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."

37 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 Aranykai · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ive been sending sms messages to sprint users for free for years now. Just add @messaging.sprintpcs.com to then end of their phone number and send it as an email.

      Im sure most other providers do something similar.

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    5. 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?

    6. 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.

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

      Whatever happened to politefulness and manners in this world?

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. Re:Well, by Joebert · · Score: 5, Funny

      A tyranasaurus rex stepped on manners when it leaned over to bite politefulnesses' head off.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    11. Re:Well, by Joebert · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lots of carriers have SMS gateways. :)

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    12. 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.
    13. 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:TANSTASFL by Inf0phreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    There Ain't No Such Thing As SMS From... what? Latvia?

    --
    ________
    Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
  3. Re:TANSTASFL by iamflimflam1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So they were in the top 10 paid apps for 11 days. According to here if you are in the top 15 paid apps you'll be selling at least 2836 units a day. According to my maths, after Apple has taken their cut they'll have made about $20K Not bad...

    --
    "Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help."
  4. Lot's of iPhones out there by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This kind of puts the iPhone's market share in perspective doesn't it?

  5. 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.

  6. Re:Next target: AOL? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. 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...

  8. Inner Fence's and Google's Official Statement by krunk4ever · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    Infinite SMS is a third party app that has been using Google technology to provide free SMS for users, while we were paying for the cost of the text messages. While Google is supportive of third party apps, we've decided we can't support this particular usage of our system at this time. SMS chat is still just an experiment in the early testing stages in Gmail Labs. We're blocking all external XMPP clients from sending SMS; we're not singling out Inner Fence.

  9. Re:kenneth by krunk4ever · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. 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.
    1. Re:How is parent insightful when he's wrong? by SuperAlgae · · Score: 4, Informative

      When people buy this app, they are paying for the functionality that comes from the combination of the app's software and Google's service. If a major differentiator for the app is its use of Google's service, then they are effectively charging for that service.

      Ask yourself this. Of all the apps people could buy, why would they buy this one? Does its competitive advantage come from the excellence of the app itself or from its use of Google's service?

      Does this constitute "abuse"? I'm not sure that it does, and I think even Google has not claimed such. But it is overuse, even if unintentional, and it is a form of "charging".

  11. Re:Next target: AOL? by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know somebody who set up an SMS spamming company in about 2000

    Have you remembered to give him that special kind of "thank you" that we all know he deserves?

  12. Re:Well, Google HAD a business model! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  13. Re:kenneth by kylef · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Google does stuff for free when it suits them. If it might get in the way of advertisers or business partners (as is certainly the case here), they back down. Despite the legion of Slashdot fans who don't want to believe otherwise, Google is a business and frequently makes business decisions. Which is fine, as long as people see it for what it is.

    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."

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

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

  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Re:Alll's Well that ended well. by nicklott · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...

  18. 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?

  19. 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...

  20. Re:TANSTASFL by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple always keeps their 30%. The developer puts up 100% of the money for a refund. Simplified math for a refund: Developer pays 30% of the app's price to Apple.
    Users have 30 days to ask for a refund from the app store. And you'd think many will ask for a refund when the service goes offline or shortly after. Why not? the app is useless to them.
    If everyone who can ask for a refund does, the developers doesn't profit, doesn't break even, the developer loses big.

  21. Re:Alll's Well that ended well. by horza · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.