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?
...except that inner fence have presumably sold a lot of now useless copies of their tool. So they are ahead a few bucks.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
This kind of puts the iPhone's market share in perspective doesn't it?
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.
Google haven't closed the service. They have just blocked third party apps from using it. AOL might just do that if a different client starts using this to send messages.
I know somebody who set up an SMS spamming company in about 2000. He was always on the lookout for ways to send tens of thousands of SMS messages for free.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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...
Inner Fence's Official Statement
Google will soon block Infinite SMS and all other non-Google software from sending free text messages.
For now, Infinite SMS will continue to work, but when the block goes into effect, you'll start getting an error every time you try to send a text message.
If you have comments for Google, you can visit their Text Messaging Google Group.
Google has claimed no grievance with Infinite SMS other than its success. Their given reason for the block isn't abuse or wrongdoing; it's that we brought too many users (and thus too much cost) to an experimental service.
We acted in good faith, accessing a feature publicly announced by Google over open protocols they made available. Other non-Google apps have been able to access the SMS feature since its launch. To us, this was no different from accessing Gmail's near limitless storage over the open IMAP protocol. We never could have guessed that the two of us would write an app too big for Google.
Our first warning was an unexpected call from Google on Monday, 9 March 2009, indicating that the service might be blocked as soon as the very next day.
We asked them to reconsider or at least give us more time to change our program or migrate our users. We scheduled a call for the next morning to hear Google's final time line.
We immediately removed Infinite SMS from sale, since we could not in good conscience continue to sell a product whose lifetime was so likely to be cut short.
This morning, Tuesday, 10 March 2009, our email is overflowing with questions about why Infinite SMS is not available in the app store. We've decided we need to get real information out there for people, despite not having the complete picture yet. We will update this page when we hear from Google again.
We hope that Infinite SMS users will see this announcement and have some warning before they can no longer use our app for messaging.
Apple does not give app developers any way to perform refunds. Hopefully, at 99ï people will feel like our app paid for itself after only a few messages.
Google's free SMS feature isn't entirely gone. They've only blocked non-Google apps like Infinite SMS. You can still send free text messages through the Gmail web interface (but it doesn't seem like it works in Mobile Safari). The instructions are in their original SMS chat announcement.
Google's Official Statement
HD Trailers
You just mashed together a bunch of unrelated statements and even made up some of your own.
rupesh (article author) stated, "Google's hardly publicized method for sending free text messages has been revoked ..."
Google stated, "SMS chat is still just an experiment in the early testing stages in Gmail Labs."
Nowhere did anyone state they wanted to "test it with limited numbers of users"
Do note that "hardly publicized method" still means a public API, which I would guess is intended for others to use.
What happened here is just that Google wasn't expecting such a huge surge in usage and had no other choice to disable for 3rd party clients for now. If they can figure out a way they can support it, they would most likely re-enable this service for 3rd parties.
HD Trailers
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.
Have you remembered to give him that special kind of "thank you" that we all know he deserves?
I hope this AC's insightful comment doesn't get lost in the bloviating. He's absolutely spot-on about how Google sold their free SMS model to the providers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ohh this is funny, iPhony customers are already bitching on Googe groups http://groups.google.com/group/gmail-labs-help-text-messaging/topics
Someone even created an "Online Petition" http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/googlesms/
We wanz ourz free stuff back!!
lol
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
Reminds me of NeoOffice. When are these Apple developers going to get the point that freely available things are not so they can make a profit off somebody else's work.
What happened here is just that Google wasn't expecting such a huge surge in usage and had no other choice to disable for 3rd party clients for now.
It's a bit ironic that you start your post by blasting someone for reading between the lines, and then you proceed to do the same thing yourself. Unless you work at Google, you have no way to know why this decision was made.
But it's funny that you make it sound like Google is a helpless victim. How much traffic exactly pushed their feeble servers over the capacity limit only 11 days after this software became "popular"? How many iPhone users broke the camel's back?
The reality here is that Google made a policy decision, not a capacity decision. Especially since Google is one of the best in the business at scaling. This message should silence any doubt: "SMS_ERROR_10: Sorry we don't support free SMS messaging through this client. Visit http://gmail.com/sms for more info."
I love their comment that they never would have guess they could write an app to big for google.
Did they really never guess that writing an application that allowed you to perform one of the primary functions for a mobile phone that is usually chargeable would cause problems if it was free. The mobile networks would have started moaning at google immediately and since Google are currently trying to get them to sign up to android they were going to have to cave in.
I dont read
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
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
The BBC calls them narcissists: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7943906.stm
Yes, a generation of self centred jerks who've never been told they're wrong; I look forward to the bright new future...
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.
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.
It does?
I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s, a period where people were fed up of getting ripped off by telecoms companies. The cost of switching had dropped to fractions of the cost, yet the cost of calls kept getting higher. We were fleeced making international calls whilst the telecoms companies raked in billions. We paid through the nose for Internet access over slow modems. The monopoly deliberately held back cheap broadband in the form of ADSL as they didn't want to cannibalise their rip-off ISDN service. SMS was added as an after-thought to GSM and used to be free for everybody via numerous gateways. I used to have it so people could message my mobile via my web site. Then once the big mobile operators saw a cash cow they blocked the free operators by creating a cartel and charging an inter-operator penalty. The digital revolution is starting to open a few holes in the old monopolies and good thing too. The resentment, much like with the record industry and their restrictive practices, are coming back to bite them.
It's the "you don't have an entitlement" generation, and it's going out to the telecoms companies, the RIAA, Microsoft, large drugs companies, foreign oil powers, and anybody else that things they have a license to print money whilst sitting on their asses and doing very little.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
The USA and Australia are NOT third-world countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World
There's a little handy picture included.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
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