Slashdot Mirror
iPhone App Causes Google To Shut Down SMS Service
An anonymous reader writes "A few days ago, Inner Fence released a paid iPhone app called Infinite SMS, which let iPhone users employ Google's free SMS gateway to send SMS messages without paying their service providers. The resulting surge in traffic on Google's SMS gateway forced Google to block all third-party applications from using the free SMS feature — including Google's own GTalk client."
that's what you get for abusing a free service. Happy now?
That's not what TFA says (or the part that I read at least). It says, "Our experimental feature that we didn't widely publicize because we wanted to test it with limited numbers of users suddenly got slammed with traffic and we didn't feel like supporting it". That's a bit different than what you are implying.
AIM has let you send free text messages for ages. Is there any difference between this service and the one Google was just forced to close down?
SMS is very profitable to service providers.
E.g. when developing SMS games around 2001, the raito of sent/received messages could go up to 4-5 sent by the game server / 1 sent by the user, and the provider would still buy the game.
Google's model was: enable GTalk and other programs to send SMS-es. The SMS-es are delivered to phones.
Now Google could allocate free sending quota from service providers telling them that these messages will be answered, and service providers can get their profit from the ANSWER SMS-es.
Now this where this iPhone program is dangerous to Google.
It cuts the single source of revenue from the providers: the response SMS could be also throught Google...
Just my 2 cents...
The people who sold this app were not "charging" anyone for Google's service. Would you say that someone who developed and sold a killer browser for iPhone was "charging" people to use the Web?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I wish you could "anti-sign" online petitions.
Telecommunications cost someone, somewhere, somehow. We all know this, and it is made obvious by the fact that the telecom companies make their living off of our communications. It is abuse to take advantage of some free service, thereby circumventing the telecom's charges. Google's "free" offerings are meant to entice users and customers to sign up for other Google services. Google Heinlein, and "taanstafl". Pretending ignorance doesn't impress anyone. If you are going to steal Google's (or anyone else's) services, at least admit that you are thieving. We might respect an honest thief.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Problem with your reasonning is that SMS charges differ in the countries. While in most europeans countries users don't pay to receive SMS messages, they do in the US.
But... but... but... I want it my free stuff!!!
Wah.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Inner Fence *assumed* they would continue to receive a service for which they had no contract and paid no fees. Further, on top of that unsupported and inequitable assumption, they *sold* a product in which they extended *assurances* of continued service.
Inner Fence now points their customers to Google as being the party responsible for the loss of service. But it seems clear that Inner Fence had no basis for assuring delivery of their service to their customers. They simply took the money, left Google holding the bag, and now dodge their full responsibility.
Hey Inner Fence...do your customers look like they have the letters S-T-U-P-I-D painted on their foreheads?
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but how does using your neighbors wireless cost them extra money? They pay a monthly fee for these broadband services, not per KB...
Today's 2000-era generation thinks it's perfectly okay to tap into their neighbor's wireless internet, even though it's costing their neighbor extra money. Or google's SMS, even though it costs google thousands of dollars to support that overload.
While I don't disagree with your overall point there are some things I would like to point out. Hopping onto an unsecured network is basically taking advantage of a free resource. This is basically like saying that while your playing your boombox, no one else should be able to listen. But you are too lazy to plug in your headphones. If the person the network belongs to won't take the 3 minutes to turn on wireless security then they shouldn't have the right to bitch when someone hops onto their network. They also shouldn't be surprised when they eventually become a victim of identity theft. Same thing with Google. They opened up an API to allow people to send text messages for free. They didn't limit it, so why would people assume that it was supposed to be limited? It would be a VERY different case if someone had hacked the google API to allow unlimited texting. This is google's fault, not the person who wrote the app.
If you have a headache and take a Tylenol, that's a proper use.
If you have a headache and take a whole bottle of Tylenol, that's abuse.
Ok, let's rephrase that now:
If you need to send a SMS and use Google's experimental SMS service, that's a proper use.
If you need to send a SMS and write an application that uses Google's experimental SMS service, charge people for it, and then publicize it as widely as you can, that's abuse.
Does it make more sense when it's put that way?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Inner Fence's attempt to deflect criticism by redirecting complaints to http://groups.google.com/group/gmail-labs-help-text-messaging/topics is so unfair to the honest service users who were already there. People who really need, or offer information or help are being buried in an avalanche of whiny tripe.
So Inner Fence has punished another group of people, this time innocent.
Some of us don't believe in restriction and TOS
If the service is there, Ill use it as i please. If they don't like it, then they can close it and and charge a subscription ( and not have me as a customer ).
While you may not agree with my attitude ( which is your right ), i'm tired of bending over for companies and really don't give a damn what they like or don't like anymore. Screw em.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Opensource is as good as my own property, for the taking, because I can do ANYTHING with it.
Clearly, you are quite ignorant of Open Source, as defined by the OSI.
Free software is something that I am permitted to use AS LONG AS I use it in a way approved of by the authors/owners.
Actually, that is true of most Open Source as well. It's also far from the FSF's definition of "free software".
There isn't a lot of software which could be classified "open source", but not "free software", by your definition. I could only mention sqlite, and DJB's stuff (qmail, djbdns, etc) -- these are public domain.
No, the difference is actually quite an obvious one: Open Source only requires that the source code be available. Before DJB's work was open source, it was very much open source, in that everyone could freely acquire the software. However, it was not free software -- once you have the source code, you are not allowed to redistribute it with your own patches.
If you wanted to improve qmail, for instance, you had two choices: Either beg DJB to include your change, or distribute your patch directly to users -- they would have to then download the qmail sources, apply your patch, and compile.
Free Software, on the other hand, only requires that you be able to both obtain the software, and fork it to distribute your own version. It doesn't place any other restrictions, it doesn't even require "free as in beer".
By the FSF's definition, the official distribution of sqlite is very much Free Software. By the OSI's definition, it is very much Open Source. And it is completely public domain, meaning there is absolutely no restriction placed on its use.
Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the FSF advocates the GPL, which does impose quite a lot of restrictions. The GPL's purpose is to ensure that this software must continue to be Free Software -- compare to sqlite, which could be forked into a proprietary version.
But there's nothing about the idea of Free Software itself which requires the GPL, or anything like it, and it's quite ignorant of you to suggest that.
"OOOHHH! Google USED TO allow us to use their resources, now they don't! OH! EVIL GOOGLE!"
Nice strawman. Can you point to a single post with that sentiment?
It's possible you can, but I've been reading this thread for awhile, and I've found nothing of the sort. I've found a few people who suggest that Google should have considered the implications, and certainly some people are disappointed, but I haven't actually seen anyone say that Google is evil or wrong for doing that.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
OK- I understand the sentiment but I'm going to reply out of respect for my dear friends that live in 3rd world countries. You're using a different scale of "poor" at least on Crappy Economy, Poor Standards of Health, Poor standards of education, poor standards of living and especially poor standard of internet service. You need to go somewhere 3rd world and live there for a few months to even begin to understand what you're claiming. In the mean time, you can still hang out.
I don't know how you got modded insightful - if you truly believe that our economy is third world, or that our health is third world, or that our education is third world, you are delusional.
While there are plenty wrong with the US economy, health care, education, etc etc... To claim that we are in a third world state (or even close to it) is an insult to people who actually live in third-world countries.
Shall I continue? #19 in the world on Acute Care Beds.
We DO, however, SPEND by far the most on health care. Over $4,000 per person per year. Our health expenditure increases over 3% per annum, in excess of inflation. Ask yourself what you got for that money some time, when you're talking about defining "best" healthcare.
We DON'T have some of the best healthcare in the world. But we ARE told that, in order to justify the fact that our premiums keep going up and up and up. (My wife and I went from $431 to $510 a month last year, despite no non-routine events).
In fact, according to the WHO, on an overall index of "overall health performance" we're not even in the top 20 countries in the world. On "levels of health" we rank SEVENTY SECOND, and on "level of health care performance", THIRTY SEVENTH (from http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_systems.html).
It doesn't MATTER what protocol was being used. It doesn't MATTER what AT&T or any other telephone company is doing, or not doing, or what price they might be charging. AT&T doesn't own Google's servers. The iApple store doesn't own Google's servers. Google provides a lot of free services, yes. But, only Google can determine WHICH free services it offers, and TO WHOM it offers them. Obviously, Google wasn't obligated to supply the SMS service to a third party application. If they yank ALL OF THEIR FREE SERVICES TOMORROW, big deal. It's not like they have signed a contract with me that obligates them to maintain my gmail account for the next hundred years, or anything. They can end it today, if they wish, or charge me for it, or limit my usage of it - it's all theirs.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
So open up the SMS service for TCP access by smart phones... Don't send the SMS messages via the control channel except to old dumb phones...
Geez this is the Internet... we DO know how to move bits around. That's what convergence is all about.
Until then I'll continue to consider SMS pricing a cash cow..
How much free time do you think these people have? Granted, the number is pulled from an orifice, but just think about how much time it would take to send out these hundreds of SMSs per person per day.
You don't know many teenagers do you?
"Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help."