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."
Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:3, Insightful)
You're just shooting yourself in the foot otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The closed nature of the app store has some semblance of keeping things in order...but really all it does is limit innovation. It isn't too hard to tell when an app is going to be a crapp (see what I did there?), but that's Apple for ya...iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! You're just shooting yourself in the foot otherwise.
Sorry, but I keep seeing people say this but I have yet to see any evidence to support it (and, quite frankly, have seen nothing but mountains of evidence to the contrary...).
_YOU_ may be annoyed with Apple because they operate in a closed garden but the _VAST_ majority of users really don't care all that much. Slashdot reader =/= average consumer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Slashdot reader =/= average consumer.
iPhone consumer =/= average consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see more Windows Mobile phones than iPhones every morning when I'm on the train to work. iPhone is the largest group, though, because of the diversity of WM devices.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but you're on the train to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jesus Christ - please actually take the time to check some basic market stats before throwing such a ludicrous insult. Apple have a few percent of the market, RIM are better, although just about every other company - LG, Samsung, Motorola - are way ahead, with Nokia the market leader. Those are the facts.
I don't know where you get out, but it isn't a typical representation of what people actually buy.
Re: (Score:2)
bingo. if they know how to install apps, they already know how to google their problems and are definitely more skilled than the average consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
dont you mean bing?
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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah, it is banned in the Apple store, but probably due to AT&T rather than Apple.
Hopefully the iPhone being opened up to other carriers will mean a loosining of the restrictions as those carriers try and pull customers away from AT&T.
Either way though, I already retired my original iPhone for a Motorola Droid 2 months ago, with Google Voice and Tethering being two of the big reasons for doing so.
Really, why continue doing business with a company when it is clear that they have no interest in providing customers with the kind of service they want? (again talking about AT&T not Apple).
Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, speculation was the app is banned care of Verizon, not AT&T, as part of Apple's negotiation with them. See, on Verizon, ALL plan level support "my 5" and adding a google voice number to that, and using the convenience of the google native app, you could get unlimited free calling, and unlimited free texts, while paying only for the lowest possible plan tier.
Verizon has since (as well as AT&T) implemented a system for identifying google voice numbers, and will automatically remove them from your 5 if you add it, and backbill you for any minutes you might have used in excess of plan minutes otherwise. it is against their ToS to use a call redirection number in your fav list. until we find out for certain whether Verizon is in or out, i don;t expect Google voice to hit the device (unless the courts get involved).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised verizon would do that. I don't know for sure but my vibe says it'd be quite a battle to try to get that one proven in verizon's favor in court, in more ways than one.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they're the most evil provider currently.
Also keep in mind, this app also means unlimited free text, their #1 more profitable revenue stream...
AT&T confirmed it was not their issue, and gave Apple the green light, but apple responded with "ongoing contract analysis" and this was during a time where Verizon was actively working with Apple on a deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like the poster below Google Voice (along with tethering) works perfectly on my Droid /w Verizon.
Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already! (Score:5, Informative)
Your post seems to be FUD, but I'll let others decide for themselves.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Verizon has since (as well as AT&T) implemented a system for identifying google voice numbers, and will automatically remove them from your 5 if you add it, and backbill you for any minutes you might have used in excess of plan minutes otherwise. it is against their ToS to use a call redirection number in your fav list.
Citation, please?
I just read the Verizon "Customer Agreement" and found no mention of "call redirection"--in fact, the text "redir" doesn't even appear.
The only restrictions I could find were in their faq article below--still nothing to preclude gv.
What type of numbers can I add to Friends & Family?
Your Friends & Family list can contain any valid U.S. number as well as any 800-type number, including 888, 866 and 877 (excluding 800-555-1212). Your Friends & Family list can not include directory
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused as to what exactly AT&T would lose on the deal.
OK, SMS charges maybe. But I sincerely doubt that. And whatever SMS messages are lost to the Google Voice capability, plenty of other people are going to use SMS messages to get new voicemail notifications and/or simply forward the SMS to their phone, because it's FAR more convenient.
I make MORE of my calls on my AT&T cell phone since I got the Google Voice application on my Blackberry. It's the only phone I can actually dial out of dire
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: (Score:2)
Tethering isn't an Apple thing - it's an AT&T thing. I have an iPhone on Rogers in Canada and I can tether just fine. All you need with Rogers is a data plan giving 1 gigabyte or more and they include the feature at no extra cost.
Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone can develop and publish apps to run on OS X, but it hasn't harmed Apple's reputation. Same thing can be said of *nix and even Windows
Well, except for all those lousy Windows drivers, and the viruses, and tons of crapware. Come to think of it, at least some of Microsoft's bad reputation can be tracked to horrible implementations done by other people.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congratulations on buying into media hype and FUD. Only pople who don't actually have any experience with OS X believe it. In reality the only malware any Mac user needs to be concerned with is trojans, which of course are also very easy to avoid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I really hope so.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I would not mind seeing a case for ALL OS vendors where all apps must be signed in order to be run. Not really a process of review, but simply complete validation of who published an app so if it turns out to have illegal content the owner can be quickly found, and so that viruses basically become obsolete unless they're honest vulnerability exploits that can bypass that system (ie, no more mailware or trojans or gernal viruses, only outright hacks could infect a system).
Re: (Score:2)
Great in theory, but ultimately even the best security measures at the OS level can be compromised by a dumb user. While at least in OS X (and I expect Linux, but don't have enough experience to say) a majority of apps are correctly running in user-space and don't require admin permissions to run/install, there are still plenty that do have that requirement for whatever reason. Because of that, I'm not nearly cautious enough when apps ask for elevated privileges during installation, so it would be pretty e
Re: (Score:2)
That's the whole idea. Dumb users can only run SIGNED apps... Signed apps likely are not viruses/trojans.
No, this won't stop dumb users from opening up vulns, but it will stop general virus distribution in P2P channels, email, and other systems that "trick" a user into clicking install.
yea, it's a huge system to implement, and yea, at least a new OS release is needed (likely not a whole new one, but enough to not call it Win 7 anymore or somehow designate the difference). I didn;t say it would be easy, j
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
I switched to Mac so I wouldn't have to use a Microsoft product ever again.
I'll keep using Google as my search engine, even if it means I have to use a bookmark instead of the search field!
Re: (Score:2)
iPhone gives you the option of using Yahoo as the default search engine, too. If Apple makes a deal with Bing, it's likely that the option to use Google will still be there, but it won't be the default for new devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. I seriously doubt they're replace google, except as the default setting. Bing will be the new default on new or re-imaged devices. Hopefully Bing is not hard set in an update to 3.2/4.0 though, that would REALLY piss me off. NEVER change my active selections...
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually a very good Google app that not only gives you quick access to Google features (Gmail, maps, search, etc) but also has a voice search. Talk into your phone and get Google search results.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (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:Does that mean (Score:5, Informative)
HTML5's local storage feature means that this app, if written correctly (which I suspect is the case), can be used offline without a data connection at all.
For example, see Neven Mrgan's GlyphBoard [mrgan.com]; this is a web app which you can add to your home screen and use offline. The iPhone's new online user manual is another example of a fully offline web app.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes no sense to use offline. It's purposes are to access voicemail, edit calling groups, manage contacts, control forwarding, and place calls, none of which work without a connection. (placing calls requires an IP signal to Google to program an available pass-through number for you to call with your device to route the call).
Yea, having access to your google contacts offline might be handy, but there are already easy ways to sync google and you iPhone contact list...
Re: (Score:2)
GV doesn't seem to use the HTML5 features - or at least every time I've tried, it does plenty of reloading and refreshing. Maybe it only tries to pull from local storage when there's no internet connection. Hell, they don't even have it set up so that saving it as a web app (the home screen bookmark thing) hides the navigation bar - and that's literally one line of HTML to implement provided their AJAX is rigged up correctly, which seems to be the case.
Still, a great start. I certainly see myself using GV
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, Google Voice is NOT a Voip technology. The app simple helps you place/connect calls to your multiple phones. The advantage of the app on the iPhone really boils down to a) managing your Google contacts better and b) when you place a call from your cell phone, the target sees your Google voice on their caller ID, not your cell number, so when they call back, it;s routed through Google voice. With a native app and notifications, if you choose not to pass through caller ID the app would be able to tell
Re: (Score:2)
when you place a call from your cell phone, the target sees your Google voice on their caller ID, not your cell number, so when they call back, it;s routed through Google voice.
Just to be clear about this -- Google Voice does not and cannot change the outgoing caller ID of any of your phones. Instead, the Google Voice server calls both of you at the same time (the number you're "dialing" using the Google Voice interface and the number of the phone you want to use on your end) and conferences them. That's how they can control what caller ID your callee sees.
Re:Does that mean (Score:5, Informative)
Google Voice does not, in fact, call your phone with the new app, which is the change from the previous mobile web app (which used the same model as the regular, non-mobile web interface, which calls back to one of your registered phones.)
The new app gives your phone a number to call and invokes the dialer of your phone, so you make an outgoing call, but to Google Voice, not the final destination of your call. Otherwise, it works the way you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
Aha, makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it works from the website or from the real app, yes. However, in this case, Google is providing a number for YOU to call and preprogramming the call redirect. It them uses your caller ID from THAT number to the target, so, my phone number I'm calling from (outgoing call) does NOT appear to the person I'm calling, my google number does. They clearly can modify caller ID as well as incoming calls can pass through the callers ID or simply display your google number to you.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd set the call up over the web, but then Google Voice will call you, then connect you to whoever you're trying to reach. I think the downside for AT&T is that on some plans you can pick 5 or so numbers that don't count towards your minutes, so if you make your Google voice number one of those you'd have unlimited calling & never touch your minutes. (Except for people not on your list who call you, I guess.)
Woohoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm.. first complex HTML5 app maybe?
I'm probably not the first person to say it, but thank GOODNESS somebody is pushing HTML and web markup tech forward again. Even though some folks don't like some of the new elements present in HTML5, at least it's progressing again. Let's hope this continues!
-6d
Re: (Score:2)
Apple computer:
Total dicks to the competition, and therefore driving innovation!
Way to go Apple. :p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, you consider this to be a positive thing? HTML, CSS and JavaScript provide the least-desirable development platform that I've worked with in the past 20 years. I mean, compared to late-1980s technology like NeXTSTEP and its class libraries, the web is a massive step backwards. Even MFC development was more enjoyable.
And really, how is this progress? I mean, they're doing something that was possible using Flash five years ago, Java applets 10 years ago, and NPAPI plugins 15 years ago. That's not progre
iPod Touch Fails (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, this is impressive, but it will not function properly on an iPod Touch. Google needs to have a way to switch to a different mode of operation that is Touch compatible.
Yeah, I could use the Skype App....but then I'd have to pay.
Re:iPod Touch Fails (Score:5, Informative)
That's because Google Voice is not a VoIP app, but a call redirection service. On a touch, the ONLY features it has are managing voice mail and contacts, it can NOT place calls.
On an iPhone, from the web app, if you select a contact to call here's what happens:
1) Google generates a "one time" number in your local area if possible.
2) Google programs this number such that an incoming call from your selected phone to that number is routed to your selected contact's phone number
3) it presents you a UI button to press to have the iPhone call the Google one-time number.
4) when you click the button, you iPhone calls Google's selected one-time number (not your contact). This call will appear on your bill as a call from your cell phone to Google and uses airtime (which depending on your plan and time of day might be free).
5) Google routes the call and rings your contacts number, presenting your Google voice number on their caller ID screen.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Voice isn't a VoIP service, its an SMS, voice mail, call routing and contact management service that requires an actual phone line to route voice calls to (or take them from); the only "mode of operation" that would be Touch compatible is the dial-back mode used on the basic website where placing a call has Google Voice call one o
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is an explicit reason this is so. Google currently operates solely as a call forwarding service. They also offer Gizmo services on that number, but only to other gizmo subscribers as PC to PC communication. Should Google offer to connect a traditional Voip Provider, as a voIP extention accessing a google numebr that could call terrestrial lines, then google would become a telephone proivider, not a routing service provider, and then they'de be responsible for 911, e911, and special rates they don't
Experience? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone have some first-hand experience with Google Voice willing to share their thoughts? I find it very intriguing but am very hesitant to use it without knowing more...
What do you want to know?
Re: (Score:2)
1 good thing, i can now call any of my contacts in my google contact list, and on their caller ID they see my google number, not my cell phone number. there's also a generic dilaer so i can call anyone.
The individual pages from the app have unique icons if you save them to the home screen (dial pad, voice mail, contacts), so you can have single click equivalents to the native iPhone apps.
It;s a nice interface to the voicemail system as well, and you can also access your call history on the run (and block t
Re:Experience? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I use it, and I quite like it. I don't use the number that google provides, but I have linked my voice mail to gvoice so that rather than going to my Tmobile vmail messages go to Google voice. The transcriber is not so great. You can usually get the gist of a message, but it makes a lot of mistakes. That said, the other voice mail functionality is much better than Tmobile's standard offering, so on the whole the voice mail is much better.
Also, even without using the google voice number I can initate cal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Arstechnica [arstechnica.com] has a pretty good write-up on what it is and how it works. I've been using it for several months now. I don't give out my real number anymore and trying to get people to delete my old number and use my Google Voice number to reach me. As It gives much more control.
And yeah, it's somewhat cumbersome to initiate a call from the website but (much) less so than it is to do that from your phone. A native iPhone app would solve most of the hassles of initiating calls..
Re:Experience? (Score:4, Informative)
Love it. I have one phone number, and it rings all of my phones based on a schedule I set up. When I'm at work, I get no cell signal at my desk, so I answer my work phone. When I'm on the road, my cell is the only one I'm near, so I answer that. When I'm at home, I answer my Gizmo line so I don't use cell minutes.
The beauty is, if you want to reach me, you don't have to know where I am. You don't have to keep track of three or more numbers to reach me. You just dial my Google Voice number and, if I'm reachable, I answer. And if I'm not, you leave me a voicemail. I get an SMS on my phone with a transcription of that voicemail, and a copy of the transcription is sent to my Gmail account. Plus I can always call Google from any of my phones and listen to your voicemail directly, or listen to it over the Web.
And if you are a telemarketer who calls me a lot, you get my "go away" message and I never have to be aware of your existence again. :)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
SMS is where you can save some cash. I used to have an unlimited texting plan but I've nixed that.
It is great for those of us that have multiple contact numbers. You can add forwarding numbers to your GV account so people that want to contact you only need to know your google number. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
Do you always post with such obscene levels of hyperbole?
Re: (Score:2)
unfortunately, no 3G on AT&T means on any provider available, coice and data on the nexus one concurrently is not possible. That's a BIG problem for me. i concurrently use voice and data (taking a call or important SMS while reading e-mail, news, weather, etc or using GPS) about 20 times a day.
Also, get your facts straight. it;s not Apple stopping the app. Initially it was Apple enforcing AT&T's "no VoIP" contract terms, which AT&T did lift, but AT&T is NOT the only provider, nor are the
Re: (Score:2)
Incoming, oh boy America, when will you exit the dark ages when it comes to mobile phones?
I don't think so (Score:5, Funny)
"Google has found a way to let iPhone owners use Google Voice."
Really? There's a patch for that.
Forget Google's Web App (Score:4, Informative)
Use GV Mobile [seankovacs.com], available through Cydia. Much much better. An actual app for starters. :-)
Ipod Touch too? (Score:2)
We do have wifi, and a mic.
Re: (Score:2)
But, you don't have phone capability... which is what is required for this. The "app" just uses the phone capability to place a call to a Google-owned number, which then routes the call to your destination such that it shows as coming from your Google Voice number, rather than your iPhone number.
Re: (Score:2)
That is why i asked, i was hoping it was a real VoIP that we could use, without jailbreaking first.
Re: (Score:2)
A very good hack, backed by a full fledged VRU and call processing rules. I approve.
Not VOIP (Score:2)
And Google has (Temporarily) killed the best VOIP service out there: Gizmo5.
I only wish I picked up a Gizmo SIP while I had a chance. I'm extremely depressed that I didn't. :(
Google, please bring it back!
Re:Google getting a bit too cocky. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google getting a bit too cocky. (Score:5, Insightful)
The iphone app is just a handy way to manage it all, to use all the screen real estate. I guess there could be some functionality with SMS, or when calling someone from GV, it just puts your phone in "talk" mode, instead of calling it.. but the power of Google Voice is the simplicity of management, and the backend stuff. I almost never deal with the website.
Re:Google getting a bit too cocky. (Score:5, Funny)
Is it just me or does Google have this disgusting sense of righteousness that makes them think they are always right and can do whatever they want.
Apple told you No, stop trying to circumvent it.
Hi Steve,
I think Google is trying to increase the visibility, for the average user, of Apple's strong handed walled garden approach. Most people outside of Slashdot don't know how ridiculous Apple's policies are with the iPhone, so Google is helping Apple make an ass of themselves in a way Google can publicize.
Re: (Score:2)
I was seriously thinking about jailbreaking mine just to get the Google Voice app. I might not need to now.
Re: (Score:2)
Why anyone would want either is beyond me. I alreay give up enough freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just you. Personally, I think it's great to see someone get around Apple's AppStore on a non-hacked iPhone.
Re:Google getting a bit too cocky. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really "getting around": Prior to the SDK/XCode release, Apple's preferred approach was that devs should write webapps. With HTML5 this is even more tempting than before, and there is no vetting process at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Is it just me or does Google have this disgusting sense of righteousness that makes them think they should have the right to deliver their product to whoever wants it. "
There, fixed that for you..
Or more accurately, the converse statement:
"Is it just me or does Apple have this disgusting sense of righteousness that makes them think they can dictate what their customers are allowed to do with their own devices after they've paid for them?"
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Uh, this has NOTHING to do with Apple. Likely, AT&T is also right in that they had no involvement. OTHER phone companies however, including those that do not yet have but are negotiating for iPhone access have some sway. (Verizon, here's looking at you).
Initially, when the Google Voice app was presented, it WAS against AT&T's contractual terms with apple. AT&T has since amended those terms opening the door, however, both google and apple admit to be "continuing research" on making this happe
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another comment without any prior knowledge. I just remembered why I stopped reading slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you stopped reading, how did you get here?
Re:Kind of scary that it works.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think there is a way to get access to the microphone from a web page. On iPhone, Safari doesn't allow any plug-ins to load. From the description, it sounds like this just tells the phone to make a local call over the cell network to a special number that then forwards your call to the desired destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Bingo!
Re: (Score:2)
ie, not a VOIP app. I could be completely wrong too.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, Thanks for playing. The website does not use the mic. You clearly have never used it or you wouldn't have posted this.
Re: (Score:2)
Websites can't access the microphone, I don't think, but its immaterial, since Google Voice isn't a VoIP app and wouldn't have a use for the microphone.
Websites can request the phone to dial a number, which creates a pop-up window and requires active user confirmation to actually dial. It is this functionality which the Google Voice iPhone web app uses to place calls (it calls a Google Voice phone number, which is set up to r
Re: (Score:2)
There is no Flash implementation on iPhone in Safari.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least, Flash prompts for permission before accessing them (well, usually [itbusiness.ca]).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, that was the old way (and the mechanism still used by the "vanilla" Google Voice web interface you get if you aren't using an iPhone or, presumably, Android phone.) This new app actually uses the iPhone dialer to call into the GV PBX rather than calling back to the iPhone.