Let's bulletize this, shall we?

1. What's the big deal? This is non-news really (from an enterprise mobility perspective). The horribly cynical version of this is that this is just another device from HTC. The specs are impressive, no doubt - and I *really* dig the fact that it will have 802.11n (presumably at 2.4 Ghz), as well as the fact that the device is using a 1 Ghz Snapdragon processor. No question - some pretty cool specs...that will become the norm over the next few months.
2. Android is still weak - from an Enterprise Mobility perspective that is. I hate to sound so harsh, but hear me out. Enterprise mobility - especially when you look at the prosumer angle - requires Exchange support. While yes, Android now supports the ActiveSync protocol, that level of support is truly minimal. Android 2.1 doesn't support any Exchange policies, and even the way it handles calendar appointments is really frustrating.
3. Google is damned if they do this. Hear me out people. I can't believe that other handset manufacturers such as Motorola and Samsung are going to be super excited by the fact that the company that is providing them the OS for their shiny new devices is now going to be competing directly with them. This will ultimately be a tight rope for Google to walk on.
4. Google is damned if they don't do this. I know, you're going to think I'm crazy for contradicting what I just said. This actually goes back to the tight rope. The fundamental strategy for Android is to get as many handset manufacturers as possible to develop handsets using the operating system. Makes sense...just like what Microsoft did in the PC market. The only problem (so far) is that the handset manufacturers are looking to differentiate their offerings by adding their own custom user interfaces and/or add-ons...just like what the people in the Windows Mobile world have done. This creates fragmentation. In this context, fragmentation is a bad thing, because not all applications may work as planned on the "same" platform. In order to help prevent that fragmentation, Google has to be the champion of its own platform and thus develop its own devices.

Now, where this does become interesting is two-fold:

1. If Google is successful in balancing its need to champion its own mobile platform while allowing handset manufacturers to thrive, then Microsoft has an opportunity to replicate this model and develop its own phones and showcase the "true" power of Windows Mobile (7).  In this context, it's actually OK in my opinion for Microsoft to follow someone else's footsteps.  This can be a slippery slope and candidly, I'm not sure how this will play out.
2. This also becomes FASCINATING from a wireless expense management perspective.  Don't forget that you can buy the Nexus One unlocked and off contract.  We all know how in the US, it's the carriers that dominate the distribution channel because they subsidize the device and then lock you into a two year contract.  Google may be able to change the game here.  Pay the unsubsidized cost and then you can change carrier whenever you need to or feel like it.  All handset manufacturers (and carriers) can benefit from this if Google is successful.  Imagine if the carriers didn't have to subsidize your devices...your monthly service plans could (should) end up costing less because Adam Smith's invisible hand would pass the savings along to the customer.  Employees could buy the device, companies could cover the monthly costs, and then a huge set of opportunities (or can of worms), come from an individual vs corporate liability perpsective.

So with that said, hey Google!  When are you going to send me a device to plat with?  ;-)