Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the 'social sciences' is: some do, some don't
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.
Caveat Utilitor
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
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.
-Dave Haynie
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!