Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

iPhone App Causes Google To Shut Down SMS Service

Posted by kdawson on from the free-as-in-no-longer dept.

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."

21 of 420 comments (clear)

  1. Well, by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that's what you get for abusing a free service. Happy now?

    1. Re:Well, by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      that's what you get for abusing a free service. Happy now?

      No. That's what you get for offering a service without a proper business model behind it.

    2. Re:Well, by Ostracus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      that's what you get for abusing a free service. Happy now?

      No. That's what you get for offering a service without a proper business model behind it.

      Hmmm, yes let's all remember that the next time OSS is discussed.

      --
      Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
    3. Re:Well, by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Charging for a service another entity subsidizes without their approval.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    4. Re:Well, by RichardJenkins · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OSS stands for Open Source Software, not services. Why would you want to remember Google shutting down a free service when discussing open/free software?

    5. Re:Well, by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Making money off of a free service by vastly increasing the cost of running the free service without offering compensation especially when the economy is going to shit.

    6. Re:Well, by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whatever happened to politefulness and manners in this world?

    7. Re:Well, by digitalchinky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In all, it probably only actually had a total infrastructure cost of about $15 USD to support every scrap of traffic across every involved SS7 link. (I pulled $15 bucks from my backside, it was likely even less than that) Millions of messages? Billions? Doesn't really matter, these links are up 24/7 anyway, and if they aren't being used then they just idle. Now the phone companies will have you think that every bit is encapsulated in 24 carrot gold, sent through diamond encrusted tubes, and polished brighter than the sun before being given the privilege of hitting the recipients dirty message queue. It very likely cost google a fair chunk of change though, but the phone companies, virtually nothing. SMS is a very tiny and largely insignificant bit of allocated payload riding on the back of the out of band signalling system. What you have here is a cash cow for the telco, nothing more, nothing less. It's pure genius driven by greed.

      Free SMS can actually exist, just so long as the basic fee they charge for the service covers the infrastructure cost to run it each month, then end of story. This is likely not going to happen any time soon, remember, greed, uninformed customer base, cash cow.

    8. Re:Well, by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not just people, criminal organizations. SMS spam is already a problem, and if the same people sending the same unwanted junk mail manage to get ahold of a free SMS service, then they have the ability to not just hit millions of phones, but attack people they don't like with big phone bills. For example (obligatory car mention), sending someone 30,000 text messages likely will make most people's monthly phone bills cost more than the MSRP of a decent vehicle.

      In some ways, SMS spam is worse than E-mail spam. Unless the recipiant has unlimited text messaging, they pay up to a buck just to read about someone's new pharmacy.

    9. Re:Well, by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is this is AT&T cellular. they charge for every outgoing and INCOMING sms message. So honestly they are not losing any money.

      This is the problem with SMS messages. they are overpriced drastically so people are looking for ways to subvert them.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Well, by fractoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your obsession with unlimited-service-for-fixed-fee contracts in America is quite frankly puzzling. It's like you have to make every part of your capitalistic society and make it into pseudo-communism.

      It's never going to be possible to charge people a flat fee for all-you-can-use X without the bulk of the consumers overpaying for their moderate usage of X to subsidise the few who exploit the service. This holds for values of X such as bandwidth, pasta, text messaging, icecream, whatever.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  2. Re:kenneth by somenickname · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Well, Google HAD a business model! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

  4. How is parent insightful when he's wrong? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:WE WANT OUR FREE SERVICE BACK!! by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish you could "anti-sign" online petitions.

  6. Re:Alll's Well that ended well. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  7. Re:Alll's Well that ended well. by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But... but... but... I want it my free stuff!!!

    Wah.

    /end juvenile mode - I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, a period often criticized as the "me generation", because we wanted it all. But I think we recognized we're not entitled to other people's stuff; if we want a new toy, we have to EARN it through hard work. ----- 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. More than being the "entitlement generation" they should be called the "inconsiderate generation". It is inconsiderate to cause financial harm to other people (and then whine about it when the neighbor or google cuts access).

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  8. Shame, Shame by bartwol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  9. Re:Alll's Well that ended well. by umdstu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  10. I feel sorry for the Google group members by ishmalius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Yes and No by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.