The Google Switch: an iPhone killer?
by Thomas Ricker 
posted Jan 18th 2007 at 8:51AM
Color us skeptics on this one, but we've got a tipster claiming to have the scoop on Google Switch. This version of the mythical Googlephone is said to be the result of a collaboration with Samsung -- not Alpha Networks or HTC. Of course, it's a button-less touchscreen device as is the rage these days only this time with GPS built-in for pinpoint navigation around Google Maps. What's pictured in that all too familiar blur (Photoshopped?) is the phone's contact program said to be an extended version of Gtalk combining Gmail, text and instant messaging. According to our tipster, the device doesn't have any on-board storage. That's right, all your applications are served up over the network with new apps "attached" to your account via a web interface. So what is it... the real deal or engorged fanboy fantasy? Check the gallery below for biggie pics suitable for dissection. 
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JSD @ Jan 18th 2007 11:29AM
wtf ... no internal storage?! I wouldn't believe that ...
Crossblade @ Jan 18th 2007 10:17AM
Fake. No way to lack storage!.
Crossblade @ Jan 18th 2007 10:18AM
Fake. No way to lack any system storage!
=DC= @ Jan 18th 2007 10:40AM
I think I'd buy something like that before an iPhone for sure. Touchscreens are the wave of the future, don't you know? http://net9.blogspot.com/2007/01/2007-year-of-touchscreen.html
Harry @ Jan 18th 2007 11:16AM
Not a chance... they would have to charge you just to find the correct number in your address book!!! Also, all the other phone manufacturers think that we want our music on our phone (I was inclined to dissagree 'till I saw the iPhone). I like the idea of being able to use Google Office (or whatever it's called), but then the iPhone ought to be able to do that so long as you can store files on your phone.
Marco Adragna @ Jan 18th 2007 10:57AM
I beg to dissent on the future of touch screens: the qwerty keyboard of my good old BlackBerry 7290 has made my thumbs happily ever after!
Marco
www.EvenHappier.com
Julia @ Jan 18th 2007 12:00PM
I used to have a t-mobile sidekick and it was primarily server storage. It had some "storage" for new things that I added until it had a chance to talk to the mother ship and upload/sync. But I sure couldn't retrieve anything off it once I got my Cingular and rolled the number. Poof! It all went bye-bye!
As for touch screen, that is pretty cool. I used to have Palm until that one died, and this present Cingular phone has both a qwerty keyboard and a touch screen with several options (keyboard, a "graffiti" type deal similar to Palm, etc.) for converting your touch/scribble/writing into text. So if this googlephone does that even with big fingertips (no nails), I can see how that would be attractive even to men.
Pip Turner @ Jan 18th 2007 11:55AM
I was under the impression that google partnered with apple in regards to the iPhone. Now the are going to compete with them directly. Doesn't sound quite right. Apple have applied for over 200 patents for iPhone functionality, so I doubt that the features will be as cool as the iPhone (visual mail is sweet looking!). Only time will tell, I guess!
Chris P @ Jan 19th 2007 2:36PM
The lack of internal storage, links perfectly for google's ambition to store all your data on their servers. This detail alone make me side on believing this story is true.
Tom @ Jan 18th 2007 12:11PM
Pip Turner:
Visual Mail is NOT AN APPLE INVENTION. Get your head out of the reality distortion field. And Apple *applied* for those patents - it doesn't mean they'll get them. They tried to patent the magsafe power adapter - too bad for them the food industry's had that patented since 2001. Just because somebody has more patents doesn't make their product cooler and better... Best case scenario, they utilized maybe 40-50 of them, and they're all first gen implementations with issues of their own.
Harry @ Jan 18th 2007 1:50PM
In the UK on T-Mobile you pay £6.50 a month (roughly $13) on top of your bill to get basically unlimited 3G data ("Web and Walk").
A small victory of value for money in an otherwise expensive country.
rooter @ Jan 18th 2007 12:52PM
Where did the name "Google Switch" come from? I haven't heard of it anywhere else.
Jonny @ Jan 18th 2007 1:35PM
Looks like bs to me.... It just doesn't doesn't look like something Google would come up with.
Marshall @ Jan 18th 2007 1:49PM
Why must everyone include a phone in their product? If this let me access all of my google services via WiFi (I suppose voice chat could be enabled too) it would be great. It could take the place of a computer for a lot of people who just want to use email, maps, keep an address book, etc. (Okay, maybe it would just take the place of a second computer or laptop). When you add in a cell phone, it is another level of annoyance with carriers, billing, signal strength and all that crap I don't want to deal with if there are other features of the product that go above and beyond the phone aspect.
I find this annoying with the iPhone too. I would buy it as a (not quite) widescreen video iPod, but the forced cell contract is really unappealing.
Seth @ Jan 18th 2007 2:12PM
No one's mentioned the image quality here. The first image is just slightly blurred, almost as if *ahem* someone rendered it and then hit it with a blur in PShop. And the second one is so obviously fake, they had to massively motion blur it to keep it from being easily compared to the real object (iPod). Plus, pretty big coincidence that they just happened to have an iPod there. And why don't they show more than just that one screen?
It's fake. An interesting idea, but fake.
Matt @ Jan 18th 2007 2:30PM
"Not a chance... they would have to charge you just to find the correct number in your address book!!!"
Or maybe not. Google has been buying up unused fiber-optic lines for years now, the so-called dark fiber that was installed in the 90s in excess of demand. All they would need to do is tack on some WiMax transmitters or the like and turn the thing into a country-wide hotspot. If the phone was voip, they could completely cut out the telcos. Nifty idea.
ForgetApple @ Jan 18th 2007 4:36PM
http://www.freewebs.com/wm5toiphoneskin/
iphone skin enjoy guys
chris @ Jan 18th 2007 5:20PM
Photoshopped.
andres Revo @ Jan 18th 2007 7:37PM
i would def believe the no storage concept...
the evolution of computers is def headed towards a more online standpoint...think about it almost everything you do on a computer is somwhat related to the internet
might i also add that if we can remember the sidekick is based over the network through danger's servers, sure it does store stuff on the phone itself but everything is on the servers
corgilabs g @ Jan 20th 2007 11:37PM
likely true, as well as google's fuel cell that will extend the life of this device
Kosso @ Jan 21st 2007 10:34PM
No storage?? no way! that's plain silly.
Also, these two images are named differently and have no discernable EXIF data to say if its pshopped or not.
The original photos would be nice.
Tejas @ Mar 15th 2007 4:05PM
This is definitely fake... notice the second pic where the device has a blur motion that is distinctly different from the blur on the iPod... it certainly shows that two blurred images were merged together.
The first one has an impossible angle for the device! it almost seems like it's on a stand... well where is the stand's shadow? or at least the stand's base should be visible! It definitely doesn't look like it's on the table to me!
Andrew @ Jul 19th 2007 5:40AM
"served over the network"
no. that sucks. we use Citrix to do just that where I work. it sucks. thin clients suck.
cheap? yes. small? yes. reliable? they want you to think yes, but alas, no.