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.
Re:No. (Score:5, Funny)
Having somebody offer *the* reason to get an iPhone for *free* is really, really scary to them.
Google can give me a sense of superiority and belonging to the "in" crowd for *free*?
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I prefer to Think Different by not having an iPhone...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Relatively speaking, you did.
Apple Just Admitted To It - Now You Look Foolish (Score:5, Informative)
Apple just admitted that it was them and not AT&T.
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/apple-answers-fcc-questions/?sr=hotnews.rss [apple.com]
So much for all that crap you just wrote.
It will be funny to see all the Apple fanboys who were screaming "It was big bad AT&T and not my PRECIOUS Apple who was the bad guy!!!" and how their fanboy minds deal with this news.
Man, Apple couldn't possibly be blowing it more than they are. Google Voice is amazing.
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: (Score:2)
* The voice mail transcripts are my favorite thing. Perfectly accurate so far.
It sounds like you have normal friends. The voice mail transcripts I receive look like total gibberish to me (not that listening to the voice version is that much better, I think the problem is that many of my friends have ADD).
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:Google Voice Is Incredible (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever clicked on the link labeled "Settings" on the Google Voice page? Down there a ways is a checkbox with the words "Transcribe Voicemails" next to it. Remove the checkmark there, and then click the "Save Settings" button right below it.
Apple did the right thing. (Score:5, Funny)
Shows what you know, Mr. Anonymous Coward! I don't usually respond to ACs, but I will anyway, Mr Anonymous smarty man!
I don't see anything that did wrong here. You see, Apple had some very good reaosns for what they did. It was an obvious move on their part to continually provide their superior service along with their superior products - it's worth paying what they charge because they're superior and they are cheaper in the long run. We all know that they offer the best overall value - that include TCO. Obviously, the deal with AT&T would have caused us Apple iPhone users some hardship and it would have cost us money. Considering this business decision I think it pretty obvious that Apple did it to protect their outstanding reputation, brand, their outstanding technology that no one else offers, and their customers.
You can post all the press releases you want and spin it to show that Apple is out to screw us fanboys over by gouging us for (mistakenly) commodity hardware in a pretty case - lies I tell you! That's just not so!
Whatever man! I have some great tunes that I need to transfer from my 17" MacBook Pro over to my iPod. I need to take a shower and put on a fresh black turtleneck and put on my Friday night arty glasses because I'm going out with my boys - there's a great show tonight with lots of show tunes. You're not going to wreck my mood!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, you get what you pay for.
Re:Apple did the right thing. (Score:4, Informative)
I agree. Note that the only reason that OS X is any good at all is because it's a completely different OS (derived from Next), and not descended from the joke that was "classic" MacOS (that only looked good compared to the even worse offerings from MS like DOS). I do find it amusing that after years of Mac fans claiming MacOS was superior back then (whilst I, like you, favoured AmigaOS), Apple themselves turned round and ditched MacOS for something else.
Of course in response they bury their heads in the sand, and insist the new OS is now "MacOS".
I agree about XP (and 2000 is good too). In a similar manner, it's a separate OS line to DOS/Windows 9x, and it's a perfectly fine OS. The irony is that Mac fans still bash Windows XP based on their experiences of Windows 9x ("it crashes all the time!"), despite the fact that if we judged OS X by our experiences of classic MacOS, it'd be a laughing stock ("what's that? You can't even multitask?").
Re: (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.
It gets even better (Score:5, Interesting)
From Apple's response: "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."
So Apple "does not know" what Google Voice does, they just need to "ponder" it some more.
I wonder how FCC officials like being treated like idiots. Hopefully Apple is about to find out.
Still could have contributed (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications.
There is a provision in Apple's agreement with AT&T that obligates Apple not to include functionality in any Apple phone that enables a customer to use AT&T's cellular network service to originate or terminate a VoIP session without obtaining AT&T's permission. Apple honors this obligation, in addition to respecting AT&T's customer Terms of Service, which, for example, prohibit an AT&T customer from using AT&T's cellular service to redirect a TV signal to an iPhone. From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration.
Makes it seem like though they didn't actually talk to AT&T about Google Voice, they could have anticipated their reaction on the matter, leading to where we are today.
Very suspicious... (Score:5, Interesting)
For example:
Okay, so Apple is saying that no contract with AT&T affected their decision to remove the Google Voice application from the iTunes Store. But wait, what do they say in the _next section_!?
WTF?
Then they go into "asscovering mode" by saying they don't know what VOIP is:
Personally, I don't have a google voice account. From what I've read, google voice actually uses the normal phone system (so it still requires that you have a phone account). It's just a service.
IMO, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only argument they have is that it replaces "core functionality" of the iPhone. That argument is completely bogus too, because that is just preventing competition (and may be considered monopolistic behavior). Sure, that's not unusual for Apple. But I think now their position is different. They aren't the underdog in the smartphone industry, they are one of the top dogs. They can't just do whatever they want while ignoring existing anti-trust legislation.
Re:Apple Just Admitted To It - Now You Look Foolis (Score:4, Interesting)
Most of that was free PR, with a few wiggle-room sentences...
Did you collude with AT&T:
"From time to time, AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The big surprise in Apple's memo is that they claim that Google's voicemail "disables" visual voicemail. AFAICT, they're claiming that Google, by providing a non-AT&T phone number where people can call you and leave you messages that you can fetch from your iPhone, is constructively disabling visual voicemail.
Man, I hope they don't hear about postcards.
Re:Apple Just Admitted To It - Now You Look Foolis (Score:3, Interesting)
It will be funny to see all the Apple fanboys who were screaming "It was big bad AT&T and not my PRECIOUS Apple who was the bad guy!!!" and how their fanboy minds deal with this news.
You can find a fanboy response here. [daringfireball.net] Although I guess it isn't sensationalist enough for your tastes. Although I don't remember any screaming beforehand. Is it possible to scream in text? I guess there's caps-lock.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks for the great link!
There's a lot of BS in that article, but a couple of things which particularly struck me as ridiculous:
Re: (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" an
Re:LOL! Where's Your God Now Apple Fanbois? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:LOL! Where's Your God Now Apple Fanbois? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you still like your line of thinking?
Re:No. apple answers fcc (Score:2, Interesting)
question 1 answer
Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it. The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhoneâ(TM)s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhoneâ(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 i
Re:No. apple answers fcc (Score:5, Funny)
Contrary to published reports, Microsoft has not rejected the Netscape Navigator application, and continues to study it. The application has not been bundled with Windows because it appears to alter Windows' distinctive user experience by replacing Windows' core web browsing functionality and Microsoft user interface with its own user interface for web browsing and email. Microsoft spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver internet functionality of Windows. For example, on Windows, the Internet Explorer icon that is always shown on the desktop launches Microsoft's web browser application, providing access to Favorites, History and email with Outlook Express. The Netscape Navigator application replaces Microsoft's email by routing emails through a separate Netscape Navigator application that stores any email, preventing email from being stored in Outlook Express, i.e., disabling Microsoft's email. In addition, the Windows user's entire Contacts database is imported in to Netscape Composer, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Netscape that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time...We are continuing to study the Netscape Navigator application and its potential impact on the Windows user experience. Netscape is of course free to provide Netscape Navigator and its Netscape-branded user experience on other operating systems, including Unix-based operating systems, and let consumers make their choices.
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!
AT&T is not really AT&T. (Score:5, Interesting)
Those interested in how that happened can watch Stephen Colbert explain in a 1 minute 14 second video: The New AT&T [google.com]. If that video is not available, try this one [myspace.com], but that requires watching a commercial.
AT&T is really AT&T. (Score:5, Informative)
SBC, which was originally "Southwest Bell", one of the "baby bells" created by the breakup of AT&T, and which had purchased several other baby bells in the intervening period, in 2005 also purchased AT&T (not just the AT&T name), and applied the AT&T name to the whole post-merger organization.
So, the new AT&T is, very much, the old (pre-1984) AT&T, even more than the 1984-2005 AT&T was.
The original comment is correct in essence. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The New ATT [ebaumsworld.com]
I cry bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)
The ability to jump to a specific message has been there for a decade, no one took advantage of it (in fact, most disabled it). All they did was create specific calls that navigated the crazy tree for you. Crawl around in a Meridian for a while...
And voice to text has been in almost all carrier grade switches for at least 3 years. Most charge for it, Google didn't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention making text-messaging free directly takes away something AT&T currently bills me for.
In all fairness, it should be noted that for years Qwest offered a unified phone service to an extent. You told people to call you on your home phone number, and if you didn't answer, it would auto-roll over to your Qwest cell phone. In theory, you should only end up with voice mails on your cell phone number. But Qwest doesn't even offer their own cell phone service anymore, so who knows if they still of
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are *no* mobile carriers that offer competative LD rates. Want to call Bermuda on AT&T? If you have World Connect ($3.99/mo) it's 0.19/min. Googe Voice: 0.09/min. If you don't have World Connect, you're looking at 1.49/min.
I've cut my international costs by over 50%. The only bitch is having to top off Google Voice in $10 increments with a $30 cap.
GV starts to change the way mobile devices are used. I don't care what Apple, AT&T or Google say, I'm convinced the reason is for AT&T to keep control and revenue, and for Apple to keep tabs on the interface.
I like this FCC we have.
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
[...]
The voice recognition of GV is about as good as the handwriting recognition of the original Newton.
Here's what my brother actually said:
Hello, Happy Birthday my brother.
What GV said he said:
Hello, The bird say my brought their.
Fortunately, the audio was available, so I was able to easily hear what he said, but the other GV transcript I got from my wife wasn't much better (the drugstore CVS got turned into "we're going to see me yes").
Google Voice is nice, and I like using it, but don't think it's a miracle app.
Re: (Score:2)
"Apparently, the visual voice mail was a HUGELY expensive undertaking for AT&T."
What makes this apparent to you?
AT&T denies it (Score:5, Informative)
AT&T told the FCC that they did not have it killed.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/21/att-to-fcc-we-did-not-block-the-google-voice-app-on-the-iphone/ [techcrunch.com]
Not a denial (Score:4, Interesting)
That statement only says that ATT was not involved directly in the Google Voice decision.
It does not say whether or not ATT had previously bound Apple contractually to reject all apps of this type..
Apple Admits It, Sort Of (Score:5, Informative)
And Apple said today it isn't killed, but still under review because it interferes with the iPhone interface. Here [apple.com] is their rationalization for their actions in what they claim is their response to the FCC.
My thanks to daringfireball and John Gruber for bringing this letter to my attention.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
And you needed daringfireball because Apple hid the link to it on the fucking main page.
Riiiiight. Because anyone who uses Apple products has apple.com as their homepage, and incessantly checks it for news? As somebody who would be considered what the kids call an Apple "fanboy" I only ever visit the Apple domain when I want to purchase something, or I need to consult the support forums, or perhaps watch a movie trailer occasionally.
Re:Apple Admits It, Sort Of (Score:4, Funny)
FCC: Why was Google Voice was rejected from the app store?
Apple: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that Google Voice here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.
Re:Apple Admits It, Sort Of (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Wall Street Journal (Score:2, Interesting)
People still read the WSJ? Ever since Fox bought it, the slow decline of the quality and bizarre right wing biases introduced into the articles and editorials began driving me away. It hasn't been readable as a news source for at least a year now.
Re:Wall Street Journal (Score:5, Informative)
This particular article was pretty good though. Thorough and generally well thought out, it also had that kind of shocked anger of someone who only just realized that they are being taken advantage of. I wouldn't be surprised if the author had started out writing a 'tell both sides of the story' kind of article, only to become more informed on the actual situation over the course of his research.
All that being said, I do take issue with one thing...
Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and others all joined AT&T in bidding huge amounts for wireless spectrum in FCC auctions, some $70-plus billion since the mid-1990s. That all gets passed along to you and me in the form of higher fees and friendly oligopolies that don't much compete on price.
That is not how business works. If a certain behavior on their part can maximize revenues, they will implement it regardless of what the upfront costs were. If they had paid $10 for the spectrum, they would still charge high fees because that is what the market is willing to bear and that is what they feel with maximize their revenues and with that their profits. You can argue that the cost of spectrum raises the cost of entry into the market, but I don't see that as what the author is going for here.
Good points, bad points (Score:5, Interesting)
In general a good idea, but I'm not quite sure how you get Qualcom CDMA phones to work on a GSM network.
Transition away from "owning" airwaves. As we've seen with license-free bandwidth via Wi-Fi networking, we can share the airwaves without interfering with each other. Let new carriers emerge based on quality of service rather than spectrum owned. Cellphone coverage from huge cell towers will naturally migrate seamlessly into offices and even homes via Wi-Fi networking. No more dropped calls in the bathroom.
I've had WiFi-enabled phones connection over Verizon FIOS. They were unusable in WiFi mode, dropping calls and connections like crazy. Generally, phone would ring, you would answer, there would be nobody there. 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?
End municipal exclusivity deals for cable companies. TV channels are like voice pipes, part of an era that is about to pass. A little competition for cable will help the transition to paying for shows instead of overpaying for little-watched networks. Competition brings de facto network neutrality and open access (if you don't like one service blocking apps, use another), thus one less set of artificial rules to be gamed.
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.
Encourage faster and faster data connections to our homes and phones. It should more than double every two years. To homes, five megabits today should be 10 megabits in 2011, 25 megabits in 2013 and 100 megabits in 2017. These data-connection speeds are technically doable today, with obsolete voice and video policy holding it back.
Once you've got a fiber network in place, then it is just a question of replacing the transmitters and receivers, so this is actually doable. Communication companies are reluctant to throw away working equipment, so unless they have competition driving it, they are not going to bother. Wireless bandwidth is not going to double every couple years, in fact, it is going to get worse! The more people using wireless, the less bandwidth available for each customer.
Unasked question: Why is it considered normal and acceptable in the US to pay over $100/month for communication, when most people in the world get better service for a tenth the cost?
Re: (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 t
"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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty useful. Lots of my friends use texting a lot and now I can participate in a limited way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
paying $6.66 per month for 66 minutes
Dare we ask if the contract had to be signed in blood and dealt with your immortal soul?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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, ...
Note that SMS messages share the (very low bandwidth) control channel with all the other control messages. While SMS pricing is, of course, "all the traffic will bear", it CAN'T be free, because it must be rationed somehow. (It would be trivial to build an IP-over-SMS tunnel and swamp it.) Charging ten cents per 120-payload-byte packet keeps the traffic d
Full List (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a full list for the lazy:
Re:Full List (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is free. Not even Google search. Where's the cost?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
o hai, googel voice is no voip, kthx.
Of those features, what uses significant bandwidth? Sending 140 character text messages over the data network? text transcriptions emailed to you with a link that no one will ever click to hear the actual message? Please try your argument again.
Grandcentral (now Google Voice) are awesome without ANY app on the phone. All the app on the phone does is integrates with your contacts so you don't have to call a special number and/or call a forwarding number first THEN typ
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yah, if they want to pull that kind of crap off, they should build their own app store.
Re:Full List (Score:5, Informative)
Which you are paying for. Google Voice IS NOT A VOICE OVER IP APPLICATION. Calls are placed and received over regular phone lines. You are still paying AT&T for the minutes you are using when you receive a call forwarded from your Google Voice number.
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: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: (Score:2)
I guess you are right, the compensation is not zero but you can effectively use unlimited minutes on the network for a fraction of the cost it takes AT&T to provide those minutes. Phone companies don't have the bandwidth to provide all their customers tons of talking time, that is why they sell minutes. By charging for minutes they can estimate usage as well as pay for required upgrade if usage nears capacity. Take that ability away from them and you will create a mess of unreliable and over utilized
Re:Full List (Score:4, Informative)
You are definitely having a brain fart. Google Voice is not a VOIP application. Communication is done on phones via regular phone calls. There's no VOIP component to it. AT&T gets paid because when you place or receive a call via Google Voice, it's a regular phone call and you are using your minutes that you have paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the misunderstanding then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice [wikipedia.org]
Points to it being a VoIP application as well as all other articles I have read.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That wikipedia article is misleading. Google Voice probably uses VOIP on the back end to tie things together, but it doesn't terminate via VOIP. You have to have a regular phone number for Google Voice to work. There's no way to talk on the computer like with Skype. You can place a call using the Google Voice web site, but all it does is ask you which one of your phones you want it to call. It then rings your phone and when you answer, it calls the other party.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter are there any plans that allow unlimited incoming minutes? I've never heard of such a plan in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
What bandwidth? A few XMl queries back to a server? It probably would transfer less data than the average web page.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What I was saying, and apparently you missed it, is that the bandwidth needs to be paid for by someone. In this case both you and Google are buying the bandwidth and effectively leasing a slice of the network to carry out these communications. The iPhone app does not have these characteristics.
Re: (Score:2)
I posted in another response that due to inaccurate information on the web, including
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Voice [wikipedia.org]
I was under the impression it was VoIP and no minutes were billed on your cell phone. If minutes are indeed billed for talk time then I am mistaken and sorry for my ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I just downloaded GV Mobile with Cydia. Looks good to me so far.
http://lifehacker.com/5324596/gv-mobile-available-for-free-on-cydia [lifehacker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ability to change your number for a fee.
I just checked, Google Voice has a $10 fee to change your phone number. That's very inexpensive, but certainly not free.
AT&T had nothing to do with it, apparently (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they don't have closed door conversations about destroying competition on an hourly basis?
Nope. I don't think they do. Those meetings take at LEAST an hour each to begin with. Since it'd only be the big guys having those meetings, you have to throw in the mandatory 2 and a half hour lunch, and 3 times a day scolding of the employee's directly beneath them. Oh! Don't forget the 5 random peons they have to have fired just to make it look like they do something.
With all that, I bet they barely get in 2 of those meetings in their 10am - 3pm shift.
AT&T claims the didn't kill it (Score:4, Informative)
This is sort of interesting to watch, whose business relationship is decaying faster, Apple and Google's or Apple and AT&T's? (Or Microsoft's and Dell or MS and HP, but that's a different thread.)
Hm. (Score:5, Funny)
FTA: What this episode really uncovers is that AT&T is dying
Awaiting confirmation from Netcraft.
.
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.
All three reports (Score:5, Informative)
I love how the speculation gets posted here when the official statements from all three companies are readily available. The only major redaction is Google's side of the story on why GV and other apps were rejected.
Cross Your Fingers (Score:2)
I really, really hope that both Apple and AT&T get fucked for this behavior. Blatant trust behavior like this cannot be allowed.
Why did Eric Schmidt resign again? (Score:2)
From the article:
Earlier this month, Apple rejected an application for the iPhone called Google Voice. The uproar set off a chain of eventsâ"Google's CEO Eric Schmidt resigning from Apple's board
I'm confused. I thought this [guardian.co.uk] was over a "conflict of interest."
It seems to me that you cannot make the implication that Apple rejecting an Google Voice set off the resignation of Eric Schmidt. More like, Google Voice exists and now that Google is directly competing with Apple, there is a conflict of interest forcing Eric Schmidt to resign from one or the other.
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".
one phone company almost had a unified number (Score:2)
until they sold wireless, and then left partnership with Sprint, Qwest (fka US West) had a patent for One-Number Service. either your home or office number would ring through to the cell phone if that was on, and to the wireline service when it wasn't.
I suspect the patent can be licensed at this point, since it's no longer in use.
But Skype is not blocked (Score:2)
>>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.'>>
Funny thing - Skype
Re:But Skype is not blocked (Score:4, Informative)
Well I got my revenge (Score:5, Funny)
I forward my AT&T land line number to my Google Voice number in order to block the constant AT&T telemarketers that call me.
When high & mighty buisness meets technology (Score:2, Insightful)
flash: firm does not give away product (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH ATT has to relies on direct payment from customers for real services. It has to provide a level of service to keep customers, a level of service that likely has high marginal costs. So the article states the bleeding obvious. Of course ATT does not like google voice anymore than it liked the competition for cheap long distance or the ability of cell phone users to make intrastate calls at a fraction of the cost of a land line.
What makes no sense is suggesting that an incumbent would provide such a profit destroying service. It would be like saying the WSJ should set up a competing site that all the features of the premium site but at no charge.
Its just the app not the service blocked right? (Score:2, Interesting)
Terms and Conditions (Score:2)
jailbroken? (Score:2)
So uhh, if I have a jailbroken iPhone, can I get this app somehow? Because I'd really, really love to stick it to Apple on this one :p
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.
Why TRANSCRIPTION is Critical to Google (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't seen it discussed, but transcription is one of the most important features to Google and it is a large reason why they are willing to offer Google Voice for free. Why you ask? Training. Google voice's free transcription is a huge voice to text training database.
I have been using it since before it was Google Voice (e.g. grandcentral) and this was an important reason for Google to acquire it.
Google gets a LOT of value from every voice mail that comes in, is transcribed, and then is rated by users as to how useful it is.
Yes, it is good already, but not nearly perfect and they are working on it for one reason - voice search. And voice search is an up-coming Google killer-app that Bing/MSFT and Yahoo have no answer to.
(Neither does Apple, yet.)
Re:We don't have to care (Score:4, Funny)