While Google shouldn't be unhappy with Android's progress in the market, the failure (to this point) in the Nexus One has everything to do with their attempt to flip the distribution channel of consumer phones. If there is any disappointment at Google with Android, its related to the direct to consumer model, and not the phone itself.
Today (in the US), most consumers purchase through retailers (wireless carrier stores and 3rd party retailers), and the phones are directly tied to specific carriers. The Nexus One was an attempt to marginalize this model by providing a direct channel together with a menu of carrier choices for the consumer to pick from. So far, the sales of the Nexus One show that direct to consumer hasn't worked. However, as the choice of carriers available for the Nexus One is just now more plentiful, its a bit premature to judge whether the al-la-carte carrier choice will have significant impact.
The problem I see for the Nexus One is that its now approaching middle-age for a mobile phone, and newer phones are certainly going to emerge in the coming months that steal the attention. So the al-la-carte carrier choice model may be too late in coming to have an impact, and therefore may not be the force for change in how consumers purchase phones and choose carriers.
I'm still not sure Google was all that concerned with "flipping the distribution channel" per se. It seems just as likely they just wanted to sell the phone and didn't want to have to go through a carrier to do it, just to get retail experience. Did Google every say that was what they were after, or did the breathless tech-press just feed that meme?
> So the al-la-carte carrier choice model may be too late in coming to have an impact
You're right, but it seems a safe bet that Nexus Two will launch simultaneously on a variety of networks.
Incidentally, the N1 just became available here in Canada, and I bought one because our carriers are even worse than US ones (standard contract is 3 years, or full price but still network-locked, non-rootable, etc.). i.e. the distribution channel was already attractive to me, though I admit I'm obviously "fringe".
It's only now that it's available on the other carries. They did not spend money advertising the phone, all the advertising was on their property in a time of year when they had available advertising space, if they wanted to aggressively push it they would have run an ad on the Superbowl rather than the "Parisian love" commercial and they would have sold much more, but then it would cannibalized the sales of the Motorola Droid and Verizon wouldn't have liked that.
The N1 is the phone Google gives away in conferences and gifts to developers, it's the phone they demo new android features on control the fragmentation, it's now available unlocked and on most carries in the US which is a first for any such device which is good because the carries subsidised model is shit and should be done with.
First, I'd love to have an N1. My MyTouch is woefully underpowered, and I can't wait for my contract to end. Google, if you're reading this, send me an N1. :)
While I agree that Google seemed hardly interested in promoting the N1, I don't necessarily connect this to Google not having higher expectations for the phone. There was certainly much back-channel promotional activity prior to the N1 launch that was setting up the public to expect the N1 to be the force to bring change to how phones are sold. Go back and look at the press coverage. Google had ample opportunity to manage those expectations publicly, but did not do so. Perhaps, as you said, this had to do with a desire to push the phone covertly so as to not upset their carrier partners (Verizon). It makes sense but is hard to know. I do believe that going into the N1 launch they hoped more from the device than it just being a reference standard and a give-away. If that was main intent of the phone, why even try to get it on all carriers? I also do think that Google wants to push device manufacturers to innovate, but with all the promise that people had in the N1, having it flounder doesn't help Google, Android, or help push device manufacturers.
I do believe that Google had/has every intent to disrupt the mobile phone market, and this is just the first step. Its in Google's interest to turn carriers into dumb pipes. And the N1 is certainly the first step. However, I can't believe that people within Google who worked on the project and management didn't have higher expectations for sales, and that Google wouldn't have used superior N1 sales as a means of pushing their agenda.
Despite all of the dynamics involved, the N1 hasn't sold well, and has been more of a nudge to carriers and device manufactures than a force for change.
Today (in the US), most consumers purchase through retailers (wireless carrier stores and 3rd party retailers), and the phones are directly tied to specific carriers. The Nexus One was an attempt to marginalize this model by providing a direct channel together with a menu of carrier choices for the consumer to pick from. So far, the sales of the Nexus One show that direct to consumer hasn't worked. However, as the choice of carriers available for the Nexus One is just now more plentiful, its a bit premature to judge whether the al-la-carte carrier choice will have significant impact.
The problem I see for the Nexus One is that its now approaching middle-age for a mobile phone, and newer phones are certainly going to emerge in the coming months that steal the attention. So the al-la-carte carrier choice model may be too late in coming to have an impact, and therefore may not be the force for change in how consumers purchase phones and choose carriers.