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."
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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
"Google has found a way to let iPhone owners use Google Voice."
Really? There's a patch for that.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
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.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
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
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.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
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).
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
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.
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.
Starmen.net
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?
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.
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!