In a world of giants, Sprint is a midget. Incredible though it may be, a company with 50 million subscribers to anything, much less a service that is a lifeline for many, finds that it is increasingly unlikely they will be able to thrive - or even survive - on their own.
The question of Sprint's survival arose a few months back when AT&T announced they were going to buy T-Mobile for some $39 billion. Small change to a company with annual revenues in the hundreds of billions, but still, even to them, that's real money. Sprint stock plunged, of course, when the announcement was made, as they'd now be the smallest of the cellular carriers in the U.S., in a business where scale is everything. Also not surprising is the amount of effort Sprint has exerted in attempting to stop the merger through legal maneuvers.
But it won't be stopped and Sprint, like it or not, is screwed. They'll need a "white knight" with a lot of cash to buy them out and help expand their infrastructure in a way that will give their David parity with AT&T and Verizon's Goliath.
The buyer will have to be someone from the outside (i.e., not a cellular carrier) who could benefit from the personal connection that users have with the device that's always within arm's reach - one more personal than email, tweeting or even Facebook - their cell phone. A buyer with a wad of cash and the wherewithal to make it all happen.
Enter Google.
They meet the aforementioned criteria, all right, but why would they be interested? Two reasons, actually, but both having to do with protecting their predominant source of revenue: advertising. Unless you've just landed from Mars and haven't ever "Googled" anything you know that Google puts a relevant ad next to the results. They do the same thing with their ubiquitous, free and insanely popular Gmail service.
Whenever you click one of those blue-tinted "Sponsored Links" Google charges the advertiser and, voila, the Big G is making mega bucks by knowing what you've searched for or what you said to your pal or spouse. They read it and then use a bunch of fancy computer code to place ads about from American Airlines or Hyatt Hotels a click-beat away.
The technology already exists to do the same thing on voice calls that they do with emails; anyone already using Google Voice can have their voicemail messages transcribed (albeit with some incredibly funny results) and thus morphed into another advertising paste board. To take it a step further, Google Voice numbers are provided by Sprint in the first place and now if you purchase a Sprint phone you can transfer (port) your Google Voice number to your phone, making it a much more flexible device. So the integration between the two has already begun and probably wouldn't take very long to extrapolate to the necessary end.
Now comes the fun part. Imagine Google buying Sprint and offering free, absolutely and positively and completely free, cell phone service. They already do this with email, Google Talk, Google Maps, the aforementioned Google Voice and about a dozen other services that you can get from Google at no charge. Is cellular really all that different? I suggest not. Let's take a look...
Google would provide you with free cell phone service in exchange for your permission to send relevant ads to your linked Gmail or Google Voice account. Or maybe the next time you make a call on your free Google-Sprint (Sproogle? Goont?) phone a message comes on saying "We're connecting your call but for the next 15 seconds please listen to this ad from Hertz Rent a Car." It's functionally no different than the way tens of millions of people get free email from Gmail today.
Would anyone sign up for this? Would people actually accept ads preceding calls or in their voicemail in exchange for free cell phone service? Not only would people sign up for it, all the servers from her to Timbuk-three couldn't keep up with the load. The day it's open for application they'd be crashing faster than Windows 95. Save $75/month in exchange for listening to a few ads or sifting through them in my email? Sign me up, dude!
But from a business standpoint why would Google feel compelled now, as opposed to last year or two years from now, to make this move? Simple: for the first time there is a true existential threat to their lifeblood - advertising through search results - that didn't exist just a few months ago.
The secret weapon aimed at Google's Achille's Heel is a piece of genius software disguised as woman's voice. Like an efficient but prissy executive assistant the voice takes orders, makes arrangements and shifts calendar events. It also answers questions. Lots and lots of questions. Everyday questions that people would otherwise - drum roll, please - search Google for the answers.
In the latest iPhone (you know, the one that everyone moaned about because it wasn't an iPhone 5 but still is selling faster than any other consumer device in history) a technology was introduced that could alter the mobile search landscape in a way unimaginable just a year ago. Siri, the voice-driven assistant is the first true Google killer. It carries the slingshot that slays Goliath in the simple difference between getting search results and getting answers.
When you want information and "Google" something you get pages and pages of links. Sometimes you get a choice of a few good links with relevant information at the top of the page but you don't necessarily get the answer. With Siri you ask a question and you get an answer. It doesn't search, it responds. Flying to NY tomorrow and want to know what to pack? Ask Siri, "Will I need an overcoat in NY next week?" Siri recognizes the query, does the searching, parses the logic and replies back, "It's going to be cold in NY so you'd better bring that overcoat."
"Siri, what was the score of the Dodger game last Tuesday?"
"Siri, what's the best price on a flight from Chicago to Miami on November 20?"
"Siri, is there a Mexican restaurant within walking distance of where I am?"
You get the idea. In short, Siri is all about getting answers while Google is - at least for now - all about indexing lots of information.
If Siri works as well as the beta indicates, people will stop using search engines of any kind from their mobile devices - and mobile searching is an increasingly large part of the search business - and that could be very, very painful to Google's bottom line. Think it's nuts? Even the former CEO of the company, Eric Schmidt, thinks it's true and said so before the US Congress.
So Google responds by buying Sprint and providing free cell phone service. They then get to force-feed advertising to the masses by inserting ads relevant to what users have been talking about. Google makes a gazillion on the ads. The advertiser gets directly to people who are actually talking about purchasing their product. Sprint survives, thrives and becomes a viable competitor to the Goliaths of the world. Win-win-win-win-win.
And who wins most of all? The consumer, who now gets their phone service for free and sees (or hears) ads that are actually relevant to what they're talking and or reading about.
That's what I call a Siri-ously happy ending.
