to your first home screen, and enhancements to the App store. So, I ask, why would Apple do such a thing? I find it very hard to believe that it is because of technical restrictions, there is no reason it would work on the iPhone and not the iPod Touch, which leads me to believe that this was a marketing decision.

Amazing!

It is no secret that I love the way Apple markets their products, which leads me to my conclusion that everyone makes mistakes. The hard part is to acknowledge your error and correct it. So, no pressure, Steve, but hurry the heck up and fix this, I want to see my old house on my iPod.

Just to end on a positive note, congrats to Technmarketing on their 100th post, and what a post it is, if I do say so myself.

-Hillel