Google Gets Its iPhone Voice

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."

Comments

Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[rolfwind]

You're just shooting yourself in the foot otherwise.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Anonymous Coward]

but they really dont care, thats the problem.e

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Pojut]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[KronosReaver]

More than likely Apple does care, but just like the ban on tethering it is something AT&T is not willing to allow.

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!

[whisper_jeff]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[TooMuchToDo]

Slashdot reader =/= average consumer.

iPhone consumer =/= average consumer.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Sandbags]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Captain Splendid]

You don't get out much, do you? All I see on the streets are iPhones and Blackberries.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[poetmatt]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[poetmatt]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[bilbravo]

It's interesting that you said it was because of Verizon, because on my Droid Google Voice is allowed. I can't vouch for the "my 5" fave list removal, because I don't have a fave list. You mention that it is available on all plans and that is not true. At least for family plans, you must be on a plan that has at least 1400 minutes. My wife and I have a plan with 700 minutes and it has no option for any numbers. And it is 10, not 5.

Your post seems to be FUD, but I'll let others decide for themselves.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[dunkelfalke]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Kleen13]

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.

How do you guys all afford this? It costs me like $300 + for a no-contract phone, and I have to tough it out till the thing dies..... I remember being proud of my Treo. I wish I could play with the Flav-O-The-Day. Just jealous. Move along.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[TooMuchToDo]

Clearly, it's the other way around. I travel extremely frequently for work to both US coasts, as well as to Europe and Japan. iPhones everywhere they are not.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[natehoy]

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 directly and have the caller ID show up as my Google Voice number. My Gizmo line at home and my work line both require that I log into the web application for Google Voice (which is fine and all, but it's not nearly as convenient as just typing a number into the Google Voice app and it automatically calling a GV access number). I'm still using AT&T airtime, and arguably I use it MORE often. My life is more AT&T-centric with Google Voice than it would be without it.

Of course, I could just up and leave AT&T and my Google Voice number would just follow me where I went, but with LNP that's true of my cell phone number anyway.

I honestly believe Apple are the ones who have an issue with this, if it's between Apple and AT&T. AT&T has little to lose, from what I can see.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Firehed]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[PhotoJim]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Yvanhoe]

No, Apple, please do continue to act this way. Most people are confused about whether or not you are a closed-source company. This makes things perfectly clear.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Sandbags]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Sandbags]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Anonymous Coward]

More than likely Apple does care, but just like the ban on tethering it is something AT&T is not willing to allow.

They're still responsible for it, though, and reap the benefits/penalties for what the user ends up with. As long as the iPhone is closed like a game console or Kindle, it's going to be a very limited device that I won't want. I don't care why it's lame; I just care if it's lame, and the dollars in my wallet vote accordingly.

The phone market is fucked up by the subsidies/bundling. Can you imagine if your ISP supplied your personal computer? The marriage between network providers and the devices that use those networks, is every bit as fucked up as that. Maybe that's not (originally) Apple's fault, but they chose to be a part of it, to the detriment of their product's usefulness and appeal. If someone wants a phone that can access a voicemail system or make a VoIP call, they're not buying an iPhone.

Maybe when they get up to 10% of the phone market, they'll be happy with that, just like they've been on the desktop. Whatever.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[oztiks]

dont you mean bing?

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[KronosReaver]

Where exactly is there "speculation" that it was Verizon pushing for the block other than in your first post? And while we're at it where did AT&T "confirm" it was not their issue, and then give a green light?

Like the poster below Google Voice (along with tethering) works perfectly on my Droid /w Verizon.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[bilbravo]

No worries. It is very likely that she is grandfathered in; I remember when the merger happened and I thought I was going to get a "circle" but it didn't happen.

I don't disagree that Verizon is evil, I just don't think they have anything to do with this and your initial post was incorrect in some basic facts so I assumed fanboy. :-) That doesn't appear to be the case and I do apologize.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[FatdogHaiku]

You have a Pontiac that makes prognostications? It's not ah, telling you... you know, to do stuff, is it?

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bing ... BAH! Microsoft had their chance ... they got big, fat and happy ... then complacent. And now Bing, like everything else from Microsoft in recent years, is a steaming pile of junk. It's like the kid who doesn't want to be left behind and screams "Look! Me too! I can do it too!" I just don't trust them anymore ... they blew it.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[KronosReaver]

$1200 US for iPhones for myself and the wife was a bit tough to swallow, but in all fairness carrying the same phone for 2 1/2 years made it work out to $20 per month per phone which isn't too bad...

Besides that... make the company pay for them...

As for the guys carrying a new top end phone every two months... They are all wireless sales reps that have no other real expenses because they live in their parents basements, a dorm room, or an apartment with 5 other guys....

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[tpgp]

Verizon has no contractual control of the Google Phone marketplace.

What are you implying here? That Verizon have contractual control of the iPhone Appstore? That they had that control when Google's app was knocked back months ago?

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[stewbacca]

Yeah, but it's so much sexier to blame Apple.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[RESPAWN]

Also keep in mind, this app also means unlimited free text, their #1 more profitable revenue stream...

I'm pretty sure that's a moot point. On most carriers the required data package for a smart phone (IE, a phone that will run a Google Voice app) costs much more than their basic text plans anyway. In the long run your monthly bill will be cheaper if you go with a basic phone with voice+unlimited text than any plan based around a smart phone.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Cyberllama]

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!

[interkin3tic]

You're just shooting yourself in the foot otherwise.

No see, there's an app for that, but apple rejected it, so they are in fact not shooting themselves in the foot. They might be shooting their users in the feet, but we convinced ourselves it is the hip thing to do now. The bullets and the bandages are white, so it matches.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Anonymous Coward]

iPhone consumer == homosexual

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple came out and said it was not allowed because it replaced the default "contacts" list and dialer that Apple uses. Doing so is quite clearly against Apples terms - you can't replace their built in functionality. They also didn't like the "security" of having the contacts stored at Google with no official notice from Google on how secure or private they are. This was all clearly documented. As far as Verizon, their cheaper plans don't do the "my 5", only the more expensive ones. I'm on one of the more expensive plans with my Droid and my "my 5" has my GV number.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Accuracy is always sexier.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[BitZtream]

Really? I keep hearing this but I really don't see anyone even coming close to drawing in the crowds of people that Apple does.

If what Apple is doing is shooting themselves in the foot, please hand me a gun so I can shoot myself in the foot too, I want to make money hand over fist as well.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[BitZtream]

Or ... they could just do what AT&T does and require special plans for iPhone users which don't have the 'my 5'.

Your speculation is rather poorly thought out.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[timeOday]

Is Apple really the issue here? I would think the telcos are the ones afraid of digital convergence. (By which I mean not charging for voice separate from texting separate from "data" and so on).

Cellphones need network neutrality - just let me pay by the byte. Then let me do what I want - tether to a laptop, select the bitrate for my voice calls, run apache on my phone for that matter. Tracfone is still around (it's what I and my wife use), so evidently not everybody hates metered services.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[mattack2]

Yes, but you're on the train to Microsoft.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[karlandtanya]

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 assistance, 900-type numbers, your own wireless number or voice mail access number, or numbers from Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico & US Virgin Islands.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Dare nMc]

I could just up and leave AT&T and my Google Voice number would just follow me

Also your voicemail history and contact list would; not true with LNP (need something like bitpim to transfer the contacts.) Apple did also force AT&T to spend allot of money to upgrade their voice servers for that mail app to have that little scroll list. Verizon didn't spend this, so if Apple switches to Verizon (or others) the only way to provide this feature (likely) is with google voice. Since I doubt Verizon is going to bend over backwards for Apple, having droid already. So had Apple worked with Google to integrate their app into the iPhone, they could have encouraged their customers to go GV even on AT&T, and switching their existing customers to any other network painlessly (giving Apple negotiation clout.) Granted it would make switching to android easier, but really most of Apples customers are loyal.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[ArsonSmith]

You must be wrong, during my commute to work all I see is blackberries.

Of course I drive to work alone and have two blackberries.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[natehoy]

Voicemail is a problem, but AT&T had a gizmo that stripped the contacts off my wife's old Verizon Moto RAZR and straight in to her Blackberry, and her parents' old Verizon phones got similar treatment. They had their address books in their new phones in mere seconds.

But, your point is taken - there's a lot of information in a phone beyond addresses and the number. Application settings, saved voicemails and emails, etc. I could see where Google might be a threat to that.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[mdwh2]

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:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Thinboy00]

AT&T provided such confirmation in its letter to the FCC.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[mdwh2]

_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.

Indeed. They don't care, and they don't buy Apple.

Slashdot reader =/= average consumer.

Indeed. Only the Slashdot reader is obsessed with Apple.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps != would better compare a Slashdot read to the average consumer?

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[mysidia]

So yeah, it is banned in the Apple store, but probably due to AT&T rather than Apple.

Any chance Apple will expand the app store then, to allow more apps to run on other carriers who aren't so restrictive?

Eg. "This app is approved for use on all networks, except AT&T"

So when trying to install an app (as an AT&T user) you'll be informed your network doesn't allow the app, and get suggested a list of alternative carriers to switch to.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[mspohr]

You may recall (or not) that when the iPhone was originally released, there was no dev kit, no app store, and no provision to add apps. Only after a great uproar was the current (wildly successful) dev kit and app store released. However, you have to understand that this is still the mindset... it's all about control of the customer and the platform. You will never have a 'libre' iPhone.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[brianosaurus]

While it's true that data packages are expensive, I use the hell out of my data package. I'd guess the margin on data usage is nowhere near the insane margins on text messages. And I still have to pay for text messages on top of my data plan. It's not a choice of one or the other. If I could text for free via the data channel, then AT&T would lose $5/month (or whatever my text plan costs me now).

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[eyendall]

"An armed society is a polite society."

An armed society is a seriously fucked-up society. Consider Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the United States. A fundamental precondition of a civilised society is the monopoly of coercive force by the state. If you want to hang a gun on your wall, not a problem: use it or take it outside your house and you should be regulated until your eyes spin.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Nerdfest]

Consider Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and the United States.

Correlation is not imply causation.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[n2art2]

Try 30 a month for the family unlimited text. And I'm with you. I use my iPhone for everything but to make calls on, most of the time. my data usage is through the roof.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[n2art2]

Well I've got the 10 fav's list of whatever it's called on ATT and I'm loving it, because I took my work phone number and put it in my list, then I set up call redirection at work to my cell number. Now I just have people call my work number instead of my cell number, and bam all the minutes are free.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[JourneymanMereel]

I don't think Verizon is even in a place where they could do that. I think Verizon wants Apple much more than Apple wants Verizon. While AT&T's network is sub-par, it is the best GSM network in the States. So by going with AT&T initially, Apple ensured they only had to build one device with one radio for it to work worldwide. It's become a very popular device and Verizon is left out in the cold.

Verizon is in the weaker role in these negotiations. There's only one iPhone, but there's more than one carrier. And Sprint, I'm sure, would be more than willing to let Apple release the iPhone on their network without dictating anything to them other than requiring a data plan (which only makes sense anyway). Sprint's network, while not being quite as large as Verizon's, is quite extensive. Even their 3G coverage is better than AT&T's.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Sandbags]

Actually, google itself has little control over the marketplace, and there are other marketplaces not under google's control at all. Perhaps I should have said "no control over the ANDROID marketplace" which is more correct.

Apple has sole control of the apple store, and that can be used as a bargaining tool, yes.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[Sandbags]

The number in a F&F list must be a "landline, mobile, or toll free number and must be based in the US, and can't be one of your own numbers or your voicemail number" Google voice numbers are none of the above.

Just confirmed this from a Verizon supervisor. It;s not explicitly in their Customer agreement, however, it falls under rules related to use of services that bypass Verizon's billing practices and is considered an abuse of service.

AT&T is actively banning GV numbers from the a-List as well.

Verizon does not ban the use of GV numbers, simply bills based on the appropriate incoming caller ID or target you are calling. Since Google optionally obfuscates the caller ID, verizon does not list google numbers as valid for the F&F plan, nor does AT&T.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[RESPAWN]

I'd really be interested to know what the typical usage metrics are on cell phone customers these days. I actually just backed my personal phone down to 450 minutes/month since I haven't used more than that in the past year or more. My texting, on the other hand has gone up considerably in the past year. That's an extra $40/month that Verizon is no longer getting from me. I can't help but wonder how many other people have done the same now that texting is becoming more mainstream.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[poetmatt]

no. I like to use search engines, not decision engines with their own controversy and positive articles about microsoft (aka propaganda machines). Also nice to know how they have no opt out from tracking, no guarantee of anonymity data (as pitiful as that is in the first place), etc.

Brought to you by the same company that first tried to forcibly obtain yahoo, and instead got the ceo kicked out and replaced them with a microsoft individual. How's that "yahoo"?

Yeah. Bing. I'll pass.

Re:Oh Apple, let the Apps through already!

[oztiks]

Modded Troll? I didnt Troll, i stated a fairly objective POV.

I think I must of hurt some Google Fan boys feelings ...

Anyone else think...

[Anonymous Coward]

that the headline could have been a lot better?

Dear Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Dear Apple

[nneonneo]

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:Dear Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Office for Mac is quite nice. You should upgrade to it.

Re:Dear Apple

[Sandbags]

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:Dear Apple

[Enderandrew]

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:Dear Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Office for Mac is a dog, oh and so is the Windows version.

Re:Dear Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Or put "www.google.com" in the URL field.

Re:Dear Apple

[dingen]

Moving from iWork to MS Office can hardly be described as "upgrading".

Re:Dear Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen.

Google getting a bit too cocky.

[X-Power]

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.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[Attila Dimedici]

It's just you. If Google wants Google Voice to succeed in the market space they have positioned it for, users must be able to use it on the Iphone.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[michaelhood]

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:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[X-Power]

Hi Michael.

When Google takes over everything you do, you will realize all your fears about Bill were really about Sergey & Larry.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[ElSupreme]

Who the fuck cares if Apple said no. If I owned an iPhone and wanted Google voice I could now have it.

Why anyone would want either is beyond me. I alreay give up enough freedoms.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[Aeros]

yea I also think its just you. Apple didn't want them to have their app on iphone for business reasons that were bad for Apple. People got upset about it and Google needs this to be more available in order to make it a business for them. So of course they're going to keep pushing.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[Jaysyn]

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.

[QuantumRiff]

Not really.. I run Google Voice with a landline, a blackberry, and a dumb cell phone (crappy Motorola Flip phone) All you really need internet for is to setup the call routing or change it. I have it send SMS to my mobile phone (free incoming texts) with transcripts of my voicemails, as well as emailed to my gmail account. I could, just as easily call in and listen to them too.

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.

[soupd]

Most people outside of Slashdot don't know how ridiculous Apple's policies are with the iPhone,

Do you think perhaps that for the tens of millions of people who've bought an iPhone and seemingly like it, really don't care that much? Apple are making $$$ hand over fist and the phone is still selling like crazy. Little in this world comes without strings attached and if you don't like the strings that come with the iPhone then just jailbreak the bloody thing or move on and buy something else but quit whining that the world doesn't work how you think it should.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[TooMuchToDo]

Apple didn't purchase the iPhone, the user did. So Apple can go suck a bowl of dicks.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[Sandbags]

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 happen. I'm sure this has to do with other provider contract terms they're being cautios of.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[toriver]

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:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[greywire]

"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:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[Enderandrew]

I was seriously thinking about jailbreaking mine just to get the Google Voice app. I might not need to now.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[Locutus]

if the first Google Voice iPhone app was a VOIP app, then this is probably something much different. I doubt this is a VOIP implementation of Google Voice and is probably just a small interface to their call forwarding service built into Google Voice. In this setup, you tell Google Voice what number you want to call but also them them what local phone you want to use( one on your desk or iPhone ) and Google voice will first call that local phone and then call the other person. In this case, they would be just calling the iPhone over the AT&T network but the calls would all be going through Google Voices exchange and the remote phone would see your Google Voice phone number, not your iPhone number.

The only problem Apple might have with this is probably via AT&T who may not like how Google is starting to move into the phone network business. Apple shouldn't care much because it's basically a simple web app to a server which then results in the wireless phone service being used. BFD IMO

LoB

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[hazydave]

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:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[DragonWriter]

Do you think perhaps that for the tens of millions of people who've bought an iPhone and seemingly like it, really don't care that much?

I bought an iPhone -- seemed to be the best price for features at the time I bought it -- and I like it, but I do, in fact, care about the walled garden, and its the one big negative of the phone, and the biggest reason that (1) I expect to replace it with something else, probably Android-based, when the time comes to replace it, and (2) I don't by expensive apps for the phone, as a direct consequence of #1.

Though, ironically perhaps, if good rich HTML5 apps that work on the iPhone take off, I might stay with iPhone (though I still wouldn't buy expensive native apps through the app store), so, for me at least, Google is mitigating my concerns with the walled garden rather than highlighting them.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[BitZtream]

Most people outside of slashdot don't give a shit. I know what they do and I don't give a shit, I'd much rather have Apple monitoring the app store and pay for apps at the risk of reduced functionality than to randomly download software from someone else, with no checking and find out tomorrow that the app stole all my contacts using an exploit.

Reality check: slashdot's crowd is in no way normal, and generally consists of a bunch of wanna be techies who are completely out of touch with both real techies and normal people.

Google and slashdot can bitch, moan, and scream all day long, and people will still buy an iPhone because no one gives a shit. They'd prefer the interface and reliability of a closed system to the crap that is called android. Google is good at a lot of things, making a phone OS isn't one of them.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[BitZtream]

Explain exactly how the 'walled garden' has any direct effect on 1 or 2?

Its not like you can't export your data from your phone to standard formats.

Its not like the app store isn't full of free apps, and since most apps are a couple bucks at most, I find your definition of expensive to be ... well, something even a homeless man wouldn't say.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[BitZtream]

If by 'getting around' you mean using the original method of developing apps for the iPhone, before there was an SDK, and which has never had any restrictions at all ... then sure, they got around it ...

They didn't make an app, they updated their google voice web page to better support the iPhone.

I've been using GVoice for a while on my phone, its not like you couldn't do the important things already.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason apple disallowed the commodore emulator is that they don't want unauthorized code running on the iPhone. *any* code that can be compiled directly on the iPhone can be used to jailbreak their sandbox and do bad things. Notice how all the exploits and hacks for the iphone only work on jailbroken phones? Theres a reason. Notice how nexus one/gphone has already had spyware apps running that harvest user data? No vetting process, no one reviews the code, shitty software gets posted. Sure the "bad" apps get pulled when they are discovered, but that doesn't help the idiots running the trojans for the last 3 weeks letting it collect their bank passwords before it was discovered.

When that story broke, suddenly we had news sites saying "well, maybe a little code review is a good thing.." You can't have it both ways. Either all code is reviewed, and people are kept from running unauthorized code, or you open everything up and deal with the bad PR and publicity from every third app on the store harvesting your users data. Apple made their choice, and to be quite honest, I really don't think they give a flying fuck about the VERY small, VERY vocal slashdot population that has a problem with it. Not many other people do, from their sales numbers...

Personally, I LIKE Apple's review process. I LIKE not having to worry about my phone gathering my call data and sending my contacts out via some virus or trojan or something. I LIKE having a phone that "just works" even with Apple's limitations. I LIKE the fact that when some idiot developer ships an app with 200 bugs, Apple sends the shit back to them and makes them fix it before releasing the app on the store.

As far as the endless complaining on Slashdot goes, it comes down to this. Don't like it? BUY SOMETHING ELSE. we don't care... I made my choice, go make your own and stop trying to convince other people that your choice is better.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[mdwh2]

Wow, 10 million phones out of a market that sells about a billion a year. Wow. I guess the remaining 99% actually do care then.

that come with the iPhone then just jailbreak the bloody thing

Yeah, here we have it. Only earlier today, we had the story about Iphone viruses, and morons were pleading "But you only have this problem if you jailbreak, and no one would be stupid enough to do that". Yet, here you are, telling us we need to jailbreak it to get basic functionality working.

Which is it?

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[mdwh2]

I'd much rather have Apple monitoring the app store and pay for apps at the risk of reduced functionality than to randomly download software from someone else

Er, you have that choice with any phone. The difference is, it's your choice, and not Apple's.

Google and slashdot can bitch, moan, and scream all day long, and people will still buy an iPhone because no one gives a shit.

The reality is that most people buy phones other than Iphones, but it's Slashdot that whines and pretends otherwise.

Reality check: slashdot's crowd is in no way normal, and generally consists of a bunch of wanna be techies who are completely out of touch with both real techies and normal people.

Fully agree - it's only on Slashdot that there's this delusion that Apple are the market leader in phones.

They'd prefer the interface and reliability of a closed system to the crap that is called android. Google is good at a lot of things, making a phone OS isn't one of them.

Ah yes, pro-Apple tactic number 43 - only compare to Android, the only platform with less share than Apple. Unfortunately you forget every other phone company that's selling vastly more than Apple.

If your argument is that popular must mean better, I fail to see why you're using the little-used Iphone.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[mdwh2]

Notice how nexus one/gphone has already had spyware apps running that harvest user data? No vetting process, no one reviews the code

Nonsense, there's vetting for the Android Market.

Notice how all the exploits and hacks for the iphone only work on jailbroken phones? Theres a reason. Notice how nexus one/gphone has already had spyware apps running that harvest user data?

You might risk a virus if you run an Android app not vetted. You might risk a virus if you hack your Iphone and do the same. Not sure what the difference is, other than one is less nanny-state.

Personally, I LIKE Apple's review process. I LIKE not having to worry about my phone gathering my call data and sending my contacts out via some virus or trojan or something. I LIKE having a phone that "just works" even with Apple's limitations.

My 5800 Just Works, without Apple's limitations.

I LIKE the fact that when some idiot developer ships an app with 200 bugs, Apple sends the shit back to them and makes them fix it before releasing the app on the store.

Same for any other store.

As far as the endless complaining on Slashdot goes, it comes down to this. Don't like it? BUY SOMETHING ELSE. we don't care...

Endless complaining? Endless hype and advertising, more like. You evidently do care, we get nothing but Apple Apple Apple, and heaven forbid someone mention another more popular phone.

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[soupd]

Way to pull numbers out of your arse. 10m iPhones? Try 40-45m. And way to compare Apple's smart phone market penetration with the entire dumb/smart phone market. As for "basic functionality" and jailbreaking, are you on crack? Basic functionality for a smart phone is it being an actual phone, calendar, email, messaging and web. It does this just fine. You want more, you jailbreak - but change your root password after. You're on /. and you don't know that having a default root password is bad? Like, really??

Re:Google getting a bit too cocky.

[DragonWriter]

Explain exactly how the 'walled garden' has any direct effect on 1 or 2?

It has a direct effect on #1 (which was, again, that I plan not to replace the phone with another iPhone when it needs to be replaced) because it limits choice.

It doesn't have a direct effect on #2 (the fact that I don't plan to spend lots of money purchasing anything that depends on the expectation that I will continue to have an iPhone), which I stated was a direct consequence of #1, not the walled garden itself. Of course, #1 is a direct consequence of the walled garden.

Its not like the app store isn't full of free apps, and since most apps are a couple bucks at most, I find your definition of expensive to be ... well, something even a homeless man wouldn't say.

Uh, the free, $1, and $2 (and even $5) apps aren't the "expensive apps" I said I wasn't going to buy. Saying "I'm not going to buy expensive apps as a result of the walled garden" isn't the same thing as saying "I'm not going to buy any iPhone apps, all of which are expensive". What I said was what I meant. Your argument against something different is, well, misdirected, at best.

Does that mean

[Monkeedude1212]

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

[mathfeel]

I don't think so. I have an Android phone, and it has a native google voice app which will dial to my destination using a random number. On the receiving end, they will see my GV # show up, but on my call history, it's as if I called some random number (including area code). How it works is somewhat convoluted, and is explained in this article. I quote:

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:Does that mean

[Monkeedude1212]

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

[Sandbags]

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 you who's calling while caller ID simply displays your Google voice number. (this was originally a good idea that might have enabled free calling to/from your Google voice number if you added it to your "list" but providers quickly began IDing google voice numbers and auto-remove them from your list as it;s against their ToS to use call redirection technology.

Re:Does that mean

[nneonneo]

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; 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:Does that mean

[Monkeedude1212]

Now that is interesting.

Re:Does that mean

[DragonWriter]

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.

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 most of the Google Voice function from the existing mobile web app that they've had for a while, the only real change is that now, rather than using the dial-back system that the "vanilla" Google Voice web interface uses when making calls, calls dial out from your phone. And the UI is a bit prettier than the earlier web interface.

Back before the native iPhone app got stalled, there were some features you couldn't use from the "mobile" version of the web page, but it didn't take very long after the whole storm over Apple not allowing the native app for Google to add most of the functionality into the mobile web app. I think the only thing that is actually new (in terms of functionality rather than UI) in the new iPhone-targetted web app from the old generic mobile web app is access to account management features like forwarding settings, contact editing, etc. (and since the iPhone contacts have been able to sync with Google Voice's forever, you can already do the contact editing part from the iPhone's native contacts utility.)

Re:Does that mean

[b0bby]

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.)

Re:Does that mean

[Fast Thick Pants]

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

[Sandbags]

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:Does that mean

[kehren77]

One sure way of testing... iPod Touch. If it works on there then no minutes required.

Doesn't look like it works. I get an error that says "Safari cannot open the page because the address is invalid."

It could be the content filter here at work messing things up, but I doubt it. You can't place a call on the Google Voice website and use a headphone/mic setup on your computer, it just rings one of your phones.

I'm going to say that minutes are required.

Re:Does that mean

[DragonWriter]

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.

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:Does that mean

[Fast Thick Pants]

Aha, makes sense.

Re:Does that mean

[Sandbags]

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:Does that mean

[Firehed]

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 a lot more now, even if what they have could use a little more polish.

Re:Does that mean

[Anonymous Coward]

The app is BADASS. I was previously using GV Mobile on my unlocked iPhone, but the new app from Google is much better. It renders cleanly in the phone's browser, and is so much more efficient than the old one. Godbless you Google, I woke up today and was pleasantly surprised.

Re:Does that mean

[trjonescp]

Free call to Canada.

Not just free calls to Canada, but cheap international calls. There are lots of ways to save money on international calls, but GV on an Android phone is by far the easiest I have found. Wife tested. Geek approved.

Re:Does that mean

[eldridgea]

If you can find a SIP app to use with your iPhone, then yes - although the new app wasn't needed for this.

Although, I had problems doing it with the iPod Touch.

Works ok on the Droid though.

Re:Does that mean

[Anonymous Coward]

Dialing in the new interface is vastly superior to the old one.

Re:Does that mean

[Dare nMc]

You missed the best features 1) Voice to text of all voicemail, search-able... 2) the lowest international call rates. 3) follow me on incoming calls (can dial your home+work+cell you pick the cheapest/convenient) 4) app to transfer, 3 way calling... although this is where voice or data cdma might suck. (not sure if the google app could do some in-band dtmf to transfer data on top of your open call?)
All theory, I have a GV number but no smart-phone to make worth messing with.

Re:Does that mean

[nneonneo]

The app uses the iPhone's phone functionality to place calls.

Basically, when you make a call through their interface, they find a free number owned by Google Voice, then send that number to the browser. Using the iPhone's voice connection, that number is dialed, which on Google's end connects you to your destination.

This *does* require a cellular connection, which you simply can't get on an iPod touch.

Kind of scary that it works....

[argent]

I sure wouldn't have thought letting a website access the microphone was a good idea. Next up... web bugs that really bug you.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[MarkKnopfler]

Yet another comment without any prior knowledge. I just remembered why I stopped reading slashdot.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[_bug_]

Flash has been allowing this for years. Along with web cam access.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[dgatwood]

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:Kind of scary that it works....

[dgatwood]

There is no Flash implementation on iPhone in Safari.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[nneonneo]

At the very least, Flash prompts for permission before accessing them (well, usually).

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[nschubach]

If you stopped reading, how did you get here?

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[Trashman]

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:Kind of scary that it works....

[DragonWriter]

sure wouldn't have thought letting a website access the microphone was a good idea.

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 route your call to the actual number you dialed via the web interface.)

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[MustardAndPizza]

It's easy to stop reading Slashdot. I've done it hundreds of times today alone.

----
Whoops... we'll get you your signature with fries in just a moment.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[Sandbags]

Bingo!

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[Locutus]

or it uses the web interface to Google Voice, lets you search your phonebook or select a person to call and is prepositioned so that your iPhone number is the forwarding number. With just these parts, Google Voice will call your iPhone and once you pick it up, they'll then make the call out to that person you wanted to call. The phone number the other person will see is your Google Voice number, not your iPhone number.

ie, not a VOIP app. I could be completely wrong too.

LoB

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[dgatwood]

Ah. Callback. Yeah, that would work, too. Actually, that's probably more likely. Either way, no microphone access needed.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[argent]

I would say that's one of the many reasons I don't like flash, but there at least you have to enable it explicitly.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[argent]

No, I haven't used it, I don't have an iPhone. Thanks for the info.

If the call itself is made using regular voice minutes, then I can't see why Apple or AT&T would have a complaint.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[DragonWriter]

If the call itself is made using regular voice minutes, then I can't see why Apple or AT&T would have a complaint.

Apple's problem is probably, I would guess, that the GVoice UI is commoditizing most of the phone-related features that are phone-functionality selling points for the iPhone.

AT&T's problem is probably the free SMS with convenient forwarding options, and the phone forwarding options and visual/web-based voice mail that provide alternatives to services for which AT&T charges fees (SMS, and airtime to access voice mail), and the fact that it provides alternative contact management and voicemail storage so that its even easier to switch phones and service providers that government-mandated portability of phone numbers makes it.

In both cases, the problems are around GV weakening lock-in to the companies respective products and services.

Re:Kind of scary that it works....

[BitZtream]

Which is exactly how it works on every phone, even android.

Woohoo!

[SixDimensionalArray]

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:Woohoo!

[Alcimedes]

Apple computer:

Total dicks to the competition, and therefore driving innovation!

Way to go Apple. :p

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

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 progress. That's just reinventing the wheel.

Re:Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that HTML and the like are generally write once, run everywhere. Or the even bigger difference: HTML is much more secure than Flash, Java, and [insert plugin here] will ever be.

Re:Woohoo!

[Firehed]

This is one of the less complicated web apps I've seen, to be honest. I'm not knocking Google for having made it, but very little if any of GV is using stuff specific to HTML5 (there may be some offline storage, but it's certainly not using it aggressively if at all in my testing) - it's mostly a polished interface made for small screens to do a lot of javascript. Ultimately, it's just putting a lot of easy-to-click links that use the tel:// URI that Apple made up a couple of years ago as part of their short-lived web app obsession.

Mobile Gmail is a whole hell of a lot more complex. It uses the offline storage quite heavily and effectively.

That said, I'm happy to see anything that pushes forward the spec and adoption of HTML5-compatible browsers,

Re:Woohoo!

[hazydave]

Given the large footprint of the iPhone, HTML/CSS/Javascript is the only "alternate app" hole they haven't closed. Given Palm's WebOS using this stuff as their "native" application development environment, it does rather suggest that some applications can be written this way without big problem. Yeah, it's a mess, but less work than four or five smartphone-specific versions? Perhaps not.

Re:Woohoo!

[Lars T.]

Given the large footprint of the iPhone, HTML/CSS/Javascript is the only "alternate app" hole they haven't closed/quote> Errm, it's the "app hole" they wanted people to use in the first place - isn't it funny that more and more people do now?

iPod Touch Fails

[Jedi Holocron]

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

[Sandbags]

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:iPod Touch Fails

[brindle]

I have a Skype account and unfortunately Google Voice cannot use the Skype account to make this work on an iPod touch. Its a bit of a disappointment but there is a lot at stake in this space and progress comes slowly.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[DragonWriter]

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.

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 of your phones to complete the call. Which I suppose might be useful if you had a touch and access to a phone that didn't have its own web connection.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Sandbags]

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 want to pay (that AT&T is fighting to make them pay).

By remaining a simple central routing point for other numbers and services, Google provides a good service for free. Stepping across certain lines opens them up to regulation, requires them to collect certain taxes, and incurs fees to you.

It IS possible to have Google voice forward to a Skype-in number, and it;s also possible to dial through google voice with Skype, however, that's not going to work through an iPod touch as the google web app is trying to contact the iPhone dialer API which does not exist there, and web programs can't access app launch protocols so the google web app can't talk to the skype app at all (for very good security reasons!)

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[AvitarX]

Interesting, if it works this way it can not be used with a favorites type plan to skip minutes.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Jedi Holocron]

Good point. I had forgotten this aspect. But, Google did, recently aquire a VoIP company....so maybe, just maybe someday....

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Anonymous Coward]

but only to other gizmo subscribers as PC to PC communication.

I have Gizmo5 setup to use my gvoice account. You can have google ring your gizmo and then dial a POTS line and do free pc->US/Canada phonecalls.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Anonymous Coward]

You needed a Gizmo5 account to do calls on the iPod Touch. It works on mine, but they have closed new regs since Google bought them out...

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[konohitowa]

And the point in this is what, exactly?

Really. I don't get it. Reduced price out-of-country calling or something?

Or is this just a way to shield your origin so that you always present your "Google Face" to the world...

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Craig Davison]

Cheap long distance, a portable phone number that you can forward to cell/home/work, and on some carriers, you can add google voice to your "circle of friends" numbers for cheaper/unlimited minutes.

The app is intended to make all of this as easy to use as the regular dialer/address book on the iPhone, rather than a cumbersome process as with a phone card.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Craig Davison]

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:iPod Touch Fails

[Sandbags]

A portable phone number, single number to reach you anywhere on any device, blacklist numbers, screen calls, listed to cellphone voice mails as they're being left, record calls on the fly, managing central contact lists instead of multiple devices and a home phone not being in sync, central call history, voice mail transcription for free, free unlimited texting, I could easily go on longer, but maybe you should just READ THE FEATURES PAGE before you diss a product.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[konohitowa]

Maybe you should actually learn how to read a question as a question rather than being an ass. Although apparently you didn't mind spending time being an ass, so perhaps I've done you a service by asking a question.

Ultimately, I see a webapp that lets me bypass the iPhone's integrated address book so that I can dial numbers using my Google address book using the same air time I would use whether I used Google Voice or not. The only difference appears to be that my caller id on the other end isn't my iPhone number.

Is that somehow incorrect?

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[konohitowa]

Except that it uses up your iPhone plan's minutes anyway. So I'm back to not understanding what the point in the iPhone webapp is. It just looks to me like an iPhone dialer that lets you have your Google Voice caller ID show up on the other end. And, apparently, the possibility of cheaper out-of-country long distance.

So I'm back to not seeing the point in the iPhone GV webapp (which apparently three commenters took to mean I didn't get the point of GV itself).

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Craig Davison]

Normally making a call with GV would involve calling your GV number, and then dialing the number you wish to call (kind of like using a phone card). The GV webapp makes using GV less cumbersome.

But it sounds like you're wondering why someone would want to place an outgoing call through GV in the first place.

It uses your iPhone plan's minutes, but a local call to GV might be cheaper than a local call to another number, if you have a plan where you get to make a list of "friend" numbers with unlimited or cheap minutes (I think AT&T calls this an A-list). And as you said, it's much cheaper for long distance. Free between two US numbers, in fact (again, not including local minutes charges).

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Sandbags]

first, sorry. There's been a whole string of folks being sarcastic on this, my bad for assuming the same of you.

next, yea, sort of correct, you can ensure that people you call see the caller ID you want (GV number) instead of your personal cell numebr which you might not want them to have. but it also gives you free unlimited text, an better UI to access your voicemails, and a better UI to access your contacts. yea, its a web app, not quite as good as a native app.

Might be a moot point too, as Apple yesterday approved VoIP apps under the OS 3.2 SDK for both iPhone and iPad.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Craig Davison]

Is Apple going to allow VOIP over 3G? That would be big news. Currently I believe they allow VOIP over WiFi only, so the phone companies can continue to gouge you for voice calls on their network.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[konohitowa]

Okay. So it's a GV management system also. For me, the free texting might be worth the time in setting up a GV account. Thanks.

As to the sarcasm, etc. -- after I posted my response, I thought about posting an apology to you for also being an ass. I was a bit tired which, for me, translates to cranky. Thanks for the apology. And sorry I volleyed back.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[konohitowa]

So, perhaps for me chunks of GV might not be useful (I tend to stack up a lot of rollover minutes), but perhaps someone with a different plan could save some money with it. I still have the 1st gen iPhone (EDGE) with the cheapest plan which is essentially unlimited free long distance and local calls for my usage patterns, so there's very little I can do to save more money.

Another responder pointed out the free texting within the WebApp. I might find that useful. I somewhat limit my texting just because I have the 200/month limit.

Thanks for taking the time to followup.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Sandbags]

formal anoucement was last Thursday with the 3.2 SDK. YES, VoIP over 3G and WiFi now openly supported, several apps are already approved.

Re:iPod Touch Fails

[Sandbags]

Apology accepted. Thanks for the nice comments.

Experience?

[whisper_jeff]

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...

Re:Experience?

[Stavr0]

Receiving a Google Voice call: Forward call to your iphone's number.
Calling with Google Voice: Call number, call your iPhone, link the two calls.

You are still using your voice minutes (incoming) to do Google Voice calls.

Re:Experience?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Google Voice routed to my Gizmo5 number on a jailbroken iPhone. The combined effect is free VOIP phone calls over 3G or wifi. If the call quality remains reliable, I will attempt to drop the voice plan from my ATT contract entirely.

Having said that, this webapp does not provide that functionality. It defaults to using the native phone app, skipping the Gizmo5 route entirely. My current setup uses GV Mobile to initiate calls and Gizmo by Acrobits to answer the calls.

Even if you don't want to go the VOIP route, the free text messaging alone should save you money on your bill.

Re:Experience?

[ktandaeo]

I use Google Voice all the time. The fact that Apple didn't allow it on the IPhone is what made me buy the Nexus One instead and drop my IPhone.

Best purchase I ever made.

The complete integration with Google Voice makes the Nexus One better than the IPhone hands down. Even though this new web workaround technically works, the fully integrated experience is 10 times better.

Re:Experience?

[AlexBirch]

Google voice is awesome... free texting, I can mark incoming calls as spam, you can listen to a voicemail while it's being recorded and can actually pick up the call.

Re:Experience?

[Trashman]

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:Experience?

[Sandbags]

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 those pesky numbers you don't like, or add a new number to an existing contact, or manage calling groups). Basically, you no longer need to sit at a PC to manage the account.

Re:Experience?

[Itninja]

..all the time.

..made me buy the Nexus One.

Best Purchase I ever made.

..Nexus One better than the IPhone [sic] hands down

..fully integrated experience is 10 times better.

Do you always post with such obscene levels of hyperbole?

Re:Experience?

[brindle]

Its very useful. Here are a few of the ones I have come across.

Voice to text transcription of voicemails. You can read a message a lot faster than you can listen to one.

All email and voicemails can be emailed to you. Voicemails will have the sound file and the transcription

Reply to text messages through your email client

You can assign different missed-call messages for your different contact groups.

You can create a missed-call message for a single contact

You can record phone conversations

You can send specific callers directly to voice mail.

Re:Experience?

[Itninja]

Been using GV on my Android for about 3 months now. Works pretty good. One big complaint is poor call quality. Making a call with my T-Mobile service is fine. But making the same call, from the same location, with GV gives me echos, 1+ seconds delays, and a few other oddities. However the transcribed voice mail is cool, albeit marginally accurate.

Re:Experience?

[PGGreens]

I have Google Voice and an Android phone, but I haven't found it that useful. This is partly because I only use one phone in my day-to-day life, and GV would really come in handy if you were using it to manage multiple lines (home, work, cell, etc). It's been said already, but you cannot use it to get free minutes. However, you can use it for free texting. That could be a big deal for some people, but I rarely approach my limit, anyway.

Re:Experience?

[spuke4000]

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 calls to Canada for free, which is nice.

If I did use the google voice number you get a lot more features (recording calls, etc. You can look them up). But I find it quite awkward. For instance, if I give everyone my google voice number then they can call and text me there. But if I call them directly, without going through google voice, their caller ID is going to show my tmobile assigned number. I could initiate the call through google voice, but that's a bit of a pain in the ass.

I have a blackberry, and the google voice app for bberry should make some of this easier, but it's pretty terrible. It's very slow, and lately it's been throwing errors saying it can validate google voice's SSL certificate. It's really not ready for primetime.

So, I do like google voice, considering it's free it adds some value, especially the voice mail functionality. But it's got a lot of rough edges.

Re:Experience?

[pdragon04]

I got a GV number to replace a second line I bought for my business. Just have it forward to my existing cell number and don't have to spend that extra money anymore. Worked great even before I got an Android phone and now it works even better with it nearly fully integrated into the phone.

Re:Experience?

[Trashman]

Arstechnica 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?

[natehoy]

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:Experience?

[Sandbags]

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 they the only prospective provider, and several others still enforce no VoIP apps over cell data network rules.

No, Google Voice is not a VoIP app, but it is a call redirection app, and actually, to the provider, that's worse. (most data plans have caps, but "in" minutes or "my 5" have no limit, plus it also permits SMS redirection allowing unlimited free TXT service without a text plan.

Re:Experience?

[L3370]

I use it for its primarily for the relatively cheap international calling. YMMV, but I do get some good rates to the countries I call, and it beats having to drive to the nearest oriental market for calling cards to asia.

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. You can forward that number to any or all of the phone numbers you choose. Your home phone, cell, work number...or even a vacation spot.

I also like it as a junk call screener. I've nixed all my telemarketer calls. If I sign up for some service that needs my number, I give them the GV number. If that service provider sells my number off to other marketing groups they get nixed too.

Re:Experience?

[AbRASiON]

"You are still using your voice minutes (incoming)"

Incoming, oh boy America, when will you exit the dark ages when it comes to mobile phones?

Re:Experience?

[jesser]

How effective is marking incoming calls as spam? Are future calls from that number to you ignored? Is there a collaborative aspect to spam filtering like there is with email?

Re:Experience?

[Grizzley9]

How would the text messaging option save you money? You'd have to have the app open all the time as well as purchase a "push" app so you'd know when you received new stuff (wouldn't you)?

I've been looking to see how I could use GV SMS's instead of the many other SMS replacement apps (like Text+), but I haven't found it. GV still forwards SMS's to your built in text messaging client and if you don't forward, you don't get push and have to constantly check the app.

What am I missing?

Re:Experience?

[ktandaeo]

It ruuules.

It is wonderful.

I wuv IT.

Bestest Ever.

Sorry, it's just that damn good.

Re:Experience?

[AlexBirch]

The spam feature was great when I needed a quote to ship a car across the country. I got the quote, but didn't need the service. I told them the company that, in a week they called me back asking if I needed it. They immediately went on my spam list.

What if you date someone who doesn't get a hint?

That hasn't happened to me but I'm now prepared.

Re:Experience?

[blahbooboo]

"You are still using your voice minutes (incoming)"

Incoming, oh boy America, when will you exit the dark ages when it comes to mobile phones?

Hopefully never if it means becoming like most other countries. European mobile phones are CRAZY expensive to call, and their cell plans are no where near as good as US has now. Face it, USA is far cheaper for cell service nowadays...

Re:Experience?

[alchemy101]

>>What if you date someone who doesn't get a hint? This is /. that's an impossible analogy!

Re:Experience?

[geniusj]

Voice/data works concurrently on T-Mobile 3G as well (AT&T and T-Mobile both use HSDPA.) Coverage is another issue that largely depends on your location.

Re:Experience?

[AbRASiON]

Who is talking about Europe!

Re:Experience?

[klui]

I generally like the service. But I wanted to turn off my cell when I'm at home though I can't do that because I have a T-Mobile prepaid card. That number tends to picks up first and by the 3rd ring, it will go into voice mail. By the time I can pick up at home (hearing the home phone ring once) I cannot answer the caller.

Tried the GSM codes to change this but they don't work. Called their customer support but they cannot do it.

Not really.

[Stavr0]

This is not the same as the iPhone Skype implementation: The only trick they did is to allow access to the Google Voice web page. The useful stuff, making a call and receiving a call is done by forwarding incoming calls to your iPhone's number and by setting up a 3-way call where GV's PBX where it dials your iPhone and the dialed number.

In short: this does not work with an iPod Touch.

Re:Not really.

[DragonWriter]

The useful stuff, making a call and receiving a call is done by forwarding incoming calls to your iPhone's number and by setting up a 3-way call where GV's PBX where it dials your iPhone and the dialed number.

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.

Re:Not really.

[Stavr0]

Good point, so instead of burning incoming minutes, it burns outgoing minutes. This is either better or worse, depending on what kind of plan/provider the iPhone's on.

I don't think so

[jollyreaper]

"Google has found a way to let iPhone owners use Google Voice."

Really? There's a patch for that.

Re:I don't think so

[dkf]

"Google has found a way to let iPhone owners use Google Voice."

Really? There's a patch for that.

They could make it so that the iPhone will only execute javascript that has been signed by Apple. That would "enhance the usability" no end!!!

Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple, the iPhone is the greatest cell phone in history. You cannot build them fast enough and your profit is rising year on year by 50%. This is all directly attributable to your brilliant tightly managed closed application ecosystem strategy. YOU hold all the cards, and developers have no choice but to play by the rules, meaning that you can tailor the end user experience to maximize profitability, no matter how much developers complain about the process.

I sure hope that when the iTablet is released tomorrow, you will upscale this app model to it as well, and really as an investor, I'd like to see the same thing brought to OS X in general, so that developers for all Apple platforms have to go through you FIRST before they can be allowed to make software that may damage the reputation of the company.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[clang_jangle]

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. The reason the iPhone is treated as a special case almost certainly has more to do with potential liability issues regarding AT&T's network. But of course it still sucks.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[ViViDboarder]

Is it just me or did this post seem like sarcasm?

I really hope so.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Sandbags]

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:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Firehed]

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 easy to slip something past me. And I'm a slashdotter who works in a very security-conscious industry; imagine how much easier it would be to pull the same trick on my parents.

Requiring everything to be signed would be a great step in the right direction, but ultimately one could still do a lot of damage in the time it took to discover the problem and send out a kill signal via an OS security update, especially if it's something relatively silent like a keylogger.

Never mind the logistics of making something like that happen. It would take an entirely new OS to pull off, and I can't imagine Google has that kind of thing up their sleeves for Chrome OS (even if it was as simple as adding a meta tag to your web app's head tag with a signing key before you could save it as a home screen app or something)

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[BearRanger]

Of course someone named "Sandbags" would advocate "sandboxing" apps. Like a good pusher how else could you corner the market? ;-)

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[flabordec]

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:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and gentlemen, this post is exactly why Apple fanboys are considered rabid.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

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 iTablet, so why not extend the metaphor to the desktop? The only thing holding them back, in my opinion, is some kind of false sense of duty to failed ideas like shareware and open source. As I have pointed out in the past, these niche development models are a key vector whereby spyware and security holes are added to the Apple ecosystem, so eliminating them (or at least bringing them under much tighter control) would be a key step towards making computers "just work", something Apple has traditionally been very good at and has proven to be extremely effective with the iPhone.

But of course it still sucks.

It only "sucks" if you are a greedy or incompetent developer looking to cash in on Apple's hard work. Apple has proven that for an end user experience to be seamless (and thus popular), it has to have much tighter control over what developers can and cannot do and as an investor I hope Apple closes these loopholes that have allowed developers to put out terrible quality software for too long.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Sandbags]

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, just a good idea. :)

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[metamatic]

The sad thing is, I confidently predict that the Apple tablet will be crippled the same way as the iPhone--which means that I won't be buying one no matter how good it is, even though I'm a long time Mac user.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Sandbags]

lol. i had not caught the correlation. My handle is actually from my days playing beach volleyball, when I refused to wear the (forgive me) faggy shorts common at the time and wore traditional beach shorts (denim, torn khacki, etc) with pockets, and always had pockets full of sand...

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

It only "sucks" if you are a greedy or incompetent developer looking to cash in on Apple's hard work.

Not much of a thinker, are you?

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only problem with that case is, who'd be in charge of the app signing?

A completely impartial, large-scale(there's going to be a lot of apps), and *reliable* OS vendor/company?

Yeah, comment back when you find that.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. The APIs and laughable security policies established by MS are the root of all that.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone can develop and publish apps to run on OS X, but it hasn't harmed Apple's reputation.

Since when? Any app that crashes on OSX makes Apple look bad to customers who don't know whose fault it really is.

And even worse than apps are plugins that run in a host app's memory space, because they can make other peoples' apps crash leading to even more misplaced blame. Menulings, input managers, haxies, etc... Apple hates them all, and often works to eliminate them. Even web browser plugins and quicktime plugins are now isolated in their own separate processes, so that Apple doesn't look as bad when they crash, and so that Apple doesn't have to wait for them to migrate their apps to 64-bit.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard it on good authority from an Apple employee that they're praying for the day the Android gets hit with a Trojan which will DDoS/saturate the data carrying capabilities of the provider the phones are on (Verizon for example); which will validate Apple's closed model.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, show us all of this malware that's just 'popping up'. Can you actually point us to any of this supposed malware or spyware? As far as I know, the only real threat is a trojan in a cracked version of Adobe Photoshop which still requires an admin password. Your arguments are ridiculous. If the underlying OS is secure, it invalidates serious threats from applications. Take a look at any *nix build.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any Apple user who knows how to download third-party software also knows who to blame when that software malfunctions. It's not like we're windows users!

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea that. It's about the only chance they have for hanging on to their market share.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[mdwh2]

My thoughts exactly - please tell me it was sarcasm.

I think we're going to have to start applying Poe's Law to Apple fanaticism.

Re:Don't listen to this guy, Apple.

[AC-x]

It only "sucks" if you are a greedy or incompetent developer looking to cash in on Apple's hard work.

Or you just want to do something that Apple don't like for one reason or another. Want a emulator? Or an alternative browser? Or a program to download podcasts? Or a free tethering app? Tough, Apple say no you're not allowed to install that.

I've got ScummVM and a program that works as an HTTP proxy for free tethering (without any additional network charges) on my android phone *without rooting*, I can't ever imagine Apple agreeing to those.

The next step

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if they can just manage to invent websites which let you check the weather or news, then the entire App Store model will be history!

Seriously, games I get, but for any app which is only useful when you're connected to the network anyway... why not just use a website?

Forget Google's Web App

[pudge]

Use GV Mobile, available through Cydia. Much much better. An actual app for starters. :-)

Re:Forget Google's Web App

[mthiel]

I don't think GV Mobile has direct-dial though, no? It still has to setup calls via a (literal) call-back?

Re:Forget Google's Web App

[pudge]

I don't think GV Mobile has direct-dial though, no? It still has to setup calls via a (literal) call-back?

It can do it in two ways: either sending a command to Google Voice over the web which calls your phone, or dialing Google Voice and calling through their system. I am not sure how the new Google system is better, though.

Re:Forget Google's Web App

[Anonymous Coward]

Having it call you is good if you get free incoming minutes.

Ipod Touch too?

[nurb432]

We do have wifi, and a mic.

Re:Ipod Touch too?

[Stavr0]

No. This is not a VOIP app. It's merely a call-forwarding hack.

Re:Ipod Touch too?

[cbhacking]

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:Ipod Touch too?

[nurb432]

That is why i asked, i was hoping it was a real VoIP that we could use, without jailbreaking first.

Re:Ipod Touch too?

[Sandbags]

A very good hack, backed by a full fledged VRU and call processing rules. I approve.

Now we need a Gizmo app

[Oyjord]

I use Google Voice in conjunction with Gizmo on my PC, and it works brilliantly for free, cell-phone free calling. So I guess now we need a Gizmo app to complete the circuit, no?

Not VOIP

[Archangel Michael]

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!

Oh great...

[mackinaw_apx]

Have fun with the Bing! crap. VZW shoved that down the throats of some (or possibly most, I'm not certain) BlackBerry and Droid users. Come to use my phone one day, with the Bing! app icon on my BBs "desktop", and the default search in the web browser set to Bing as well..... Dammit, let me have my Google, please. (In all fairness, I can still use Google... I was just ticked at the fact they went ahead and shoved Bing on my phone)

Re:Oh great...

[hazydave]

It was RIM, not Verizon, who made the deal with the devil, er, Microsoft, to replace Google with Bing! And apparently (not a Blackberry user), you don't have an easy way to change default search in the Blackberry OS. Apple is rumored to be contemplating (eg, parlaying with Microsoft over just how much cash this will require) doing this to all iPhone and iPod Touch users. That rumor also suggests you'll be able to change back, but I'm sure that feature is also for sale.

Verizon, in fact, could NOT legally impose Bing! on any DROID users. The DROID is a "Google Experience" phone. Neither the hardware vendor nor the network company is allowed to modify the operation of a device in this class. I have a DROID myself, and I can assure you, there has never been a single Bing! search conducted on that device. Google works just dandy.

Re:Oh great...

[mackinaw_apx]

Oh, I stand corrected. I had heard it was going to come to the DROID, I guess not. Luckily with Opera Mini, I can still use Google. At least I can "hide" the Bing! app icon.

Re:Oh great...

[Archangel Michael]

It isn't your phone. AND You're not the customer.

I wonder if there is a lawsuit for that?

To each their own, I guess

[rsborg]

...the web is a massive step backwards. Even MFC development was more enjoyable.

Javascript is amazing and flexible, especially given the new VMs like V8,Squirrelfish,Tracemonkey and advances in DOM... but then again, for our internal app devleopment, we don't care to do special support for IE, if it works with Firefox, Safari and Chrome, it's considered standard enough (for the IE stragglers, we alert to use ChromeFrame as a workaround)

Also, I really loved making sure everyone was on the latest patch release of my client back when I had to deploy my thick-client/client-server app to internal machines... that was great fun </sarcasm>

Device vs. Service

[Nogami_Saeko]

I see a decision looming on the horizon. The choice between a device and a service.

Apple provides a method of access - a hardware platform to access information. The design and implementation are second to none.
Google provides information to be accessed through hardware. The type of information and the services they provide as second to none.

Which is more expendable? The information, or the method through which people can access the information...

I have a feeling that Google may be ahead in the longrun, even if they are playing catchup in the short term.

So Steve Jobs was right?

[Above]

Early on Steve Jobs said the iPhone didn't need an API because everything you wanted to do could be done with web apps.

Did Google just prove that for him?

not yet

[binarybum]

don't get too excited, it's not functional yet. Trying this out, you just get a "coming soon" message on the iphone.

Re:not yet

[lee1]

Works for me.

Tablet predictions

[Singularity42]

Be nice--it's somewhat on-topic and I wanted to stamp my predictions. Post McGraw (dang it). I got the iPhone OS 4.0 already by the way. Here we go.

The tablet will have .n wireless, 1280x720 resolution, OLED deluxe model, front facing camera, 32/64 GB. Runs a variant of iPhone OS 4.0--thus 4.0 will be described as well. $799/$999 (OLED)--no subsidies yet.

Re:Tablet predictions

[AdamWeeden]

And you were wrong.

Only one problem there bub.

[Anonymous Coward]

Call me naive, but it seems MIGHTY INCONVENIENT having to lug around a PC just to make calls. Then you gotta find a network connection or a hotspot. Plus finding power, then booting up. This is progress? Geez, makes me pine for the simply days of just using a lowly CELLPHONE!

Macs can't protect you from Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

I switched to Mac so I wouldn't have to use a Microsoft product ever again.

I switched to Freedom (a.k.a. Linux) so that nobody would ever be able to make choices for me again, including the choice to use Microsoft. With Apple, you will always be one strategic decision made in Steve Jobs' office -- one software upgrade -- away from being a Microsoft user in some form.

I don't think it's stupid to switch to Macs (in some ways, they're nice computers), but yes, it really truly is stupid to switch to Macs to get away from Microsoft and/or whatever it is about Microsoft that you may find objectionable. Mac OS is culturally identical to Windows in every single way. The only real distinction it has from Windows is that Mac OS happens to be technically superior. But a trap is still a trap, and slave to proprietary software is still a slave. You're not making the decisions; they are.

Nice fellas over at Apple...

[alfielee]

Well done Google! Better programmers, better people, as for Apple, you belong in the toilet with Microsoft. You're turning into a little version of the same company. Scum!

So another webpage

[Snaller]

Woopti do.

Wrong?

[Singularity42]

.n, no subsidy (actually it's more for 3G), close resolution, got the capacity.

Re:Wrong?

[AdamWeeden]

No OLED, no OS 4.0, and price is a bit high.

iphone

[suzieque]

Surely there will be a buy out between the big 2 at some point.