Why AT&T Killed iPhone Google Voice 304
ZuchinniOne writes "The Wall Street Journal has a very interesting article about the likely reasons that AT&T and Apple killed the Google Voice application. 'With Google Voice, you have one Google phone number that callers use to reach you, and you pick up whichever phone — office, home or cellular — rings. You can screen calls, listen in before answering, record calls, read transcripts of your voicemails, and do free conference calls. Domestic calls and texting are free, and international calls to Europe are two cents a minute. In other words, a unified voice system, something a real phone company should have offered years ago.'"
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
AT&T killed google voice because the "Killer App" that the iPhone has (visual voicemail) is completely, totally, and utterly DESTROYED by it.
If you haven't used google voice, let me explain. Somebody leaves you a voicemail on your GV number. Google does voice recognition on it, and sends you an email of the text. In the email is a little widget that allows you to play the audio.
Apparently, the visual voice mail was a HUGELY expensive undertaking for AT&T. Having somebody offer *the* reason to get an iPhone for *free* is really, really scary to them.
Google offered a superior product for infinitely (as in divide by zero) cheaper. AT&T shat their pants, and blocked it.
"texting is free"...? (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is a small part of the overall features mentioned in the article, the one thing that doesn't make sense is the 'free texting' portion - the SMS still has to be sent to your phone by your carrier, so how would it be any less expensive than normal?
Re:"texting is free"...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wall Street Journal reads Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from visual voicemail, the article talks about pretty much everything everyone here already discussed at length in previous stories on this topic. The "good thing" about this article's appearance is that it sheds light on the topic in a forum that many non-geeks will likely see. I'm sure I'm in good company when I say that these issues need to be brought to the attention of the general populace.
Does AT&T advertise with the WSJ? Will they continue to do so after this article? ;) Who knows.
Re:Full List (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AT&T had nothing to do with it, apparently (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Comrade!
Whenever I receive a communique from their headquarters, I know I can trust it fully without hesitation or rational thought process. This is the beauty of being inside the One, True Market, where no company has ever lied about their activities before.
Seriously though, if Microsoft released a similar statement, your bullshit detector would have exploded. I don't trust any PR from anyone. Do you think they don't have closed door conversations about destroying competition on an hourly basis? Do you think they're dumb enough to have them on the record?
Its an opinion article that explains nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
The first part of it discusses the existence of the rumors, doesn't mention the outright denial, mentions a few features of Google Voice (all of which work with the iPhone without any special app), states someting untrue about Apple and iTunes (says it works "exclusively with iPhones and iPods", which is kind of odd because it also works with computers, both Windows and Mac OS) in a way that it doesn't tie to the Google Voice decision, and tosses out some things about AT&T that it likewise doesn't tie to the Google Voice decision at all.
After that, it goes on to make a generalized attack on the FCC without pointing to any concrete examples, and move on to posting a vague wish list of things that a "national data policy" should focus on, with nothing about how to actually do most of it.
Its also, one might note, an opinion piece (not a news article), on technology-related policy from "a former hedge-fund manager".
Google Voice Is Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple blocking Google Voice makes buying an iPhone not even a possiblity now that I have had Google Voice for a month or so.
I know many of these features have existed in other products, but that doesn't change the fact that Google Voice has been as big a lifestyle change as getting TiVo for the first time 7 or 8 years ago.
* The voice mail transcripts are my favorite thing. Perfectly accurate so far. Love being able to read voice mails right from my computer
* Free SMS in a GMail like interface
* Everyone now has my Google Number and all my phones are unified behind that single number and I am now completely free to pick up and switch to a new cellphone as the flood of Android phones come out over the next year
Re:"texting is free"...? (Score:1, Insightful)
You're assuming it's still sent over the SMS portion of the network. I imagine GV app could set up push notifications to just use the data network, falling back to the SMS network if it didn't immediately get a push ack (I'm assuming push stuff can/has to ack). Same with sending texts.
Re:Full List (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not, and preserving this kind of access is network neutrality's raison d'être. The nightmare scenario is a provider using its clout to hamper access to a company that happens to compete with another line of the provider's business. It is completely unacceptable. Neither Apple nor AT&T has the moral or legal right to use control over one product line to subdue a competitor in another.
When high & mighty buisness meets technology (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Full List (Score:1, Insightful)
o Grant Google full access to record, transcribe, and store all of your voice communications, contacts, sms, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.
Re:Full List (Score:5, Insightful)
Zero Compensation?!
What's that $24.95 line item on my bill that says "Unlimited data"? I didn't realize I was supposed to be getting that FOR FREE! I'm calling up T-Mobile immediately to request a correction to my bill.
Wait, what? It's not zero compensation for a service they promised to provide?
By the way, the voice component of Google Voice doesn't use any bandwidth. You say what number you want to call, and Google Voice calls the number your at (home, work or cell)--which, by the way, you pay the phone company for (or should I not use that too?)--and when you answer call the other number. That way your Google Voice number shows on the caller ID of the person you're calling.
Re:Apple Admits It, Sort Of (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't seen a single AT&T fanboy. It's all Apple 'tards either saying that AT&T is outright lying to the FCC, or that AT&T has some sort of Svengali-like hold over Apple, due to the contracts that they were coerced into signing. They fantasize that somehow the FCC will declare AT&T's tyranny over their beloved Steve Jobs invalid and the real reign of the iPhone will begin with liberty and justice for all. Because Apple wouldn't screw over their own customers, like they have time and time again in the past, would they?
Re:Good points, bad points (Score:3, Insightful)
"While we're at it, why not end exclusivity deals for power companies as well! Oh wait... maintaining a cable plant is expensive. So expensive that broadband wireless is probably cheaper. Plus, people object to having their street dug up 10 times in a row by different companies, and even with just Verizon and Comcast they have a nasty habit of "accidentally" cutting each other's wires."
The best answer would be to have the local municipality be the one installing and owning the lines, and then leasing out their use to anyone who wishes to offer service on them.
"In general a good idea, but I'm not quite sure how you get Qualcom CDMA phones to work on a GSM network."
That'd be mighty difficult. But there shouldn't be a reason why a Verizon CDMA phone shouldn't work on a Sprint CDMA network.
"Of course, Verizon also cells cellular service and digital phone over FIOS, so they have a vested interest in VoIP not working, don't they?"
This is one of the motivations behind the Net Neutrality movement. Verizon shouldn't care what kind of data is sent over its lines.
You're mistaken... (Score:4, Insightful)
They want to enslave you.
They want to:
overcharge you for text messaging,
use up your minutes (and waste your personal time) with unnecessarily long outgoing messages,
charge you hidden exorbitant roaming charges,
force you to choose a "plan" in hopes that you will err in their favor, rather than switch plans automatically on a monthly basis
give you insufficient notification when your "special promo plan" expires, causing you to rack up $350 in a month, where you used to pay $80 for the same volume of calls, etc etc etc
I find ATT to be one of the most vile corporations in terms of customer service, always looking for a way to cheat, swindle, and bamboozle their users.
Re:Full List (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google Voice Is Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
What utter bullshit.
I've gotten professional calls from office workers that were very clear when listened to, but the transcription was so bad, I had to work at just trying to figure out what each sentence was saying.
Names were especially butchered and not at all consistent.
Even so, it is nice to get an email or text that you have a voicemail there. I'd just like the ability to turn on/off the transcription feature.
Re:LOL! Where's Your God Now Apple Fanbois? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple did the right thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple charged me around $100 each year to upgrade my G4 Mac from 10.3 to 10.4 to 10.5, whereas Microsoft charged me *nothing* to upgrade from XP to XP-SP1 to SP2 to SP3.
I have no love for MS, but I do enjoy cheap products. $0.00 spent on OS upgrades over 7 years time is a pretty good deal for a poor engineer like myself.
Re:Full List (Score:5, Insightful)
You are a fucking idiot. I would blow my last mod point on you, but bullshit this deep needs a response.
Fine, let me come over and use your shower and all the water I want just because it's in the interest of keeping things fair.
It costs AT&T money to provide that bandwidth.
Do you not notice that those two statements are OPPOSITE EACH OTHER? The original poster had it right. This is what network neutrality is all about. You're already paying for that bandwidth. Your fancy-schmancy iPhone comes with an $80 data package. So google offers a service, USING THE INTERNET YOU'VE PAID FOR, that blows the shit out of the native functionality of the iPhone.
Network neutrality is about selling the bandwidth, the $80 data package, and letting the user use it for whatever they want to use it for. What Apple.AT&T did was limit the use of this purchased internet connection, because it out-competed their offering.
If the electric company charges me a flat rate, I GET TO USE AS MUCH ELECTRICITY AS I WANT. Period. End of story. If a company isn't smart enough to sell its product at an appropriate price, than that company dies. It's called a free market.
When a company poorly prices its offering, and denies a costumer access to a competing offer at a better price-point, that's bullshit. And that's what Apple/AT&T did here.
Re:Apple did the right thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, you get what you pay for.
Translations (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate speech can be difficult to understand sometimes, so I'll translate a few bits...
The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhoneÃ(TM)s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhoneÃ(TM)s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way
We know best. We have always had the best taste in everything. We'll be damned if we'll let those grubby little customers insult us like that! Sometimes children have to be told no for their own good.
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
There is a provision in AppleÃ(TM)s agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&TÃ(TM)s cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&TÃ(TM)s permission. Apple honors this obligation...
We say! It's all us, we have the power!.....unless Mommy says no.
Apple does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages, and whether VoIP technology is used over the 3G network by the application. Apple has approved numerous standard VoIP applications (such as Skype, Nimbuzz and iCall) for use over WiFi, but not over AT&TÃ(TM)s 3G network.
We haven't actually tried to run the app yet...
* ÃoeApplications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in AppleÃ(TM)s reasonable judgment may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory; and...
But making your phone fart is fine
and the use of unauthorized protocols.
We can't just let those grubby little users use protocols all willy nilly like that, they might soil the internet!
Re:No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's what my brother actually said:
Hello, Happy Birthday my brother.
What GV said he said:
Hello, The bird say my brought their.
Sounds like a case of poor cellular...
Re:No. (Score:1, Insightful)
Google can give me a sense of superiority and belonging to the "in" crowd for *free*?
No, for that, you have to make posts mocking the iPhone.
Re:LOL! Where's Your God Now Apple Fanbois? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you still like your line of thinking?
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Google can give me a sense of superiority and belonging to the "in" crowd for *free*?
Yes, yes they can. Take that, Apple, you can't whore out your 'in crowd' tickets any more. Ahahahahahah~!
Re:Apple Just Admitted To It - Now You Look Foolis (Score:3, Insightful)
About a year ago my step-father bought an iPhone and asked me to help him figure out how to use voice activated dialing - a feature that came standard on his previous cell phone. The iPhone did not come with that functionality, I found out, so I figured there's gotta be "an app for that" and began looking through the App Store. On one of the apps, 95% of which were from companies I'd never even heard of before, stuffed a few pages down on the app description was essentially the statement "In order for Company X to provide this functionality we must upload your entire Contact database to our serves in order to match your voice request to a contact number."
I don't have an iPhone and I haven't looked into the matter since then, but if this is still how voice activated dialing works on the iPhone it makes me wonder what assurances Apple got from those companies regarding use of the Contact database and how Google differs in this regard.
Re:LOL! Where's Your God Now Apple Fanbois? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a poor analogy. Web browsers were not a key service of Windows when Netscape Navigator was released. The primary function of iPhone is the phone service. If Apple allows Google to change that, it would be like allowing Microsoft to change the Linux kernel or Linux hackers changing Windows kernel or its GUI, a bad thing, obviously.
Re:Apple did the right thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
"You apple suckers"? I've got XP, OSX, and FC7 running at my house, and I happen to like OSX for what it is - an integrated system that's worth the $50 or so I pay each year for updates. I don't need tons of hardware support, I need good support for the hardware that works for me, and I get that. I also don't care how many apps any OS has, just that it has the 10 or so I use.
Oh, and it's "Steve needs Chemo" nowadays.