Google Gets Its iPhone Voice 249
snydeq writes "Google has found a way to let iPhone owners use Google Voice, launching a Google Voice Web app that runs on iPhone 3.0 OS devices, as well as on Palm WebOS devices. The Google Voice application leverages HTML 5's functionality for running sophisticated Web applications on a browser at speeds matching those of native applications, Google said. The Google Voice-iPhone conflict is one of several issues putting the companies on a collision course, the latest of which involves Apple potentially courting Microsoft to tap Bing as the iPhone's default search."
Does that mean (Score:3, Interesting)
If I run out of minutes I can use my data package?
If I had an Iphone, which I don't...
Re:Does that mean (Score:4, Interesting)
Calls initiated from your cell phone using Google Voice are carried over your wireless carrier's network and are not VoIP calls, according to reports.
However, two advantage for the iphone is immediate apparent to me:
1. SMS.
2. Free call to Canada.
Re:Does that mean (Score:3, Interesting)
Well thats why I'm wondering. Its no longer a native app - they're saying its a web app. Meaning you access it... Through the Web... So I imagine its like browsing the net on your IPhone.
Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Does that mean (Score:3, Interesting)
Using the app UI is. Actually calling isn't like browing the web, though, as it uses the hooks Apple provides to the dialing functionality for web pages (originally, Apple focussed on web apps as the primary apps for the iPhone, and when they added native apps, they didn't remove that functionality.)
Note that you could use most of the Google Voice function from the existing mobile web app that they've had for a while, the only real change is that now, rather than using the dial-back system that the "vanilla" Google Voice web interface uses when making calls, calls dial out from your phone. And the UI is a bit prettier than the earlier web interface.
Back before the native iPhone app got stalled, there were some features you couldn't use from the "mobile" version of the web page, but it didn't take very long after the whole storm over Apple not allowing the native app for Google to add most of the functionality into the mobile web app. I think the only thing that is actually new (in terms of functionality rather than UI) in the new iPhone-targetted web app from the old generic mobile web app is access to account management features like forwarding settings, contact editing, etc. (and since the iPhone contacts have been able to sync with Google Voice's forever, you can already do the contact editing part from the iPhone's native contacts utility.)
Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:5, Interesting)
But Google Voice is not a VOIP app - it runs over standard phone lines (at least the part that you interact with does; you can bet that all of the internal routing is done digitally). There's no reason for AT&T to try getting GV banned since it doesn't detract from their own phone service. Skype (and several other VOIP services) is available and would certainly be more damaging to revenues than GV.
Well, I'm sure they don't want GV's texting since that DOES avoid using the phone service (it basically equates to sending an email to a phone number); between push notification services and/or push email, it's a complete text messaging replacement, and that's pure profit for the service providers. That being said, I have several apps installed that also equate to a text messaging replacement and there's been no ongoing battles to get them pulled or added beyond the scope of what developers normally have to deal with in the App Store.
In any case, Apple claimed that it was blocked because it would cause confusion with the native phone app. I assume the same has been said for a native Gmail app but that's just speculation on my part. I'm sure they have their reasons, whatever they may be. I certainly don't agree with them, but there are enough apps that would be much more harmful to cell carriers than GV that I'm confident AT&T had no say in GV getting blocked, as I believe all three companies have claimed.
Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple. (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone can develop and publish apps to run on OS X, but it hasn't harmed Apple's reputation.
Sure it has. As OS X grows in popularity, a LOT more spyware and crapware has been popping up, so much so that there now exist anti-spyware and virus scanners for OS X, something unheard of only a few years ago. All of this crap could easily be prevented by having Apple be the arbiter of quality for all applications before they are authorized for use on OS X. They already do this on the iPhone and (hopefully) the iTablet, so why not extend the metaphor to the desktop? The only thing holding them back, in my opinion, is some kind of false sense of duty to failed ideas like shareware and open source. As I have pointed out in the past, these niche development models are a key vector whereby spyware and security holes are added to the Apple ecosystem, so eliminating them (or at least bringing them under much tighter control) would be a key step towards making computers "just work", something Apple has traditionally been very good at and has proven to be extremely effective with the iPhone.
But of course it still sucks.
It only "sucks" if you are a greedy or incompetent developer looking to cash in on Apple's hard work. Apple has proven that for an end user experience to be seamless (and thus popular), it has to have much tighter control over what developers can and cannot do and as an investor I hope Apple closes these loopholes that have allowed developers to put out terrible quality software for too long.
Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:3, Interesting)
Verizon has no contractual control of the Google Phone marketplace.
My wife and her mom are on a Verizon family plan and do have the circle (10 people actually). On AT&T you have to have the second tier plan to the the A List.
I'm checking Verizon now, and you appear to be correct, so perhaps My wife is grandfathered in under an older plan. I remember when Verizon and "Chad" merged, it was available on all plans.
Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:1, Interesting)
They're still responsible for it, though, and reap the benefits/penalties for what the user ends up with. As long as the iPhone is closed like a game console or Kindle, it's going to be a very limited device that I won't want. I don't care why it's lame; I just care if it's lame, and the dollars in my wallet vote accordingly.
The phone market is fucked up by the subsidies/bundling. Can you imagine if your ISP supplied your personal computer? The marriage between network providers and the devices that use those networks, is every bit as fucked up as that. Maybe that's not (originally) Apple's fault, but they chose to be a part of it, to the detriment of their product's usefulness and appeal. If someone wants a phone that can access a voicemail system or make a VoIP call, they're not buying an iPhone.
Maybe when they get up to 10% of the phone market, they'll be happy with that, just like they've been on the desktop. Whatever.
Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:3, Interesting)
Like the poster below Google Voice (along with tethering) works perfectly on my Droid /w Verizon.
Re:Google getting a bit too cocky. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not what Google did.
Apple refused Google Voice in the app store. So Google's not dealing with the app store.
So they just rewrite it for the web: Javascript, HTML, and CSS. This happens to work on the iPhone, and if they add some enhancements for iPhone users who want this program, how's that anything bad? This also runs on Palm's WebOS, and perhaps other smart phones with modern browers. This is a good thing... many people want this, and if Google had to write a phone-specific version for every phone, some people might be left behind. And in fact, this is the future... many apps will be written this way. WebOS, in fact, is largely based on using Javascript, HTML, and CSS to deliver applications. With Palm and Apple and various others fighting to get better Javascript benchmarks, this was only a matter of time.
They have a nice and very functional Google Voice app for Android, which will work just dandy, and better than an iPhone app would anyway, since it can run background servers. If you can run the program you want on your iPhone, aren't you better served? Why should you have to put up with Apple's plans.
It's kind of amazing... Microsoft, for years, did stupid little things to ensure their future dominance. They were usually keel-hauled for it, in forums like this. Didn't change anything .. they still did it. Well, up though Vista, which is where this "we're building an OS for us, but charging you for it" really caused them problems. So they backed off a bit.
Apple, on the other hand, is taking a hard-line approach, with draconic censoring of applications. So you can't run a Commodore 64 emulator on your iPhone, because its ability to run "programs Apple doesn't get paid for" is a major threat to Apple's future. And you can't run Java programs, for the same reason. And you'll never get Flash or Shockwave, for the same reason... it doesn't even matter that this makes iPhone a second-class web browsing engine.. Apple cares more about a few more pennies from users than it does about you getting what you think you paid for (eg, the often touted best pocket web browsing experience... which it's not anymore, not by a long shot).
Javascript was the only loophole... the only method of code execution that Apple didn't cut out of your typical web browser experience. And they made it fast... last year, they were faster than Android and twice as fast as WebOS, even though most WebOS needed the speed (this changed in WebOS 1.3 and, more still, in WebOS 1.4). Palm has pretty much shown the way... while there won't be a serious level of video games done this way, for many pocket-sized applications, web-based apps work fine. They're going to run on Palm, on Android, on Nokia, and, unless Apple further works to break their support of the Web's official and de-facto standards, on iPhone.
And the funny thing... Apple is pushing developers toward this kind of development, through their approval policies.
Re:Does that mean (Score:1, Interesting)
The app is BADASS. I was previously using GV Mobile on my unlocked iPhone, but the new app from Google is much better. It renders cleanly in the phone's browser, and is so much more efficient than the old one. Godbless you Google, I woke up today and was pleasantly surprised.
Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:5, Interesting)
Since we'll know for sure tomorrow, I'd just like to toss out a crazy conspiracy theory. I think tomorrow there's a chance, perhaps not a very large one, that Apple will announce integrated Google Voice support in iPhone OS 4.0. I think it's just the sort of curve ball Apple likes to throw, especially since it makes their past bad behavior/decisions look magically justified to the fanboys. That's exactly the sort of thing Apple likes to do:
"You know how we've stuck with the single button mouse all these years? It wasn't a display of terrible judgment and stubbornness at all! We just wanted to do the mouse *right* and do multi-touch with it! This was our plan all along!"
"I know we said we didn't think people wanted a video ipod -- but that's because we knew nobody would want it without the amazing video service we're now prepared to offer via iTunes. Now everybody WILL want it!"
"We were always going to add Copy and Paste! We just wanted to take our time and and ensure we delivered the quality, simple Apple experience that we knew you'd want!"
etc, etc.
Apple loves turn their negatives into positives and get carried off the stage by packs of rabid apple fanboys. So it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Apple did something completely unexpected like built-in Google voice support if it scores them a win, catches the press off guard, and gets the FCC off their back. When you think about it, there's really no good reason not to. Sure they might want to stick it Google now that they are direct competitors, but it won't honestly make much difference either way. Frankly, they're better off in that competition supporting anything that android can already do since it's not like Apple has a competing product to Google Voice.
Ok, I'm grounding enough in reality to realize that this probably *won't* happen. But I do think it *could* happen and it definitely *should* happen. Fingers crossed!
Re:iPod Touch Fails (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, you can blacklist phone numbers (known telemarketers, etc) from calling your google voice number, which for some reason the phone companies will never let you do with a regular number.