It looks like the Nexus One, a.k.a. the Google Phone, may go on sale in just a week.

Sources are telling TmoNews that you’ll be able to order the Nexus One directly from Google starting at 9am on Jan. 5. The site also has a screenshot from an internal T-Mobile site, which more-or-less confirms some previous reports: That Google is launching a new phone in early January based on its Android smartphone operating system, and that Google will be selling the device itself. T-Mobile, meanwhile, “will offer service support including billing, coverage, features and rate plans.”

We’ve also received an invitation to a Google Android press event in Mountain View, Calif. on the morning of Jan. 5. Now, that may mean that TmoNews is right, and that Google timed the press conference to coincide with the first sales. It’s also possible that these sources are confusing a press conference with the start of sales, and that the launch may come a little later. Or it could be none of the above.

Regardless of the exact details, it looks like the Nexus One is real, and it’s coming very soon. Besides being a big step for Google (since it will represent the search giant’s first direct sales to consumers), the Nexus One could also represent a substantial improvement on previous Android phones, since Google has more control in the creation of the device itself. A Google phone could also shake things up for mobile carriers, since customers won’t be locked into a contract with a specific carrier like T-Mobile or AT&T.

I use Google Docs for almost all of my writing, and I’ll be the first to admit that it’s pretty bare-bones compared to Microsoft Office. But that may change next year.

For one thing, Google has been making a number of acquisitions that are clearly Docs-related. Over the weekend, TechCrunch reported that the search giant is in the final stages of talks to acquire DocVerse, a startup that lets users collaborate around Office documents, for $25 million. The deal would also bring Google some key hires, since the startup’s co-founders were managers on SharePoint, Microsoft’s popular collaboration service.

This follows the November acquisition of AppJet, a company founded by former Googlers that created a collaborative word processor. (It’s worth noting that Google Docs itself was the offspring of several acquisitions, including Google’s purchase of Writely.)

Meanwhile, Google has been talking up the splash it wants Google Docs to make in 2010. Don Dodge, who just made the move from Microsoft to Google, recently told me, “2010 is going to be the year of Gmail and Google Docs and Google Apps.” Even more concretely, Enterprise President Dave Girouard said last month that Docs will see 30 to 50 improvements over the next year, at which point big companies will be able to “get rid of Office if they choose to.” Presumably features from AppJet and DocVerse will be among those improvements. I’d certainly be thrilled to see the battle between Office Docs become a real competition, rather than upstart Google slowly chipping away at Microsoft’s Office behemoth.

By the way, Google declined to comment on the DocVerse acquisition rumor (as it always does), and the startup didn’t even bother to answer my email. DocVerse raised $1.3 million from Baseline Ventures and assorted angel investors.

Google is in the advanced stages of a bid to acquire Yelp for more than half a billion dollars, according to a report in TechCrunch. The acquisition of the popular review site would advance Google’s position in the local search marketplace considerably, given Yelp’s devoted following in metropolitan areas across the U.S. and deep review content on local businesses. Local search blogger Greg Sterling reports that Yelp is estimated to have 8.5 million reviews.

For several months, Google has been rolling out enhancements to its Google Maps offering, including aggregated reviews from TripAdvisor, Citysearch and other sources. Most recently, Google Maps began integrating more comprehensive business profiles with its Google Favorite Places initiative, and announced in early December that it was distributing 100,000 window decals to popular businesses with a QR code that links back to a Google Maps listing. Seen at the time as a threat to Yelp, which also distributes stickers to local businesses, the strategy now appears to be the first step towards an attempt to assimilate Yelp’s user base and market share.

Several sources are confirming that the two companies are close to finalizing the agreement, with one source giving the deal an 80% chance of closing, TechCrunch says.

Google appears to be pursuing a strategy of acquiring businesses with a stake in the local marketplace. Its acquisition of Admob for $750 million in November gave the search giant access to a popular platform for local advertising on the iPhone.

Yelp has raised $31 million in four rounds of venture financing since the company was founded in 2004, and projects revenue of $50 million in 2010. The site claims to have 25 million monthly unique visitors.

I’ve emailed Google for comment, and will update if I hear back — though Google rarely comments on stories like this until the deal goes through.

At Microsoft, Don Dodge was known as the software giant’s ambassador to an at-times skeptical startup community. When he was laid off in November, TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington declared, “This is a huge mistake,” but Dodge quickly moved over to Google, where he’s taking on a similar role. (TechFlash has even nominated Dodge for best hire of the year.) Now that he’s starting to settle in, I interviewed Dodge about how Google compares to Microsoft, how he’s enjoying Google products like the Google Phone, and what’s coming in 2010.

VentureBeat: How are you liking the new job?

Don Dodge: I’m loving it. I’m the kind of guy that likes to do things totally new and start over. I’ve done five startups and that’s the ultimate startover. Moving to Google has been exhilarating and overwhelming and awesome, all at the same time.

VB: It sounds like your job at Google is pretty similar to what you were doing at Microsoft, namely trying to convince startups to use your company’s platform.

DD: It is, Anthony. The difference is, at Microsoft my group was focused entirely on startups. Now I’m doing the same thing, but I’m also talking to small and medium businesses and large enterprises about moving to Gmail, Google Apps, and App Engine. I’m helping businesses of all sizes make use of Google platforms.

VB: Now that you’re evangelizing for Google rather than Microsoft, what would you say is the difference in their value to startups?

DD: The principle difference, as you know, is that at Microsoft, the software was pretty expensive — they offered very expensive but very robust products. For startups, in many ways, the price was prohibitive, and that’s why Microsoft did the BizSpark program, to make that transition easier. At Google, most tools like Google Web Toolkit and infrastructure are free, so there’s not a big cost barrier.

VB: It seems like the challenges you’re facing at Google are an inversion of those you faced at Microsoft. At Microsoft, there’s some suspicion and hostility from startups, at least in the Valley. At Google, the resistance you’re facing is more from enterprises.

DD: Well, if there weren’t any challenges, I wouldn’t have a job. My job at Microsoft was convincing startups to pay money to use our tools. At Google, I think the challenges are a little different. It’s about getting small and medium businesses, companies using traditional enterprise software, moving to Gmail and Google Apps and the App Engine. That’s the hill to climb, but having the background at Microsoft really helps.

VB: When you announced the move, you said you were switching from Microsoft products like Outlook to Google products like Gmail. How’s that going? Do you have a favorite?

DD: Oh, it’s Gmail. The thing that surprised me is the Gmail that consumers use is the same email that every Google employee uses.

I’ve found Gmail to be just terrific, particularly the threaded discussions — it’s just so much easier to keep track of discussions and email threads. That’s the first thing. The second thing is, links not attachments. With an email that’s just a link to a Google Doc, you always have the latest version. The third thing was offline Gmail. Now you can go on an airplane, go anywhere offline, and you’ve still got your email and attachments.

The final observation I would make is, over my career, my first email thing was Vax Mail, which was awesome at the time, it was revolutionary. I went from Vax Mail, to Outlook, to Lotus Notes when I was working for Ray Ozzie, then back to Outlook again, and now Gmail. Email is a pretty straightforward application. They have basically the same features, it’s all a question of user interface. I’ve found the transition to Gmail simple, easy, and in many ways better, particularly due to the threaded discussions.

So with a lot of the religion people have [about different products], I’d make the same point about spreadsheets. A lot of people that are my age started with VisiCalc or Lotus 123 and moved to Excel, now we’re moving to Google Spreadsheets. It’s just the next era, the next transition.

VB: You also said you’re going to spend 20 percent of your time on Google Ventures. Can you say what you’re going to be focusing on there?

DD: Yeah, I can say a little bit about that. Being able to work with Google Ventures was really the thing that made this the ultimate dream job for me. I got to do all the same evangelism things, working with startups, businesses, and VCs I had been doing, but there’s a lot of natural synergy between the startups and companies that I work with and Google Ventures making investments in startups and fast-growing companies. It’s just the best of both worlds.

In terms of specifics, this is only my fourth week, so I can’t offer a lot of insight into the kinds of things Google Ventures is investing in. I’ve attended the partner meetings every Monday, and they have a very open and aggressive style. They’ll look at anything, they look at things on the merits, and they are financial investors not necessarily strategic investors. They’re looking to make investments in great startups and great teams. And they’re looking for things where Google can add value to the investments they make.

VB: So are you going to be making investments yourself, or playing more of an advisory role?

DD: It’s an advisory role for now. I’m looking at potential companies and doing due diligence and bringing new deals to them to consider. So for now that’s the way it is, and over time the percentage of time I spend and the level of involvement could increase.

VB: In moving from Microsoft to Google, has your perspective on the startup world changed?

DD: No, I wouldn’t say it’s changed. I would say, if anything, it’s more relevant now than it was. At Microsoft, I was very interested in the next big thing, and at Google the platform groups are very interested in catching the next wave.

I think Google has really placed some big bets on the future. There’s Chrome OS — we all spend the majority of the time in the browser compared to client applications, and Chrome OS is a platform to build applications to run in the browser. Android is another big bet. When it comes to mobile applications, I think in the future, you’re going to go into your office, you’re going to have a flatscreen and a keyboard, and you’re going to take your phone out of your pocket and dock it. And you can decide which applications and data are relevant on your phone and which are in the cloud. The third one is cloud computing itself — Gmail and Google Apps are just providing packaged applications on the cloud. App Engine as an infrastructure to build new applications in the cloud.

Those three areas are the big bets for the future. That’s the future of computing.

VB: Speaking of Android, I know you switched to an Android phone. Which one are you using?

DD: It’s the new one, the Google Phone. You’ve seen the press, they gave it to all the employees. It’s awesome. It is night and day from my Motorola Q phone. That was a Windows mobile device, and going from Windows Mobile to Android has been like night and day.

VB: Now that you’ve left Microsoft, how do you feel about the company’s future?

DD: At a high level, Microsoft today is where IBM was in late ’80s, early ’90s. When I was just starting my career, IBM ruled the world. IBM was the dominant computer provider in the world — hardware, software, network, you name it, IBM was king. I think in the late ’80s and early ’90s, we saw that shift and Microsoft became king of the hill. And in 2009, 2010, going forward, Microsoft is sort of like IBM. It’s a longtime company with a great tradition and still very profitable, but it’s not the leader. Microsoft is not making the innovative leaps and coming out with the new stuff. People used to fear IBM and they don’t anymore. More recently, startups and competitors feared Microsoft, and I think over the past five or 10 years since that consent decree, I think that changed the company dramatically. I don’t think startups and competitors fear Microsoft the way they did 10 years ago. Part of it is the natural evolution of companies, part of it is the changing culture from that consent decree.

VB: Those are all of my questions. Anything else you’d like to add?

DD: Well, in terms of 2010 predictions and what’s going to happen next year, I’ve been sort of thinking about that. I haven’t made any yet, but I wanted to bounce a few off you and see what you think.

I think 2010 is going to be the year that Windows 7 really takes off and gets really fast adoption, because a lot of enterprises didn’t go to Vista. They waited for Windows 7 and didnt want to get off XP. I think Windows 7 will see a lot of uptake.

My second prediction is that Office 2010 is going to have the exact opposite problem. I think adoption will be very slow and the reason, I think, is because Office 2007 is good enough. They already own it, it’s bought and paid for, they know how to use it, why spend all the money for Office 2010? It’s going to have a long, hard road.

The third one is, I think 2010 is going to be the year of Gmail and Google Docs and Google Apps. They are ready for prime time, they’re ready for enterprises to adopt, and the price is so compelling.

VB: What do you think about the free, web version of Office?

DD: Yeah, I haven’t seen it, I don’t know too much about it. But I think Microsoft faces the classic innovator’s dilemma. You know, their business model and huge revenues and profits come from the traditional Office. It’s almost cannibalistic of them do a free version or web version. They’re putting their toe in water, but I don’t think they’re going to put a lot of effort behind it, a lot of support behind it. It’s one of those checkoff items when customers ask, “Do you have a free version?” they can say, “Yeah, we have that too.” But I can’t imagine that they’re going to really push that or promote it.

Rumors of a Google-branded PC of some sort have been around for years. In 2006, I blogged a Consumer Electronics Show press conference at which reporters goaded Eric Schmidt: “What about the Google PC?” and, “You’d be stupid not to do it, so you must be doing it, right?”

Schmidt’s deadpan answer: “We issued a statement that we have tremendous partners in the PC space, so we have no interest in doing it.  I guess some people don’t believe it.”

Exactly, Eric. We don’t believe it.

Today, TechCrunch editor Mike Arrington claims to have inside knowledge that Google has talked to at least one netbook maker about building a Google-branded netbook running Google’s Chrome OS operating system.  It would ship a year from now, for the 2010 holiday shopping season. Arrington’s sources claim they’ll likely be sold through wireless carriers, just as smartphones are today, with Google paying a subsidy on each netbook to keep the sale price down.

Now that Google has a Google-branded Nexus One phone coming to market, the likeliness of a Google-branded netbook seems much more real. But notice the difference: The Nexus One is a sort of geek status-phone. It comes without a wireless plan. Getting hooked up can be complicated. The netbooks, if sold with built-in wireless enabled, would be cheaper and easier for mass-market consumers to buy than a standalone computer.

The unidentified netbook maker, Arrington says, was given a detailed set of technical specs by Google representatives. As VentureBeat’s Anthony Ha reported last month, Google is being picky about what hardware it will allow to run Chrome OS, because Google wants only fast Google PCs, not slow ones. Speed is one of Google’s core brand values. A slow Google PC isn’t a Google PC.

Google just added 55 publications to Fast Flip, its experimental application that lets you flip through online news stories. The company blog post doesn’t include a full list of new partners, but they include the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, Reuters, and, yes, VentureBeat.

The idea behind Fast Flip, which launched in September, is to combine the speed and smoothness of magazine reading with the breadth of sources found online. Obviously, Google is still working on the breadth part, but combined with the three dozen launch titles, the service Flip now features nearly 100 publications.

In Fast Flip, you could do a search for news related to Twitter, and instead of seeing a list of headlines, you’d seen screenshots of relevant articles. You could then flip through those articles like the pages of a magazine. You could even narrow it down to a specific publication — for example, treating Fast Flip as a way to scroll through the latest VentureBeat headlines. If you see an article you’re interested in, you can click through to the webpage. Fast Flip also allows you to email, share, or say that you like an article.

The Fast Flip service is still in Google’s labs area for experimental features.

There’s been no shortage of rumors, some more substantiated than others, that Google’s coming out with a new, game-changing phone, and everyone’s itching for a chance to weigh in.

A few things are certain now, thanks to Saturday’s post from the Google Mobile blog: there is, in fact, a product being tested, or “dogfooded” by Google employees. General consensus is that it’s called the Nexus One, looks like this phone on the right (image from Boy Genius Report) and will be released in early January as an unlocked GSM phone—meaning it would work on T-Mobile or AT&T. No one seems to agree on anything else, but the phone is out there.

What the Google Phone could mean, though, might be more significant than the phone itself—at least, that’s what Forrester mobile analyst Charles S. Golvin thinks. In a blog post today, he outlines some of what could be so status-shaking about the Google phone.

The most important question about the Google phone, says Golvin, is whether or not the phone’s going to be sold at full price or with some kind of subsidy. His guess (and others’) is the latter, and he goes on to explain why it’s so important.

“Mobile operators can subsidize phones because they repay the cost in service fees, locked in for one or two years by the accompanying contract commitment. Not being a service provider, Google would have to rely on revenue from advertisers to justify the subsidy,” Golvin says. That’s a huge departure from the forced loyalty and contract systems that carriers have set up, and has significant potential for freeing customers from a carrier – instead, they’re just subjected to advertising, over time, that pays for the phone instead of having to sign a two-year contract so that the carrier is certain to get their money back.

The system would be good for both customers and carriers, who are already in the process of broadening the spectrum of their revenue streams in response to more and more backlash at contracts and high cancellation fees. Moves like this might also represent a shift in how advertising works, expanding it onto new platforms — eReaders, TV, and phones are already seeing innovations in advertising, and as the major advertising player on the Web Google is the natural outlet for these changes.

Details are still scarce, and most of what’s out there is speculation, but it seems that if and when the Google Phone comes out, Google will be trying to shake up the telecom industry, and all the major carriers along with it — which is classic Google.

The competition among URL shorteners seemed to have subsided, with bit.ly emerging as the leader thanks in large part to support from Twitter. But some big tech players could shake things up — Google and Facebook are both experimenting with shortening services of their own, called goo.gl and fb.me, respectively.

The point of a shortening service is to transform a long, convoluted URL into a short one. This is particularly useful on Twitter, where long URLs eat up precious characters, but I also see it use in emails and websites, where long URLs just look ugly.

Google has two blog posts today announcing its new shortening service. For now, only users of the Google Toolbar and the company’s RSS service FeedBurner can use Goo.gl, though the company says, “If the service proves useful, we may eventually make it available for a wider audience in the future.” Google also highlights three benefits its service offers over most URL shorteners — stability, security, and speed.

Meanwhile, Facebook hasn’t made any official announcements, but it has begun shortening URLs that appear in its mobile interface. As with Google, if this proves successful, we can probably expect to see broader implementation.

Now, URL shorteners aren’t difficult to create from a technical perspective, but they can be costly to maintain for a small organization. The shutdown of some shorteners, such as Tr.im, has raised concerns about whether using a shortener will mean all your links become broken in the future. That would be less of a concern with Google and Facebook — and the perception that we can “rely” on links from Google, especially, could be trouble for bit.ly (not that bit.ly has been particularly unreliable). It will also be interesting to see if the companies decide to contribute to 301Works, an archive of shortened links.

Besides the saved space of URL shorteners, they can provide useful data and analytics about what people are clicking on. Google and Facebook might make use of that data themselves, and they may want to pass it on to customers and partners, such as blog publishers and businesses with Facebook Pages.

[Thanks to Kim-Mai Cutler for contributing to this post. Oh, and the photo is from flickr/Jonas B]

It’s looking all-but-official that Google is developing a smartphone of its own using its Android operating system, as reported in TechCrunch last month.

All Google has said officially is that it has developed a “mobile lab” device that “combines innovative hardware from a partner with software that runs on Android,” and that employees are “dogfood” testing the phone. But both TechCrunch and the Wall Street Journal say the device is, in fact, the fabled Google phone. (Subscription required for the second link.) The phone will reportedly be called the Nexus One, and Google will sell the device itself, online. Users will then buy cellular plans on their own, from a carrier of their choice.

Until now, Google has only been responsible for Android’s software. The phones themselves are built and sold by manufacturing and carrier partners. (In fact, the only hardware that Google sells directly is its enterprise Search Appliance, so this will be the first time Google sells a device to consumers.) Why the shift in strategy? Well, the first generation of Android devices hasn’t really gotten the same attention from either consumers of application developers as Apple’s iPhone (though there’s been a bit more buzz about the Droid). This will give Google complete control over the process, though its partners probably won’t be too happy that the search giant is selling phones that compete with their own Android devices.

The Nexus One will go on sale in 2010, the Journal said — that’s also when Google says its partners will start selling netbooks with its Chrome operating system.

Amidst jubilant cries of ‘Viva Vevo!’ and ‘la vevo loca!’ and other such nonsense, Vevo.com launched today. The site is a venture between Google-owned Youtube and the music industry to place youtube-powered music videos in one spot — with higher end advertising to monetize it. The site is built with “official” music videos, those produced by the record industry.

This move, if successful, will help keep music content profitable. Unfortunately, I’ve only gotten one search to load results today. Vevo issued a tweet to the effect of “oh god! the traffic! we can not keep up!” which isn’t all bad for the company but hasn’t made a good first impression on me.

Minutes later, I’ve gotten artist and title searches to work. I’ve loaded a video, “Walk of Life” by Shooter Jennings, viewed my advertisement and the video is streaming flawlessly. I’ll forgive the under-prepared launch and the advertisement. After all, the high end advertising is how Vevo is funding my favorite country (yes, country) videos being piped to my laptop.

Vevo could be imagined as 1980s-era MTV (when MTV played music videos instead of reality shows) for the digital age. When Vevo works, it showcases high production value content from Universal, Sony and EMI records as well as CBS radio stations. The site has partnerships with over 20 high end advertisers like McDonalds and MasterCard. Advertising comes on, says its piece and then you are back to more music videos.

Vevo CEO Caraeff told Reuters that advertisers are paying $20 – $45 per 1,000 page views. Based on today’s site-crashing volume of traffic, Vevo should prove to be a high earner. If Vevo can keep up with the traffic, it will be my new favorite music video service — though for user-generated content, Youtube is still the best game in town.